Luxury in The Eighteenth Century: Edited by Maxine Berg and Elizabeth Eger

Luxury in the Eighteenth
Century
Debates, Desires and Delectable Goods
Edited by
Maxine Berg and Elizabeth Eger
Luxury in the Eighteenth Century
Frontispiece, Bernard Mandeville, The Fable of the Bees: or, Private Vices, Publick Benefits, first
edition, 1714 (courtesy of the British Library, London).
Luxury in the Eighteenth
Century
Debates, Desires and Delectable Goods
Edited by
Maxine Berg
Professor of History and Director of the Warwick Eighteenth Century Centre
University of Warwick
and
Elizabeth Eger
Research Fellow
Department of English
University of Liverpool
Editorial Matter and Selection © Maxine Berg and Elizabeth Eger. Chapters 1–16
© Palgrave Macmillan Ltd 2003
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 2003 ISBN 978-0-333-96382-1
All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be
made without written permission.
No paragraph of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with
written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued
by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 4LP.
Any person who does any unauthorised act in relation to this publication may be liable
to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages.
The authors have asserted their rights to be identified as the authors of this work in
accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
First published 2003 by
PALGRAVE MACMILLAN
Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS and
175 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10010
Companies and representatives throughout the world
PALGRAVE MACMILLAN is the global academic imprint of the Palgrave
Macmillan division of St. Martin’s Press, LLC and of Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.
Macmillan® is a registered trademark in the United States, United Kingdom
and other countries. Palgrave is a registered trademark in the European
Union and other countries.
ISBN 978-0-230-51779-0 ISBN 978-0-230-50827-9 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-0-230-50827-9
This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully managed and
sustained forest sources.
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Luxury in the eighteenth century : debates, desires and delectable goods / edited by
Maxine Berg and Elizabeth Eger.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Luxury – History – 18th century. 2. Wealth – History – 18th century.

3. Economic history – 1600–1750. 4. Economic history – 1750–1918. I. Berg,
Maxine, 1950– II. Eger, Elizabeth.
HC52.5 .L89 2002
306.3–dc21 2002075805
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03
Contents
List of Plates vii
List of Contributors x
Acknowledgements xii
Introduction 1
Part I Debates
1 The Rise and Fall of the Luxury Debates 7
2 Mandeville, Rousseau and the Political Economy of Fantasy 28

Edward Hundert
3 Luxury in the Dutch Golden Age in Theory and Practice 41

Jan de Vries
4 Aestheticising the Critique of Luxury: Smollett’s Humphry Clinker 57

Michael McKeon
Part II Delectable Goods

5 Furnishing Discourses: Readings of a Writing Desk in Eighteenth-
Century France 71
Dena Goodman
6 The Circulation of Luxury Goods in Eighteenth-Century Paris: Social

Redistribution and an Alternative Currency 89
Laurence Fontaine
7 Custom or Consumption? Plebeian Fashion in Eighteenth-Century

England 103
John Styles
Part III Beauty, Taste and Sensibility

8 From the Moral Mound to the Material Maze: Hogarth’s Analysis of
Beauty 119
Annie Richardson
9 From Luxury to Comfort and Back Again: Landscape Architecture and

the Cottage in Britain and America 135
John Crowley
v
vi Contents
10 Vase Mania 151

Jenny Uglow
Part IV The Female Vice? Women and Luxury

11 Performing Roxane: The Oriental Woman as the Sign of Luxury in
Eighteenth-Century Fictions 165
Ros Ballaster
12 Luxury, Satire and Prostitute Narratives 178

Vivien Jones
13 Luxury, Industry and Charity: Bluestocking Culture Displayed 190

Elizabeth Eger
Part V Luxury and the Exotic

14 Luxuries or Not? Consumption of Silk and Porcelain in
Eighteenth-Century China 207
Shelagh Vainker
15 Luxury, Clothing and Race in Colonial Spanish America 219

Rebecca Earle
16 Asian Luxuries and the Making of the European Consumer

Revolution 228
Maxine Berg
Index 245
List of Plates
1a. Jan Jansz. Van de Velde, ‘Still-Life with a Pipe-Lighter’, 1653. Ashmolean
Museum, Oxford.
1b. Jan Davidsz. De Heem, ‘Still-Life of a Banquet Side-table’ (‘Pronk stilleven met
ham’), 1646. Gift of Edward Drummond Libbey (1955.33), Toledo (Ohio)
Museum of Art.
2a. Jacob Backer, ‘Regentessen van het Burgerweeshuis’, 1633/34. Amsterdam
Historisch Museum.
2b. Adriaen Backer, ‘Regentessen van het Burgerweeshuis’, 1683. Amsterdam
Historisch Museum.
3. Pieter de Hooch, ‘Two Women at a Linen Chest with a Child’, 1663.
Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam.
4. ‘Matthew Bramble Recognises Some Ancient Friends’, from Tobias Smollett,
The Expedition of Humphry Clinker, 1793. Bodleian Library, University of
Oxford, engraving opposite page 61, Vet A5 e.4243.
5. Bonheur-du-jour, open, with marquetry ‘à decor de nature morte et frises d’en-
trelacs’, attributed to Topino, Louis XV period. Musée Cognacq-Jay, Paris,
museum no. J0380; ©Photothèque des Musées de la Ville de Paris/Pierrain.
6. The same bonheur-du-jour, closed, with marquetry showing writing instru-
ments. Musée Cognacq-Jay, Paris, museum no. J0380; ©Photothèque des
Musées de la Ville de Paris/Lifermann.
7. One of a pair of oval bonheur-du-jours, with marquetry of teapots and ware
in the Chinese style, stamped Topino, c. 1775. Sotheby’s.
8. ‘Lady’s bonheur-de-jour writing table, 1765 (tulipwood veneer on oak
mounted with Sèvres porcelain plaques and gilt bronze) by Martin Carlin (c.
1739–85). The Bowes Museum, Barnard Castle, Co. Durham/Bridgeman Art
Library.
9. ‘The Modiste’ (La Marchande de Modes: Le Matin), ascribed to François
Boucher. Reproduced by permission of the Trustees of the Wallace Collec-
tion, London.
10. George Stubbs, ‘The Haymakers’, 1785. ©Tate Gallery, London 2001
(TO2256).
11. H. Walton, ‘Woman Plucking a Turkey’, 1770s. ©Tate, London 2001.
12. ‘The Third State’, plate 1 of William Hogarth, The Analysis of Beauty, March
1753. ©The British Museum, London.
13. ‘The First State’, plate 2 of William Hogarth, The Analysis of Beauty, March
1753. ©The British Museum, London.
14. John Plaw, ‘Plan, Elevation and Sections of a Hermitage’, from Rural Archi-
tecture; or Designs, from the Simple Cottage to the Decorated Villa . . . , London,
1796. Courtesy, The Winterthur Library: Printed Book and Periodical
Collection.
vii
viii List of Plates
15. John Wood, ‘Cottages with Two Rooms’, from A Series of Plans for Cottages
or Habitations of the Labourer . . . , London, 1806. Courtesy, The Winterthur
Library: Printed Book and Periodical Collection.
16. James Malton, ‘Design 7’, from An Essay on British Cottage Architecture,
London, 1798. Courtesy, The Winterthur Library: Printed Book and Periodi-
cal Collection.
17. Andrew Jackson Downing, ‘Design IX: Regular Bracketed Cottage’, from
Architecture of Country Houses, New York, 1852. Courtesy, The Winterthur
Library: Printed Book and Periodical Collection.
18a. Wedgwood ‘First Day Vase’, 1769, front showing figures. Image courtesy of
the Wedgwood Museum Trust Limited, Barlaston, Staffordshire.
18b. Reverse showing inscription. Image courtesy of the Wedgwood Museum
Trust Limited, Barlaston, Staffordshire.
19. Boulton and Fothergill, Pattern Book I, p. 129, Designs for Tea Urns.
Birmingham City Archives (ref: B&W/vol169/129).
20. Pair of Ewers, Boulton and Fothergill, Soho Factory, ormolu and Blue-John,
c. 1772. Birmingham Museums & Art Gallery (museum no. 1946 M & 71).
21. Wedgwood vase with relief of ‘The Apotheosis of Homer’, designed by John
Flaxman, blue jasper, 1786, front. ©The British Museum, London.
22. Benjamin West, preparatory design for a ceiling painting intended for the
Queen’s Lodge at Windsor, known as ‘British Manufactory Giving Support
to Industry’, 1791. Cleveland Museum of Art (museum no. CMA 1919.108).
23. ‘The Famous Roxana’, frontispiece from Daniel Defoe, Roxana: or, The For-
tunate Mistress, 1742 edition. Bodleian Library, University of Oxford, fron-
tispiece from Vet A4 f.16.
24. ‘Roxolana’, from Richard Knolles, Generall Historie of the Turkes, 1603.
Bodleian Library, University of Oxford, p. 759, from Vet A2 c.1.
25. Portrait of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu in Turkish dress, attributed to Jean
Baptiste Vanmour. Courtesy of the National Portrait Gallery, London.
26. ‘An Evening View on Ludgate Hill’, satirical print, 1749. Courtesy of the
Guildhall Library, Corporation of London.
27. ‘Exterior of Montagu House’, watercolour. Courtesy of the Guildhall Library,
Corporation of London.
28. Joseph Bonomi, ‘Mrs Montagu’s Great Room, Montagu House’. RIBA Library
Photographs Collection.
29. Joseph Bonomi, ‘Design for the Great Drawing Room, Montagu House, for
Mrs Montagu’. RIBA Library Photographs Collection.
30. Joseph Bonomi, ‘Design for a Lampstand for the Staircase, Montagu House’.
RIBA Library Photographs Collection.
31. Joseph Bonomi, ‘Design for a Carpet’. RIBA Library Photographs Collection.
32. Ewer with the arms of Peers, porcelain with overglaze enamel decoration and
gilding, China, c. 1730, height 20.5 cm. Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, EA
1978.130 Given by his family in memory of Alderman C.J. Peers.
33. Porcelain dish with underglaze blue and overglaze enamel decoration,
depicting characters from the novel Shuihu zhuan (The Water Margin). China,
List of Plates ix
c. 1700, diameter 20 cm. Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, EA X.3532 Mallett

Bequest.
34. Chair cover, silk and gold thread kesi tapestry weave, China, eighteenth
century, 171.5 ¥ 52 cm. Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, EA 1965.105 Given in
memory of A.W. Bahr.
35. Silk panel, probably from a screen, depicting peach, bamboo, narcissus and
fungus embroidered in satin stitch, China, eighteenth century, 126 ¥ 46 cm.
Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, EA 1965.78 Given in memory of A.W. Bahr.
36. Cope, made up from sections of Chinese embroidered silk satin, late
eighteenth–early nineteenth century. L. 149.5 cm, W. 304 cm. By kind per-
mission of the Dean and Canons of Christ Church Cathedral, Oxford.
37. Casta painting, Vicente Albán, ‘Distinguished Lady with her Black Slave’
(‘Señora principal con su negra esclava’), Quito School, 1783. Museo de
América, Madrid.
38. Skirt and frock of cotton, hand painted in India, made up in
Europe. Bodleian Library, University of Oxford, Bodley 170083.A1. Copy-
right courtesy of Arnold Publishers.
39. Chintz overdress, painted and dyed cotton. Bodleian Libary, University of
Oxford, Bodley 17512.C.43. Copyright courtesy of the Royal Ontario
Museum, Toronto, museum no. 967.176.1.
40. Chinese octagonal plate, c. 1736, with European Delft tile, used as a pattern,
c. 1745, diameter of plate 22.8 cm. Sotheby’s.
41. Saucer and cup with handle (‘Handle Chocolatettes’), c. 1720, diameter of
saucer 14.6 cm. Sotheby’s.
List of Contributors
Ros Ballaster is Fellow and Tutor in English Literature, Mansfield College, Oxford.
She is the author of Seductive Forms: Women’s Amatory Fiction 1684–1740 (1989)
and Women’s Worlds: Ideology, Femininity and the Women’s Magazine (1991).
Maxine Berg is Professor of History and Director of the Warwick Eighteenth-

Century Centre at the University of Warwick. She directed the Luxury Project
1997–2001, and is now director of the Leverhulme Art and Industry Project. She
is the co-editor with Helen Clifford of Consumers and Luxury: Consumer Culture in
Europe 1650–1850 (1999), and author of The Age of Manufactures 1700–1820 (1994).
She is completing a book entitled Consumer Delight: Modern Luxury in Eighteenth-
Century England.
John Crowley is George Munro Professor of History at Dalhousie University,

Halifax, Nova Scotia. He is the author of The Invention of Comfort: Sensibilities and
Design in Early Modern Britain and Early America (2001) and The Privileges of Inde-
pendence: Neo-Mercantilism and the American Revolution. He is now researching the
development of a global landscape in British visual culture 1750–1820.
Rebecca Earle is Lecturer in Comparative American Studies, University of

Warwick. She has recently completed a book on New Granada in the late colo-
nial period, and has edited a volume on Epistolary Selves: Letter Writers, 1600–1945.
She is currently researching gender and race in late eighteenth and early
nineteenth-century Spanish America.
Elizabeth Eger is Research Fellow in the Department of English, University of

Liverpool. She was the Luxury Research Fellow in the Warwick Eighteenth-
Century Centre. She is co-editor of Women and the Public Sphere (2000), and editor
of The Selected Writings of Elizabeth Montagu (1999). She completed a thesis, now
being revised for publication, on ‘The Nine Living Muses of Great Britain: Women,
Reason and Literary Community in Eighteenth-Century England’.
Laurence Fontaine is Professor of History, The European University Institute, and

CNRS, Paris. She is the author of A History of Pedlars in Europe (1996).
Dena Goodman is Professor of History at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,

and author of The Republic of Letters (1994).
Edward Hundert is Professor of History, University of British Columbia and

author of The Enlightenment’s Fable: Bernard Mandeville and the Discovery of Society
(1994).
x
List of Contributors xi
Vivien Jones is Senior Lecturer in English, University of Leeds and author of How
to Study a Jane Austen Novel (second edition 1997), and Women in the Eighteenth
Century: Constructions of Femininity (1990).
Michael McKeon is Professor of English at Rutgers University, New York. His

research interests include the prehistory of domestic fiction, the theory of the
novel and the nature of the early modern ‘division of knowledge’. His publica-
tions include Politics and Poetry in Restoration England: The Case of Dryden’s ‘Annus
Mirabilis’ (1975), The Origins of the English Novel (1987) and Theory of the Novel: A
Historical Approach (editor, 2000). He is completing a new book, The Secret History
of Domesticity: Public, Private, and the Division of Knowledge.
Annie Richardson is a lecturer in the History of Art and Design at the University
of Southampton. Publications on Hogarth’s aesthetic theory include ‘Framing
One’s Own Fortune: the Country Dance in Hogarth’s Analysis of Beauty’, DHDS
Conference Proceedings, 2001, and ‘An Aesthetics of Performance: Dance in
Hogarth’s Analysis of Beauty’, forthcoming in Dance Research.
John Styles is Director of the MA in the History of Design, V&A/Royal College of

Art. He is the co-author of Design and the Decorative Arts. Britain 1500–1900 (2001),
and the author of ‘Manufacturing, Consumption and Design in Eighteenth-
Century England’ in John Brewer and Roy Porter, eds., Consumption and the World
of Goods (1993) and ‘Product Innovation in Early Modern London’, Past and
Present, 168, 2000, pp 124–69.
Jenny Uglow is Honorary Professor of the Department of English, University of

Warwick, editor at Chatto and Windus, and author of Hogarth a Life, as well as
biographies of Elizabeth Gaskell and George Eliot. She has recently published a
new book on the Lunar Society, The Lunar Men.
Shelagh Vainker is curator of Eastern Arts at the Ashmolean Museum Oxford

and Fellow of St Hugh’s College, Oxford. She is the author of Chinese Pottery and
Porcelain from Pre-History to the Present (British Museum, 1991).
Jan de Vries is Professor of History and Economics, University of California,

Berkeley, and co-author of The First Modern Economy. The Dutch Economy 1500–1815
(1997) and author of European Urbanisation 1500–1800 (1984) and ‘Between Pur-
chasing Power and the World of Goods: Understanding the Household Economy
of Early Modern Europe’ in John Brewer and Roy Porter, eds. Consumption and the
World of Goods (1993).
Acknowledgements
Luxury in the Eighteenth Century arises out of the Luxury Project, funded by the
University of Warwick, 1997–2001. We are particularly grateful to Professor Anne
Janowitz, now Professor of English Literature at Queen Mary Westfield College,
who was the Co-Director of the Project from 1997 to 1999 for her creative inspi-
ration and organisational initiative in helping to shape this as an interdiscipli-
nary project.
Most of the essays in this volume are developed from contributions to three
major conferences, three workshops and a three-year seminar series, and we would
like to thank all those who participated in these.
We are grateful to the University of Warwick for the research and development
grant which started both the Project and the Warwick Eighteenth-Century Centre
and to the British Academy for a small grant for picture reproductions for the
volume.
We thank Dr Claire Walsh who did the picture searches and Dr Matt Adams for
editorial assistance.
xii
Introduction
This volume provides the first interdisciplinary treatment of the history of luxury.
It departs from the now well-worked theme of consumer culture to explore the
power of luxury as a concept and a cultural phenomenon. In 1711, John Dennis
wrote An Essay upon Publick Spirit; being a Satyr in Prose upon the Manners and Luxury
of the Times, in which he described London as ‘a visible, palpable Proof of the
Growth of the British Luxury’.1 He paints a vivid picture of a town bursting with
luxury goods, brimming with excessive and extravagant gestures, teetering on the
brink of lascivious chaos and ruinous debauchery. According to Dennis, ‘Luxury
. . . has not only chang’d our Natures, but transform’d our Sexes’.2 His virulent
critique betrays a fascination with his subject. Luxury was irresistible, if only as
a topic of debate, and provided the focus for hundreds of political and satirical
pamphlets like Dennis’s over the course of the eighteenth century. Particularly in
Europe’s rising capital cities, luxury was no less than the keyword of the period,
a central term in the language of cultural transformation.
Critiques of luxury, of course, have existed since the time of Ancient Greece
and Rome.3 Classical writing on luxury reflected fears over maintaining social hier-
archies and a strong military state. In the medieval and Renaissance periods luxury
was associated with the iconography of sin, and in the early modern period with
the excess expenditure of the very rich: kings, aristocrats and the court. In the
eighteenth century, however, the trappings of luxury began to reach a wider
section of society and took on new forms. Northern Europe imported manu-
factured goods from the East on a wider scale than ever before – porcelain, silk
and colourful printed cotton goods. New foods and raw materials were drawn in
from around the world: sugar; coffee, chocolate and tea; dyestuffs such as indigo;
and exotic woods such as mahogany. The appearance of these goods coincided
with a new civility in middling and upper class society which was conveyed in
new ways of eating and socialising. Domestic dining and tea-drinking comple-
mented public leisure in coffee-houses, shops, pleasure gardens, assemblies and
the theatre. It was such material novelties that stimulated contemporary debates
about luxury, contributing to its emergence as a catalyst and signpost of social
and intellectual change.
1
2 Maxine Berg and Elizabeth Eger
From the early years of the century, argument over the moral implications of
the new presence of luxury was fierce. For the first time, the notion of luxury
sometimes carried positive connotations. The lively social satire of doctor and
philosopher Bernard Mandeville prompted a lively pamphlet war in the European
press. His acute vision of human avarice was first conveyed in the form of an ener-
getic poem, ‘The Grumbling Hive’, in which he emphasised the power of luxury
to support and transform society at the same time:
. . . Luxury
Employ’d a Million of the Poor
And odious Pride a Million more.
Envy it self, and Vanity
Were Ministers of Industry;
Their darling Folly, Fickleness
In Diet, Furniture, and Dress,
That strange ridic’lous Vice, was made
The very Wheel, that turn’d the Trade.
Their Laws and Cloaths were equally
Objects of Mutability.4
Here Mandeville links the legal and material fabric of society in a piercing vision
of the moral texture of his age. He concludes with the amoral assertion that ‘Fraud,
Luxury, and Pride must live / Whilst we the Benefits receive.’5 His later Fable of
the Bees (1714), in which he defined luxury as ‘a refinement in the gratification
of the senses’, a form of sociability, was widely read throughout Europe, a realist
defence of luxury’s improving forces, which provided an important challenge to
traditional assumptions of luxury’s power to corrupt.
This volume provides a history of the many responses, both positive and nega-
tive, to the ideas captured in Mandeville’s provocative and transformative text.6
While deeply indebted to recent studies of the history of consumer society, par-
ticularly John Brewer and Roy Porter’s path-breaking Consumption and the World
of Goods (1993), our book provides a new outlook. Our focus on luxury has moved
the discussion away from social-scientific preoccupations with the origins of con-
sumer society, towards a recognition of the integral relation between material and
intellectual culture. On the one hand, Enlightenment culture adapted itself to
luxury as a positive social force, viewing it with confidence as an instrument (and
indication) of the progress of civilisation. On the other hand, it feared luxury as
a debilitating and corrosive social evil, clinging to classical critiques of excessive
indulgence and wanton profligacy, urban chaos and plebeian idleness. The diverse
range of essays included here demonstrates, however, that there was no simple
progression from disapprobation to endorsement of luxury, but rather an ongoing
contest over the concept and the phenomena it might cover.
This book is divided into five parts. Here we will briefly sketch the prevail-
ing themes before providing fuller summaries of the contents of the essays
in the head-notes to each part. First, Debates opens with our survey chapter
Introduction 3
‘The Rise and Fall of the Luxury Debates’, in which the divergent strands of
eighteenth-century arguments about luxury are discussed in more depth than
possible in this brief introduction. We consider a wide range of political, philo-
sophical and economic writings, setting these in their contemporary context and
considering their importance in the longer history of modern consumer societies.
Further contributors provide compelling new discussions of the philosophical
ideas of Mandeville, Smith and Rousseau, as well as those of the Dutch moralists
and the British novelist Tobias Smollett.
From a focus on theory, we move to more practical considerations in Part II,
Delectable Goods. Here our contributors combine their analysis of past values
and beliefs with that of specific material goods.7 Essays on the various topics of
fashionable writing desks, the taxonomy of metropolitan trade and plebeian
fashionable clothing share a preoccupation with issues of class in relation to the
consumption of domestic luxuries.
Our third part, Beauty, Taste and Sensibility, explores the relationship between
luxury and aesthetics through the mediating concept of taste in its real and
metaphorical senses. The contributors reveal the close relation between a history
of material improvement and broader histories of education, taste and desire,
tracing the important relationship between visual and literary culture in the devel-
opment of an aesthetic of luxury. Discussions of Hogarth on beauty, British ‘vase
mania’ and the history of the fashionable cottage suggest that attempts to analyse
and define taste in positive terms contributed to a new aesthetic of the senses, an
aesthetic that was closely tied to a sense of national identity.
Part IV, The Female Vice?, addresses the gender politics of the luxury debates,
in which interest in luxury was often associated with the dangers of effeminisa-
tion and perilous female desire. Conversely, women were linked to a move to
remoralise luxury as a socially progressive force. The contributors investigate the
representation of oriental femininity, the iconography of Lady Luxury in relation
to the figure of the prostitute, and the reforming role of salon culture.
Finally, Luxury and the Exotic investigates luxury’s association with other places
and other cultures, as depicted here in chapters on China and South America, and
the impact of Asian luxury in stimulating Europe’s consumer revolutions.
Eighteenth-century discourse on luxury was inextricably linked to responses to
the expansion of global trade and the still relatively recent contact of European
populations with goods from Asia and the New World.
This volume sets out a wide spectrum of historical and literary treatments of
luxury in the eighteenth century, shedding new light on the West’s first extended
debate on consumer desires and practices. Readers will encounter a broad range
of individual yet interlinked approaches to the history of a term that, from its
first widespread use in the eighteenth century, provided a hermeneutical chal-
lenge for philosophers and economists, moralists and poets, traders and artists.
The phenomenon of luxury connected a number of different discourses, expos-
ing the links between reason and feeling, and posing a set of problems relating
to epistemology, politics, aesthetics, morality and bodily sensation. By tracing the
ways in which the concept of luxury was altered, redefined, influenced, modified,
confused and reinforced in different social, geographical and literary contexts, it

is possible to grasp the conjunction of culture and economics embodied by the
concept itself. Above all, the presence and perception of luxury in eighteenth-
century society required new engagements with the links between material and
intellectual culture. Only through interdisciplinary work of the type gathered here
can one comprehend the full richness and significance of a topic that, then and
now, crosses conventional intellectual boundaries.
Notes
1. John Dennis, An Essay upon Publick Spirit; being a Satyr in Prose upon the Manners and Luxury
of the Times, The Chief Sources of our present Parties and Divisions (London, 1711), p. 11.
See also, John Dennis, Vice & Luxury: Public Mischiefs: or, Remarks on a Book Intituled, The
Fable of the Bees; or Private Vices Publick Benefits (London, 1724).
2. Dennis, Essay upon Publick Spirit, p. 15. For an interesting collection of essays dealing
with the connections between luxury and sexuality in this period, see Vincent Quinn
and Mary Peace, eds., ‘Luxurious Sexualities’, Textual Practice 11 (3) (1997).
3. See John Sekora, Luxury: the Concept in Western Thought, Eden to Smollett (Baltimore, 1977),
and Christopher Berry, The Idea of Luxury: a Conceptual and Historical Investigation
(Cambridge, 1994).
4. F.B. Kaye, ed., The Fable of the Bees: or Private Vices, Publick Benefits by Bernard
Mandeville, With a Commentary, Historical and Explanatory (Oxford, 1924), vol. I, p. 25.
5. Kaye, ed., Fable of the Bees, vol. I, p. 36.
6. For a useful anthology of the primary texts related to the debate surrounding
Mandeville’s work, see J. Martin Stafford, ed., Private Vices, Publick Benefits? The Contem-
porary Reception of Bernard Mandeville (Solihull, 1997).
7. Our contributors bring to life the texture and colour of an era that has fascinated
us in recent best-sellers such as Stella Tillyard’s Aristocrats (London, 1996); Amanda
Foreman’s Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire (London, 1998); Isobel Grundy’s Comet of the
Enlightenment: The life of Mary Wortley Montagu (Oxford, 1999) and John Brewer’s The
Pleasures of the Imagination (London, 1998).
Part I
Debates
Luxury was a key issue at the heart of intellectual discourse in political economy,
moral philosophy, literary culture and aesthetics throughout the eighteenth
century. But the debate drew on traditions of discourse reaching back to the
ancient world, and continued to affect social and political discourse in various
periods up to the present. In Chapter 1, ‘The Rise and Fall of the Luxury Debates’,
Maxine Berg and Elizabeth Eger provide an overview of the debates, comparing
mercantilist and enlightenment economic and commercial ideas with a long lit-
erary tradition of moral critique and satire in novels such as Smollett’s Humphry
Clinker and poems such as Gay’s Trivia. At the turn of the nineteenth century,
luxury’s focus diminished to issues of income distribution, its social and psycho-
logical dimensions not to re-emerge until the turn of the twentieth century, and
now once again at the turn of the current century.
Edward Hundert, in Chapter 2, ‘Mandeville, Rousseau and the Political
Economy of Fantasy’, opens with Mandeville’s paradox. ‘Private vice and public
virtue’ challenges the meaning of the concept of luxury in a modern commercial
society, where luxury was anything that was not a necessity. Where social status
was conveyed by conspicuous displays of consumer goods, fashion and women’s
vanity prevailed over political virtue in the economic progress of nations. Hundert
connects Mandeville’s commercial world of the self-interested to Rousseau’s
critique of modernity. The vice at the heart of modernity makes the history of
commercial society a history of increasing inequality. Rousseau traces the impact
of possessions to the definition of the self; Mandeville’s vice becomes the alien-
ation of the self. As Hundert argues, Mandeville projects the voice of modernity;
we have rejected Rousseau’s sumptuary disciplines, and embraced consumer
citizenship.
Luxury, the keynote debate of the Enlightenment, was experienced and
remarked upon in the century before in the context of the unprecedented expan-
sion of wealth during the Dutch Republic. In Chapter 3, ‘Luxury in the Dutch
Golden Age in Theory and Practice’, Jan de Vries identifies a turning in the luxury
debates from a critique of ‘old luxury’ to an endorsement of ‘new luxury’. The
Dutch developed a new luxury in a context where a large part of the society
could take part in consumer culture, but faced no oppositional politics or culture.
They developed no vocabulary or theory to discuss and to defend a republican

socialised luxury. New cultural forms of court and aristocratic luxury spreading
through Europe from the later seventeenth century were to displace the Dutch
practice until the revival once again of new luxury in theory and in practice mid
eighteenth-century Britain.
The celebration of commerce, trade and new luxury in eighteenth-century
Britain was conducted, however, against a continuing tradition of anti-luxury
argument, an argument traced by John Sekora in his classic Luxury: The Concept
in Western Thought. Sekora’s sets the anti-luxury debate in literature, especially in
Henry Fielding and Smollett in a long tradition of moral philosophy. Michael
McKeon’s Chapter 4, ‘Aestheticising the Critique of Luxury: Smollett’s Humphry
Clinker’, reassesses Smollett’s novel. Apparently a conservative attack on the luxury
of metropolitan and city life, and an endorsement of the stable values of the
English countryside, the novel in fact provides a link between luxury and sensi-
bility. Michael McKeon reveals Smollett’s use of images of the ‘man of feeling’,
his use of the language of sensibility, and his early appeal to romantic tropes.
1
The Rise and Fall of the Luxury Debates
Luxury is no novelty of our own times. The shifting divide between need and
desire, necessities and luxuries, was a guiding preoccupation of statesmen and
intellectuals at the birth of consumer society in the later seventeenth and eigh-
teenth centuries. Luxury was the defining issue of the early modern period. A
newly experienced and perceived world economy brought greater access to Asian
consumer societies and to the exotic foods and raw materials of the New World.
This new trade in luxuries was to stimulate innovation in technologies, products,
marketing strategies and commercial and financial institutions. Asian consumer
goods – cottons, especially muslins and printed calicoes, silk, porcelain, orna-
mental brass and ironware, lacquer and paper goods – became imported luxuries
in Europe, and were later to become indigenous European consumer goods. The
widespread trade in these goods coincided with a new civility in middling and
upper-class society, which was conveyed in new ways of eating and socialising.
Domestic dining and tea-drinking complemented public leisure in coffee houses,
shops, pleasure gardens, assemblies and the theatre.
The definition of luxury was also central to Enlightenment debates over the
nature and progress of society. Luxury gradually lost its former associations with
corruption and vice, and came to include production, trade and the civilising
impact of superfluous commodities. Writers and governments across Europe
debated their specific national responses to luxury, and the capacity of their
economies and social structures to produce and absorb this new phenomenon.
While the terms of the discussion shifted away from a focus on the vices of
luxurious excess to embrace modern comfort and convenience, enjoyment and
sociability, taste, aesthetics and refinement, there was no simple progression from
disapprobation to endorsement of luxury, but rather a dialectical debate which
centred on questions of individual and national virtue, economic expansion and
canons of taste, definitions of the self and the social redistribution of wealth.
II
Anxieties over the morality of luxury extended from the ancient world to the
modern, and were central to Asian as much as to Western moral and economic
7
debate.1 Aristotle, in Book IV of the Nicomachean Ethics of 355 BC, developed the
concept of ‘liberalità’, as a virtue with an objective of moral beauty in contrast to
the vices of prodigality and avarice. Debate in Rome in the century before Christ
turned to praise for the more public ‘munificencia’. Luxury continued to find its
virtues in Renaissance Florentine ‘splendour’ and the ‘magnificencia’ of Philip IV’s
Spain in the 1630s which prevailed against counsel for a little ‘modestia’.2 Luxury
was thus integral to emerging definitions of state and civic power.
From the earliest times the concept of luxury was associated with ‘foreignness’.
Archaeologists and anthropologists have explored the connection between lux-
uries and foreign goods and their traders in ancient and primitive societies. Rare
and precious objects were the stimulus of long-distance trade in the ancient world.
Particular materials were singled out: obsidian and shell in Stone Age societies,
precious metals in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Amber, ivory, incense, pepper and
silk were the priorities of Roman trade.3 But there was also a fundamental antag-
onism between traders in foreign goods and local sumptuary structures. In primi-
tive societies trade was frequently restricted to a few commodities, and those who
dealt in such trade were strangers rather than kinsmen or friends.4 During the first
decades of colonial contact tensions grew between popular demand for fashion-
able new western and eastern products and the sumptuary regulations that con-
trolled their consumption. This tension developed into a struggle between
indigenous and alien production systems.
Eastern or oriental imports were part of the classical, western definition of
luxury. Livy argued that Rome had been contaminated with ‘Asiatic’ luxuries,
imported from Greece and the East. The close contact of Europeans with eastern
manufactured goods went back to a longstanding ancient trade with the East
through Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire. The trade with China was also
well established during the Roman Empire, via the silk route through Samarkand
and sea-borne trade from China to the Indian Ocean. Not just silks, but mirrors,
paper, pottery and some porcelain were exported to the Persian Gulf from the
seventh to the tenth centuries. From Pliny onwards, arguments made against
eastern luxuries were based on a fear of financial ruin in the West, as silver and
gold flowed east to purchase the treasures of the Indies.5
Sumptuary legislation was invoked in various societies in the ancient, medieval
and early modern periods to confine the consumption of specific commodities to
the elites, and thus to enforce rigid status structures. This legislation in practice
became centred on protectionist regulation, import and export regulations and
quality controls. The first English sumptuary laws were about food and excess in
meeting bodily satisfaction. Later legislation focused on clothing and imported
cloth. Legislation of 1363 proscribed all but the royal family wearing imported
cloth. An Act of 1510 forbade the wearing of foreign woollens, and other legis-
lation debarred the wearing of velvets, especially in red and purple, fine silks, furs
and embroideries for all but the highest ranks. The lower ranks were limited to
clothing in local, heavy fabrics, dyed in natural colours. Though most such
regulations were repealed in England in the seventeenth century, the attempt by
the state to control luxury expenditure was continued in protectionist and fiscal
The Rise and Fall of the Luxury Debates 9
measures.6 The close association between luxury and foreign imports continued
into the eighteenth century. In Britain the dangers posed by French and Chinese
manufactures were frequently deployed in mercantilist debates and protectionist
legislation enacted during the mid-eighteenth century.7
Economic and social theorists during the late seventeenth century and
throughout the eighteenth century debated the implications of the luxury trades.
Aspects of this debate have been treated by historians as problems in the history
of political thought, or as literary and moral issues.8 However, contemporaries
were perhaps most interested in the changing definitions of luxury goods, and
the problems of separating these from necessaries. Concerns over the economic
dislocation and moral danger posed by foreign and exotic goods turned to a more
open debate on the advantages of trade and the more cosmopolitan development
of the senses. Nicholas Barbon, in a classic passage, identified the incentive pro-
vided by rare and luxurious commodities. ‘The wants of the Mind are infinite,
Man naturally Aspires, and as his Mind is elevated, his Senses grow more refined,
and more capable of Delight; his Desires are inlarged, and his Wants increase with
his Wishes, which is for everything that is rare, can gratifie his Senses, adorn his
Body and promote the Ease, Pleasure and Pomp of Life.’9 Observers increasingly
associated a broadening of the world of luxury commodities with the expansion
of trade and commerce, and both with a new consumerism among the middling
classes.
Commercial writers, even in the seventeenth century, were well ahead of the
intellectuals in the close connections they drew between commerce and luxury.
Jacques Savary, the Comptroller of the French customs, and editor of France’s
first major commercial dictionary, wrote in Le parfait negociant, a textbook for
businessmen:
[Divine Providence] has not willed for everything that is needed for life to be
found in the same spot. It has dispersed its gifts so that men would trade
together and so that the mutual need which they have to help one another
would establish ties of friendship among them. This continuous exchange of
all the comforts of life constitutes commerce and this commerce makes for all
the gentleness (douceur) of life.10
Over the course of the eighteenth century the luxury debates moved far beyond
their traditional concerns with the corruption of wealthy elites. The sumptuary
laws which had previously proscribed the wearing of specific types of cloth and
of gold and silver lace to all but the elites were repealed or withered away. There
was increasingly a distinction made between ‘new’ and ‘old’ luxury, or between
‘modern’ and ‘ancient’ luxury. New luxuries were created out of the division of
labour and the expansion of commerce, in contrast to old luxuries, which relied
on excessive displays of large bodies of retainers. The luxury of aristocratic profli-
gacy and associations with wealth, status and power shifted to a discussion of
commerce, utility, taste and comfort. The language of luxury evolved to redefine
‘excess’ as ‘surplus’, ‘vanity’ as ‘refinement’.
Bernard Mandeville, doctor and wide-ranging social and political essayist, a

Dutchman who had made his home in London, provoked a turning point in the
discussion of luxury. He accepted traditional associations of luxury with vice. But
in contrast to religious and moral campaigners who disparaged the influence of
luxury, as well as many intellectuals and political thinkers who sought to define
the virtuous citizen, Mandeville declared luxury to be a public benefit. Further-
more he challenged the defining boundaries between luxuries and necessities.
Claims to moral virtue in the ‘needs’ for cleanliness, comforts, decencies and con-
veniences were no greater than those for luxury housing and furnishings. Men
and women, in Mandeville’s view, are by nature self-interested, pleasure-seeking
and vain, and they seek luxuries to fulfil these psychological attributes. By acting
on their self-interest and indulging their desires for luxuries, the rich and others
who could afford it, paradoxically, contributed to the expansion of commerce and
the wider employment of the poor. This paradox was based in Mandeville’s accep-
tance of the position that human behaviour is motivated by the passions to seek
pleasure and to avoid pain. He also accepted the Christian divide between virtue
and vice, associating vice with luxury and virtue with self-denial.11 He claimed
that we all respond to the vice of luxury, masking our vanity and avarice with
hypocrisy. As Hundert has argued in his aptly titled The Enlightenment’s Fable,
hypocrisy in commercial nations masks the emulative striving arising from envy.
Such hypocrisy accounts for the spread of modern manners, those ‘socially useful
methods of making ourselves acceptable to others’. This difference between being
and appearing becomes the ‘most psychologically significant characteristic of
public life in commercial societies’.12 In Mandeville’s words: ‘whilst thus Men
study their own private Interest, in assisting each other to promote and encrease
the pleasures of life in general, they find by experience that to compass those
Ends, everything ought to be banish’d from Conversation, that can have the least
Tendency of making others uneasy.’13
Luxury goods took on a new significance as marks of esteem. The primitive
powers of the elites to compel approbation by ‘looks and gestures’ backed by force
were replaced by material acquisitions from coaches to buildings. A newly mobile
world of goods accompanied the anonymity of commercial society and city life.
In the company of strangers, individuals were accorded honour and status accord-
ing to the clothes they wore.14 Mandeville shifted the discussion of luxury to psy-
chological motivation and a self identity through fantasy, possessions and the
restless pursuit of change and novelty. His challenge to the definition of luxury
set the framework for the subsequent debate and, more significantly, the associa-
tion of luxury and trade opened a much broader discussion of commercial expan-
sion and consumer society. After Mandeville, luxury was increasingly seen in
terms of economic advantage.
The debate, which was conducted among several hundred writers at all levels
of eighteenth-century discourse from polemical pamphlets to political theory,
popular ballads to epic poetry, political journalism to novels, fundamentally
turned on problems of defining the term. Hume described luxury as ‘a word of
uncertain significance’, calling for greater precision in contemporary usage of the

word. In France, Melon and Montesquieu devoted chapters of their treatises on
political economy and government to luxury. They distinguished its meaning as
a subject of moral discourse from that of political economy.15 Diderot challenged
contributors to and readers of the Encyclopédie: ‘But what is this luxury that we
so infallibly attribute to so many objects? This question can only be answered
with any accuracy on the basis of discussion among those who show the most
discrimination in their use of the term luxury: a discussion which has yet to take
place, and which even they may be incapable of bringing to a satisfactory con-
clusion.’16 Saint-Lambert in his article in the Encyclopédie dealt with this by
summarising the many definitions. Galiani also put the point: ‘no one knows or
dares to say what luxury might properly be. This spectre, as it must be called,
wanders among us, never seen in its true light, or recognized for its efficacy; and
it, perhaps never occurs to the virtuous.’ Such anxiety over the problem of defi-
nition suggests the central role of luxury in provoking contemporary social and
intellectual transformations.
The subject of how to define luxury was now treated within a wider discussion
of commerce. In Britain, Sir James Steuart, in the preface to his Inquiry into the
Principles of Political Economy (1767), warned against the ‘imperfection of language’
which ‘engages us frequently in disputes merely verbal’. He tried to define his
terms more precisely: ‘I shall set out by distinguishing luxury, as it affects our dif-
ferent interest, by producing hurtful consequences; from luxury, as it regards the
moderate gratification of our natural or rational desires.’ He separated out the
effects of luxury into moral, physical, domestic and political categories, and
defined the immoderate gratification of natural desires as excess. He argued the
importance of distinguishing the meanings of luxury, sensuality and excess:
‘Luxury consists in providing the objects of sensuality, so far as they are super-
fluous. Sensuality consists in the actual enjoyment of them and excess implies an
abuse of enjoyment. A person, therefore, according to these definitions, may be
very luxurious from vanity, pride, ostentation, or with a political view of encour-
aging consumption, without having a turn for sensuality, or a tendency to fall
into excess.’17
The provision of luxury objects, Steuart argued, encouraged ‘emulation, indus-
try and agriculture’.18 This emerging pride in national industry was shared by
philosophers on the continent. Montesquieu compared Persian and Parisian
luxury and went on to praise English luxury as the epitome of modern luxury.
The abbé Raynal in the 1770s compared the commercial Arabs of the Middle Ages
who cultivated the arts and literature with the ‘barbaric ostentation’ of the French
nobility under feudalism; their excessive table was indicative of ‘savage luxury’.19
Analysis of luxury’s role in building or destroying a society was central to a new
comparative approach to history.
The philosophers of the Scottish Enlightenment were particularly keen to estab-
lish new definitions of luxury as a progressive social force. David Hume and Adam
Smith associated luxury almost entirely with commerce, convenience and con-
sumption. Hume separated out ‘philosophical’ from economic questions. Luxury

was a ‘refinement in the gratification of the senses’, and an incentive to the
expansion of commerce. The expansion of commerce would make available to all
persons not just the necessaries of life, but its ‘conveniences’.20 The consumer
incentives offered by world trade provided the impetus to domestic economic
development. Hume set out these connections in felicitous terms, not in his essay
on ‘Luxury’, later entitled ‘Of the Refinement of the Arts’, but in his essay ‘Of
Commerce’:
If we consult history, we shall find, that in most nations foreign trade has pre-
ceded any refinement in home manufactures, and given birth to domestic
luxury . . . Thus men become acquainted with the pleasures of luxury, and the
profits of commerce; and their delicacy and industry being once awakened, carry
them on to further improvements in every branch of domestic as well as foreign
trade; and this perhaps is the chief advantage which arises from a commerce
with strangers.21
Adam Smith was similarly proud of national industry, arguing that the wealth of
a nation lay in its ability to increase the quantity of ‘necessaries and conveniences’
which its labour could produce or exchange relative to its population. The divi-
sion of labour yielded a ‘multiplication of the productions of all the different arts’,
and in ‘a well-governed society’ a ‘universal opulence which extends itself to the
lowest ranks of the people’.22 This universal opulence could provide for these
lower ranks at a relatively simple level in comparison with the ‘extravagant luxury’
of the great, ‘and yet it may be true, perhaps, that the accommodation of a
European prince does not always so much exceed that of an industrious and frugal
peasant, as the accommodation of the latter exceeds that of many an African king,
the absolute master of the lives and liberties of ten thousand naked savages.’23
Smith thus contrasted opulence and luxury, the one the result of economic growth
founded in the division of labour, the other the expenditure of revenue on un-
productive labour. The proportion of labour fixed in durable commodities and
produced in mercantile and manufacturing towns promoted such growth; the
labour supporting retainers and fine eating by elites in courtly cities was supported
by revenue which could only diminish. Thus the people in mercantile and man-
ufacturing towns were ‘industrious, sober and thriving’; those in cities supported
by revenue were ‘idle, dissolute and poor’.24 The goods produced in these manu-
facturing towns were ‘new luxuries’ made from the steel and iron that Hume saw
as replacing the gold and rubies of the Indies. Behind their production lay a shift
in consumer practices associated with the decline of feudalism. Landowners gave
up their feudal privileges and large bodies of retainers to ‘gratify their childish
vanity’ to possess durable consumer goods, goods which might be ‘fitter to be the
playthings of children than the serious pursuits of men’.25 New luxuries, however
frivolous, were durable consumer goods, and their production generated eco-
nomic growth.
Thus we see that the debate on the moral and economic effects of luxury turned
on the definition of the luxury good. Contemporary perceptions of the category
of ‘luxury object’ changed over the course of the eighteenth century. Mandeville
referred to buildings, furniture, equipages and clothes. Melon mentioned food-
stuffs and raw materials – sugar, coffee, tobacco and silk – but also wrote else-
where of rich stuffs, works of gold and silver and foreign laces, and diamonds.26
It seems that it was not until Adam Smith that we see luxury goods distinguished
in analytical terms – ornamental building, furniture, collections of books, pictures,
frivolous jewels and baubles – and separated from expenditure on retainers, a fine
table, horses and dogs.27 But luxuries and other non-essential goods were also
widely written about by commercial writers. Daniel Defoe provided classic descrip-
tions of a new kind of consumer good which met the demands of the middling
and trading people, and extended far beyond the imported luxuries of the wealthy.
The rich, he argued, might take the top quality wines, spices, coffee and tea, but
the coarser varieties and the overall bulk of trade in all of these were taken by the
middling groups – ‘these are the people that are the life of trade’. The gentry might
take the finest hollands, cambricks and muslins, but the tradespeople took vast
quantities of linens of other kinds from Ireland, France, Russia, Poland and
Germany. They, like their wealthy superiors, imported any number of drugs and
dyestuffs, including ‘brasil and brasiletta wood, fustic, logwood, sumach, red-
wood, red earth, gauls, madder, woad, indigo, tumerick, cocheneal, cantharides,
bark peru, gums of many kinds, civet, aloes, cassia, turkey drugs, african drugs,
east India drugs, rhubarb, sassafras, cum allis’.28 To this abundance of imported
foreign luxuries, the British now added their own desirable commodities, ranging
from bone lace to wrought iron and brass, toys and locks, instruments, clocks and
watches for their own domestic as well as foreign customers.29
Other commercial writers, such as Malachy Postlethwayt (1707–67), distin-
guished different classes of consumer, and singled out the capacity to provide the
widest variety and range of qualities of commodities, that ‘art of seducing, or
pleasing to a higher degree the consumer of every kind’. ‘To tempt and please
them all, it is proper to offer them assortments of every kind proportioned to their
different abilities in point of purchase.’ Luxuries meeting the test of ‘look’, ‘ele-
gance’ and price were now within the reach of the tradespeople. ‘The mechanic’s
wife will not buy a damask of fifteen shillings a yard; but will have one of eight
or nine; she does not trouble herself much about the quality of the silk; but is
satisfied with making as fine a shew as a person of higher rank or fortune.’30
Commercial writers such as Defoe and Postlethwayt realised that luxury goods
might exist at many levels of quality and expense; their definition as luxuries was
dictated by the responses of different classes of consumer. Luxury was thus not
just about goods, but about social behaviour. It was increasingly perceived as a
sociable activity, generated by cities and participated in by the middling as well
as the upper classes. Mandeville celebrated the pleasure of the city, its commer-
cial exchange, its shopping and its anonymity. Merchants, in the course of strik-
ing a deal, exchanged civility, entertainment, the use of country houses and
coaches, conversation and humour.31 Shopping was a display of fashion, and the
actions of gesture and conversation which established an emotional relationship

between the shopkeeper and female customer. The young lady and the mercer
both held a certain power in this relationship – he the knowledge of the price,
she the choice over which shop she would patronise. The mercer is ‘a Man in
whom consummate Patience is one of the mysteries of his Trade . . . By Precept,
Example and great Application he has learn’d unobserv’d to slide into the inmost
recesses of the Soul, sound the Capacity of his Customers, and find out their Blind
Side unknown to them.’ But whatever his skill in deploying the arts of conversa-
tion and fashion, he can lose her custom through such trifles as insufficient flat-
tery, some fault in behaviour or the tying of his neckcloth, or gain it by no more
than a handsome demeanour or fashion. The ‘reasons some of the Fair Sex have
for their choice are often very Whimsical and kept as a great Secret.’32
The sociability of commerce and shopping was no longer the preserve of great
merchants and young ladies. It was also the pleasure of manufacturers, tradesmen
and the middle ranks. Defoe in 1731 claimed ‘tis for these your markets are kept
open late on Saturday nights; because they usually receive their week’s wages late
. . . these are the life of our whole commerce . . .’33 The Scottish social thinker John
Millar was to give a special place by the end of the eighteenth century to ‘the
middle rank of men’ who dealt with a large number of customers instead of being
dependent on the favours of a single person.34
This new, eighteenth-century economic endorsement of luxury developed in
continuing dialogue with critics of luxury who feared that it was at the root of
national social problems. Powerful moral, political and aesthetic critiques of
luxury drew on arguments about the social distribution of income and the con-
sumer behaviour of the poor. In France, Rousseau emphasised aristocratic profli-
gacy and the negative effects of consumerism in destabilising the social order.
French critics associated luxury with France’s humiliation by England during the
Seven Years’ War.35 In England the Seven Years’ War also provided a platform for
a denunciation of French luxury. A print entitled ‘The Imports of Great Britain
from France’ (1758), dedicated to the Anti-Gallican Society and the Society for the
Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce, showed a ship unloading
French luxuries and retainers at a London dock. These were represented by goods
such as fine fabrics, wines, brandies, cheeses, gloves, beauty washes, toilet waters
and pomades; and as aristocratic retainers and luxury occupations such as fops,
cooks, dancers, priests, milliners, mantua-makers, tailors, tutoresses and valets de
chambre. The print in its representation of the dangers of trade with France
depicted all the tropes of luxury associated with vanity, desire and the corruption
of national customs and spirit.36 Journalism during the war years rehabilitated
classical condemnations of luxury in defence of Britishness. Pamphlets such as
Rev. John Brown’s Estimate of the Manners and Principles of the Times (1757) were
extracted and reprinted many times, and articles penned by pseudonyms such as
‘Britannicus’ pronounced in The London Magazine that ‘the time of War . . . seems
the fittest to suppress Luxury’. The themes of plays such as ‘The Tryal of the Lady
Allurea Luxury’ (1757) were to be repeated in later decades, reappearing in those
such as Lady Eglantine Wallace’s, ‘The Ton: or, Follies of Fashion’ (1788).37 Thus
the advocates of luxury as a progressive social force did not achieve an easy ascen-
dance during the eighteenth century, but were continually challenged by their
detractors. Tension between those who disapproved and those who supported the
influence of luxury can be seen clearly in the ongoing literary debate surround-
ing the term.
III
The moral critique of luxury was a key theme in a long literary tradition set out
by John Sekora in his Luxury: the Concept in Western Thought, Eden to Smollett
(1977). For Sekora, apologists for luxury such as Hume and Smith augur the
modern world. He argues that Smollett’s Humphry Clinker represents the last major
English literary work to be informed by the older, classical sense of luxury, demon-
strating what he terms ‘an eloquence of horror’.38 He describes luxury as ‘one of
the oldest, most important and most pervasive negative principles for organising
society that western history has known’.39 In his inspirational exploration of the
early context and vocabulary of luxury, he aims to retrieve what he termed a ‘lost
system of discourse’, ‘a network of suppositions’. Following in the footsteps of
Foucault, he creates an archaeology of the term, arguing the conservative percep-
tions of eighteenth-century English critics of luxury were influenced by an intel-
lectual tradition whose taproots lay deep in the soil of antiquity.
In Sekora’s view, luxury was named to be abhorred, and in his story of the
concept’s changing meanings he emphasises the sense in which the hierarchy of
necessity and luxury became ever stricter, evolving into a means of drawing fixed
social distinctions. He argues for the pre-eminence of one central idea: while all
men could be guilty of luxury, the vice belonged primarily to the poor and down-
trodden, the labouring classes. Sumptuary laws, through their long history, were
designed to maintain social distinctions, to allow luxurious man to be controlled
by the ‘naturally superior’, ‘the natural legislator’, who is in fact the ‘man of the
land whose birth, wealth, and intellect had elevated him to independence of other
persons’.40 Several eighteenth-century writers focused on the impact of luxury on
the lives and behaviour of the labouring poor. Fielding denounced indolence and
crime; Goldsmith regretted the loss of the simple communal pleasures of rural life
in his famous poem, The Deserted Village. On the broader front of political and
social commentary, fears were continually expressed over the impact of luxurious
and addictive expenditure on the poor’s incentives to labour. Debates on high and
low wages, on the consumption of sugar, tea and gin, turned to those on the con-
sumption of fashionable clothing.41
Having provided a compelling history of the concept, Sekora goes on to use
luxury as a frame for his readings of Smollett’s prose. He observes that, like any
comprehensive social concept, ‘luxury gave Smollett the habit and ability to think
in terms of types of people, classes of events and patterns of behaviour’.42 He
argues that in Smollett’s work luxury is a tool, a reflexive instrument to simplify
and clarify his work. This approach provides the key to some acute readings of
Smollett’s journalism, history and novels. Sekora highlights the power of the novel
as a genre of cultural critique, arguing that Humphry Clinker is most vigorous as a

tract against the times, demonstrating its author’s ability to transform matters of
accidental taste into urgent moral issues. Humphry Clinker depicts a fluid culture
of exchange, a culture bursting at the seams with new, foreign luxury goods.
Ironically, his catalogue of aversion forms one of the most meticulous and allur-
ing records of the material culture he condemns, from Lydia’s tortoise-shell ‘heart-
housewife’ to ephemeral Bath souvenirs, Belgian lace to pineapples. Smollett’s
language of distaste for luxury is endlessly expansive, obsessed with notions of
chaos and excess. His prose raises pressing questions regarding the nature of
boundaries in a commercial society: his precarious metaphors of contagion and
pollution seem to be poised nervously against his sense of contemporary social
and political instability.
Smollett contributes to a long tradition of moral satire in which disgust and
incredulity inform a radical vision of human greed. From Juvenal to Johnson,
poets as well as novelists have criticised corruption in compelling terms. This tra-
dition can be seen continuing into the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, as for
example in Thackeray’s portrait of conspicuous consumption.43 The domestic inte-
riors of Georgian novels work in a similar way. The careful catalogues of spatial
and decorative detail that we find in the work of Burney, Austen and Edgeworth,
for example, convey a world in which social distinction is achieved through
luxury objects, a world in which the moral drama is often derived from the char-
acters’ relation to objects and places. The complex relationships between desires
for material and moral improvement are told in scenes that are both tenderly
precise and harshly accurate in their depiction of quotidian life.
Smollett was ‘not a deep or systematic writer’, according to Sekora, who argues
that the concept of luxury gives his novels a cohesion they would otherwise lack.
However, it could be argued that Sekora is sometimes in danger of granting the
concept of luxury a coherence which it does not have. By investing so much in a
particular reading of luxury, and by casting a long view over the history of cri-
tiques of luxury, Sekora assimilates the concept into his own ‘irresistible tide’ of
meaning. He often equates very different times and texts within his overarching
view of a transhistorical, classical tradition of luxury as a literary mode, writing
that luxury ‘has been expressed in many genres. Because it seeks to reveal the (often
hidden) dimension of causes, relations and devolutions, it is primarily a heuristic,
narrative mode, usually found in those forms which express developing awareness
or expanding experience: quest, journey, psychomania, imaginary voyage, retro-
spective elegy, nostalgic pastoral, panoramic survey, or moral history.’44
Sekora argues that luxury, while a traditional concept, accommodated and
absorbed change. His position, however, elides enormous national and historical
differences,45 and also fails to acknowledge the ambivalence inherent in attacks
on luxury, the double-edged nature of any continual iteration of luxury’s evils.
Luxury attracts and repels. It has been figured as both plague and medicine, friend
and foe of social progress.
Sekora raises important questions regarding the nature of satire as a medium
of social critique. However, his focus on the negative reaction to luxury neglects
a strand of satire that is less clearly poised in a position of moral outrage, but
rather suggests the complexity and confusion of modern experience. Mandeville,
the arch-catalyst and defender of the luxury debates, also chose this as his criti-
cal medium.46 If used as a neutral index of the effect of increasing affluence in
portions of society, then the idea of luxury could be brilliantly suggestive, as in
Mandeville’s sparkling satire. Mandeville was deeply immersed in London literary
culture at the beginning of the eighteenth century, contributing articles to The
Female Tatler, for example.47 Here he took on the Tatler’s editor, Isaac Bickerstaff,
challenging his claims to instil public virtue and disagreeing with his support for
introducing sumptuary laws in Britain. Few critics have yet analysed Mandeville’s
journalism or poetry in literary terms, or considered the implications of his choice
of medium for distilling his political message. He himself described his Fable of
the Bees as ‘a rhapsody, void of order or method’ and later as ‘an incoherent rhap-
sody’, terms more suited to a poet than a political philosopher.48 It is worth briefly
setting him alongside one of his contemporary poets, John Gay, who came to
London at about the same time as Mandeville, initially to work as an apprentice
to a silk-mercer who had a shop above the New Exchange.49 Gay’s knowledge of
London was from underneath. In trying to elevate his status to that of a profes-
sional writer, he depended upon the burgeoning commercial economy for success.
In his vivid poem Trivia, or the Art of Walking the Streets of London, first pub-
lished in 1715, Gay both satirised and depended upon commercial culture,
creating an unrivalled picture of the British capital as it came to terms with new
luxuries.50 Gay’s multilayered description of London is of a society brimming with
implements, accoutrements and consumable goods, from amber-tipped canes to
flaxen wigs, shoes of Morocco leather to collars of spongy nap and coats of Kersey
cloth. Critics have often interpreted Gay’s poem as a documentary, a bracingly
realistic and lightly ironic commentary on a city on the cusp of modernity.
However, it is arguably a far more complex and contradictory poem than such an
approach allows. Trivia does far more than merely represent the city. Gay’s closely
observed details are both significant and insignificant, oscillating between, rather
than fixing upon, meaning. The architecture of the poem, like that of London
itself, multiplies perspectives, revelling in confusion. Gay’s contradictory impulse
is found in both the literary structure and the vivid descriptive energy of his poem.
His appetite for detail embraces both the elaborate trinkets and the cruder tools
of society, from lace cuffs and snuff-boxes to butcher’s greasy trays and the chan-
dler’s basket. In creating a bold catalogue of the city’s various material goods, he
makes use of an eclectic assortment of literary sources and rhetorical devices. This
is ‘Trivia or the Art of Walking the Streets of London’. Gay dramatises the dis-
tinction between sheer display and solid function, parading his work as both
useless and useful at one and the same time. Gay’s reluctance to attribute worth
to his own text is perhaps suggestive of his ambivalent relation to contemporary
debate about the relation between labour and society, morality and economy.
Gay’s poem shows a strong affinity with Mandeville’s ideas, particularly in its
acknowledgement of the interdependent relationship between wealth and waste
in forming the urban economy. His fanciful myth of Cloacina, goddess of Fleet
Ditch, London’s notorious open sewer, articulates a strand of thought otherwise

only hinted at in the poem, suggesting that there is something energetic and life-
giving about the currents of filth that course beneath the streets of London. The
outcome of Cloacina’s assignation with a ‘mortal scavenger’ is the birth of a boy
who grows up on the streets of London as a shoe-shine in a stall in the vicinity
of the Fleet. Cloacina pities her deserted child, and obtains help from the other
deities in preparing a new japanning oil which will easily bring a fine polish to
the most heavily besmeared shoes (III, 155–69). In hymning the humble street
trader, Gay draws attention to the literal polish needed in a society that creates
dirt at the same rate that it displays refinement. This implicit connection between
prosperity and waste is made far more explicitly and forcefully by Bernard
Mandeville in his writings on the economy. The two writers share a cynical and
witty mode of detachment that is very different from the strict code of moral
reform suggested by Smollett’s prose.
While Sekora may ignore the complexity and richness of alternative modes of
satire in relation to the luxury debates, none the less, in casting the eighteenth-
century attack on luxury in terms of a literary mode, he makes important links
between language and political change, acknowledging his debt to John Pocock’s
work on the interdependent relationship between rhetoric and history, language
and culture. Sekora’s work was published only a year after Raymond Williams’
influential Keywords, A Vocabulary of Culture and Society.51 Williams describes his
Keywords in two connected senses, as ‘significant, binding words in certain activ-
ities and their interpretation’, and as ‘significant, indicative words in certain forms
of thought’.52 His stress on interdependent and interlocking networks of signifi-
cation has proved to be transformative of the field of cultural history. By tracing
the ways in which the word luxury has been altered, redefined, influenced, modi-
fied, confused and reinforced in different historical, professional and literary con-
texts, we can realise the conjunction of culture and economics embodied by the
concept itself. Close attention to the vocabulary of luxury in the eighteenth
century can, then, reveal shifts in attitude. An obvious example would be Hume’s
decision to change the title of his essay ‘Of Luxury’ (1752) to ‘Of Refinement in
the Arts’ (1760). For Hume, politeness and civility, refinement and polish were
the beneficial forces and effects of luxury. In choosing the term ‘refinement’ over
luxury, he was arguably trying to counterbalance the vivid and impermeable lan-
guage of Mandeville. Close analysis of the language and literature of luxury, then,
is vital in building a cultural history of the concept.
Just as the term luxury attracted positive and negative definitions, the category
of ‘woman’ was associated with both virtue and vice over the course of the eigh-
teenth century, frequently oscillating between the two moral extremes. The clas-
sical debate on luxury associated women with excess and female desire. Luxury
was identified with effeminacy and weakness. Writers from Mandeville to Mercier
argued that vanity, fashion and sexuality stimulated consumer demand. The asso-
ciation between luxury and femininity came to inform the representation of com-
merce and the market. Women were depicted as capricious, inconstant, the slaves
to fashion. Fears over female desire were elided with those over the instability of
market demand. Concepts of ‘commerce’, ‘intercourse’ and ‘conversation’ were

adopted to describe both the market and social and sexual exchange. In Defoe’s
words of 1706, ‘Trade is a mystery which will never be completely discovered or
understood. It suffers convulsive fits, hysterical disorders, and the most unac-
countable emotions.’53 In the period which many historians have identified with
the confinement of women to private, domestic space, that most public of spheres,
the market, was depicted as a woman.
The female vice continued to shape the depiction of luxury in the classic
accounts of Sombart and Simmel at the turn of the twentieth century. Sensuality
and sexual appetite, fashion and emulation drove courtesans and female domes-
tic servants to an endless quest for novelties that was seen to have a devastating
impact on the wider society.54 However, women’s contribution to the economy
could also be seen in a more constructive sense, as something to be wooed and
appreciated. Mandeville depicted women in a more positive light in his defence
of luxury’s role in forming human sociability. In the Fable of the Bees, he described
women as ‘quicker of Invention and more ready at Repartee’.55 As moral and polit-
ical philosophers such as Hume and Smith sought new defences of commercial
culture, they began to acknowledge women’s important role in carrying out the
civilising process. In the second half of the century it is arguable that women
dominated the luxury markets as powerful consumers of luxury objects. Sombart
described this historical period as the moment of ‘objectification’, a time in which
there is ‘a greater expenditure of human labour on a specific object, provided the
refinement is not restricted to the use of more costly materials. The result is a
widening of the scope of capitalist industry and, because of the necessity of secur-
ing rare materials from foreign countries, also of capitalist commerce.’56 In the
hands of the cultivated salon hostess and patron of the arts, for example, luxury,
like taste and refinement, could become a female virtue.
IV
The commerce and sociability of luxury were debated within a wider moral debate
on taste and aesthetics. From the mid- to the later eighteenth century Britain
became the leading producer of distinctive luxury and new consumer goods, so
desirable as to generate a contemporary Anglomania in Europe. Inventors created
new goods for a heterogeneous urban environment which valued individuality,
variety and accessibility of a range of qualities. Delight in ingenuity went with
a desire for difference, and the new commercial economy circulated accessible
luxuries.
Contemporary artists and intellectuals, from Hogarth and Reynolds to Smith
and Hume, sought to understand these new luxuries through their theoretical
writings on aesthetics and taste. They emphasised the pleasures people took in
variety and novelty, in ingenuity and utility. Manufacturers such as Josiah
Wedgwood and Matthew Boulton used this aesthetic debate to design their
products and sell them, appealing to contemporary ideas about the cultivation of
masculine virtue and the superiority of women’s taste.57
The luxury debates also turned on the development of a secular aesthetic

culture in the eighteenth century. The language of taste was rooted in
Shaftesbury’s aristocratic language of civility and politeness, as has been argued
by Pocock and Barell, but the eighteenth century also witnessed an attempt by
various writers, thinkers and painters to reformulate the civic discourse on virtue
to promote a new account which might sanction the actions, desires and plea-
sures of the middle classes, as long as they were accomplished with prudence,
industry and compassion.58 The concept of taste acts to crystallise the complex
dynamic between economic and cultural history, providing a focus for problems
of representation in a consumer society in which new desires for emulation, dis-
tinction and solidarity emerge.
One significant development of eighteenth-century culture was the extent to
which aesthetic appreciation became a shared, public activity in newly founded
museums, theatres and gardens. Alexander Gerard wrote in his Essay on Taste in
1756: ‘A man, who devotes a considerable part of his time to the gratification of
the senses, is an object of contempt or indignation: but a person who can fill up
those parts of life, that afford no opportunities for social offices, with pleasures
of taste, who can find entertainment for many hours in a gallery of pictures, or
in a collection of poems, is esteemed on this very account.’59 This argument was
also made by Kames, who believed that the Fine Arts could transform wealth into
virtue. Like Hume, he celebrated the positive link between commerce and culture
in this period, arguing that culture itself made the leisure of wealth more vir-
tuous. Here we see an intriguing relation between the material presence of luxury
and the development of a public and national culture – a culture that defined
itself at least in part, in positive relation to luxury and the advances of commerce,
rather than against them.
Parallel debates in France on luxury and taste also centred on commercial aspi-
rations and new wealth. In France the gout moderne, or the rococo, was associated
with new wealth. Rich objects in old regime France were no longer representa-
tions of royal and aristocratic political power. Commerce and taste became asso-
ciated with the new fashion trade. A backlash against commercial and speculative
wealth provoked a turn to antiquity. Classicism was equated with aristocracy, and
modernity with plutocracy. But this modernity came with a slavish imitation of
the material culture of the nobility – an obsessive determination of the new men
to ‘grasp the full encyclopaedic range of noble cultural signs’.60 The nobility took
on the moral language of the critique of luxury as a resistance to the power of
commerce and finance. There were renewed proposals for sumptuary legislation
and for confining all offices in the king’s household and the armed forces to gen-
tlemen.61 The debate on luxury moved into the salons as a debate on taste, and
noble virtues were upheld in the values of the ancients. Those hostile to the gout
moderne deplored the vulgar preference for costly materials – glittering azure and
gold. The comte de Caylus criticised the gilding of rococo interiors – gold lost its
symbolism. Mirrors, it was argued, had displaced history paintings. Technology,
through the production of plate glass at Saint Gobain, had put mirrors into loca-
tions previously beyond reach. The sparkle of widely polished surfaces, and new
goods, finishes, surfaces in glass, wood, varnish, gilt, stucco, cloth, could not hide
the corruption at the heart of modern luxury. This aesthetic critique became part
of the wider social critique of speculation and the new financial and commercial
classes of Louis XV’s France.62 De Caylus helped to lead the change in French taste
towards classical themes and models. Mercier wrote of him: ‘Count Caylus has
revived Greek taste amongst us and we have at last renounced our Gothic [rococo]
forms.’ From a similar perspective, the Baron d’Hancarville wrote the text for
Hamilton’s four-volume Collection of Etruscan, Greek and Roman Antiquities from
the Cabinet of the Hon. W. Hamilton – 1766–1776. He devoted the first 58 pages of
Hamilton’s volume I to a discourse on the role of the artist in society, praising
Greek pottery as a valuable commodity to be displayed by the cognoscenti. Greek
vases appealed to a ‘taste for simplicity’, and provided models of proportion and
elegance. The clash between ancient and modern attitudes to luxury can be found
even in such self-conscious attention to, and elevation of, individual decorative
objects.
The young Rousseau, in his Discourse on the Arts and Sciences and Discourse on the
Origin of Inequality, repudiated the cultural and moral optimism of his elders. He
asked whether luxury had helped to refine the arts and sciences and the manners
of men, and replied it had not: luxury and the arts were the products of inequal-
ity. Luxury, furthermore, brought about a continuous process of moral corruption.
It ruined taste, substituted effeminacy for courage, and drew the population from
the countryside to capital cities. He advocated withdrawal to the country and a
new standard of civic virtue. Rousseau’s aspirations had their widest appeal in the
later part of the century. His association of commerce and luxury with moral dis-
placement penetrated deep into the psychology of the self. Luxury increased the
dependency of the self on the opinion of others. Objects of luxury acquired a new
dominion and the power to promote fantasies of identity.63
As we have seen, Rousseau’s critique was followed by Smith’s solution to the
riddle of luxury, that is, that it was not consumption that made wealth grow, but
frugality and capital accumulation. The distribution of labour over productive and
unproductive activities determined the generation of a surplus.64 Adam Smith’s
solution did not, however, completely displace luxury from later eighteenth-
century debate. He himself, in the last edition of the Theory of Moral Sentiments
in 1790, pointed out that the disposition to admire the rich and neglect the poor
caused corruption of our moral sentiments. The paradox of luxury, he argued, in
both The Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations, was also about the
unintended public benefits that derived from morally indefensible private behav-
iour – behaviour he describes as desire for objects of ‘frivolous utility’, the dis-
posal of the social surplus by the ‘proud and unfeeling landlord’, who spent this
surplus on ‘trinkets and baubles’, the ‘deception’ which ‘keeps in continual
motion the industry of mankind’.65 Smith’s chapter ‘Of the origin of Ambition,
and of the distinction of Ranks’ in The Theory of Moral Sentiments analysed the
‘parade’ and ‘pursuit of riches’. This was based, he argued, in man’s desire ‘to be
observed, to be attended to, to be taken notice of with sympathy, complacency,
and approbation . . . It is the vanity, not the ease, or the pleasure, which interests
us. The rich man glories in his riches, because he feels that they naturally draw
upon him the attention of the world’.66 This vanity was expressed in laying out
riches on luxury commodities. ‘How many people ruin themselves,’ Smith asks,
‘by laying out money on trinkets of frivolous utility?’ It is not the ease and plea-
sure of the rich that others admire, Smith argues, but ‘the numberless artificial
and elegant contrivances for promoting this ease or pleasure’. In profoundly bleak
terms, Smith set out the ultimate meaninglessness of the luxury goods and riches
we strive for: ‘Power and riches appear then to be, what they are, enormous and
operose machines contrived to produce a few trifling conveniencies to the body
. . . They . . . can protect him from none of the severer inclemencies of the season.
They keep off the summer shower, not the winter storm, but leave him always as
much, and sometimes more exposed than before, to anxiety, to fear, and to
sorrow; to diseases, to danger and to death.’67 Smith’s philosophical reservations
were echoed in the writings of Adam Ferguson, who condemned the spread of
luxury amongst the poor and the corruption of manners in commercial society.68
Ferguson expressed reservations about the ‘polished’ society of expanding com-
merce in England, the social feelings of relative deprivation and the psychologi-
cal effects of fears of losing wealth.69
At the beginning of the nineteenth century, Malthus and Sismondi debated
luxury and underconsumption, and took the luxury debates much more explic-
itly into the framework of the distribution of income. Malthus also expressed a
widespread concern over the balance of the population between agriculture, man-
ufacturing and commerce, arguing for the instability of urban occupations.
Rousseau’s critique was applied in a new moral framework which re-emerged with
the food shortages of the 1790s – writing turned to the social divide between
luxury and poverty. Radicals in Britain reintroduced a language of sumptuary leg-
islation, and an association of vice and the landed aristocracy. Moral and agri-
cultural fundamentalism reappeared in the writings of Thomas Spence and
William Godwin as well as Mary Wollstonecraft. Godwin argued that luxury and
inequality had been necessary to build up civilisation, but society in the future
would be simple, refusing to pursue superfluities. Richard Price argued against the
concentration of the poor and the lower orders in cities. Luxury was associated
with manufactures and machinery – these were sources of inequality. Thelwall
argued for a love of virtuous poverty as against tinsel ornaments. Charles Hall, in
The Effects of Civilisation on the People in European States (1805), argued that the
progress of manufactures had generated inequality, and civilisation and the lux-
uries of life were not justifiable from the viewpoint of the majority.70
VI
The luxury debates, both as contemporary issue and as historical subject, reap-
pear at the turn of the twentieth century when they are picked up by Sombart
and Simmel in Germany and Veblen in America. Mandeville first appeared in

translation in Germany in 1914. And in Veblen’s America, F.B. Kaye completed
his great edition of The Fable. The return to the luxury of the eighteenth century
was prompted by writing on singular patterns of consumption and display in
the advanced capitalist societies of late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century
Germany and America.
Sombart explained luxury in psychological terms; it arose from purely sensu-
ous pleasure, fostered especially in the court and the salon. He conveyed a sense
of the powerful roles of disgust and desire through his extensive use of the writ-
ings of Sebastien Mercier. Drawing on Mercier’s descriptions of eighteenth-century
Paris, Sombart focused on the role of salons and sexuality in advancing luxury.
He argued that mistresses and courtesans sensualised and refined luxury. They
drew opulence into the confines of the domestic sphere; they ‘objectified’ it,
replacing the feasts and entertainments of the feudal age with a preference for
rich dresses, comfortable houses and precious jewels.71 Simmel and Veblen both
returned to Mandeville, the one to look at the culture of fashion and style in dis-
tinguishing individuals from social groups; the other to denounce the status-
seeking and ostentatious lifestyles of the super-rich.72
The beginning of a new century is an ideal time to reconsider the history of
luxury, for luxury is an obsession of today’s consumer society. There has been
an upscaling of consumer aspirations associated with luxury and designer goods,
with the branding revolution described by Naomi Klein in No Logo, and with
this a decline of the High Street chains and the mass consumerism which once
underpinned these. The lifestyle choices of affluence are associated with distinc-
tion, diversity and individuality. Luxury has become a commonplace of advertis-
ing slogans – luxury holidays, luxury housing and luxury cars complement
designer labels in clothing. Luxury is now seen not as something extra or exces-
sive to everyday life, but something attainable and desirable. Just as consumption
displaced labour and production as the defining entity of post-1970s society,
so too do concepts of luxury, fashion, fantasy and desire define cultures of
consumption.
The enormous literature on consumerism which has dominated social theory
since the 1980s has only recently turned to this aspect of commercial culture.73
It was, however, anticipated in Colin Campbell’s pioneering The Romantic Ethic
and the Spirit of Modern Consumerism (1987), which sought to explain the origins
of the desire for new goods, their rapid multiplication and their equally rapid
demise. He set his explanation in the framework of ‘hedonism’, and looked to
pleasure, anticipation and disappointment. He identified a turning point in the
eighteenth century, and like the many theorists of luxury of this period, he too
distinguished the ‘traditional’ from the ‘modern’. Traditional hedonism referred
to the material aspects of objects, whereas modern hedonism referred to fantasy,
anticipation and the emotion of desire. He turned Max Weber’s innerworldly
asceticism on its head, finding alongside it the emergence of a history of senti-
ment, the romantic personality and affective self-indulgence which, he argues,
underlay the consumption of the eighteenth century. The demand for new con-
sumer goods, and especially for luxuries was rooted in delayed gratification and
hedonistic longing, in an addictive anticipation of a continuing stream of novel-
ties.74 These emotional states of fantasy, anticipation and desire were directed not
to consumption in general, but to the consumption of luxuries.
The widespread use of the word in recent years may be an indication of greater
prosperity, but it also reveals greater social division. The moral choices associated
with the consumption of luxury goods have been highlighted by individuals
who choose to boycott certain brands associated with the exploitation of cheap,
third World labour, as well as by large-scale political action surrounding recent
world trade summits. A critique of luxury has emerged with increasing social
division at home between the rich and the poor, and with a newly prominent
global division between countries mainly in the northern hemisphere consuming
luxuries, and those of the southern hemisphere producing them. Consumption
has become a key marker of inclusion and exclusion in recent Human Develop-
ment Reports. Books such as Juliet Schor’s The Overspent American (1998) and
Robert Frank’s Luxury Fever (1999) mark our anxiety over the excesses of con-
sumerism combined with the extremes of social division. Not even the most
prescient eighteenth-century critic anticipated a world in which the individual
and collective uses of luxury had such disquieting implications for the future of
civilisation.
Notes
1. On the luxury debates in China and Japan, see Craig Clunas, ‘Anxieties about Things’,
in Craig Clunas, Superfluous Things. Material Culture and Social Status in Early Modern
China (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 141–65; Peter Burke, ‘Res et verba: Conspicuous
Consumption in the Early Modern World’, in John Brewer and Roy Porter, eds,
Consumption and the World of Goods (London, 1993), pp. 148–62; Kenneth Pomeranz,
The Great Divergence. China, Europe and the Making of the Modern World Economy (Prince-
ton, 2000), pp. 127–51.
2. For a fine discussion of the development of these concepts, see Guido Guerzoni,
‘Liberalitas, Magnificentia, Splendor: the Classic Origins of Italian Renaissance
Lifestyles’, in Neil De Marchi and Craufurd D.W. Goodwin, eds, Economic Engagements
with Art (Durham, NC and London, 1999), pp. 332–78.
3. Andrew Sherratt, ‘Reviving the Grand Narrative: Archaeology and Long-term Change’,
Journal of European Archaeology, vol. 3 (1995), pp. 1–32, pp. 12–14.
4. A. Appadurai, ed., The Social Life of Things. Commodities in Cultural Perspective, p. 33.
5. C.J. Berry, The Idea of Luxury (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 74–84.
6. On sumptuary law, see Alan Hunt, Governance of the Consuming Passions: a History of
Sumptuary Law (London, 1996); Negley Harte, ‘State Control of Dress and Social Change
in Pre-industrial England’, in D.C. Coleman and A.H. John, eds, Trade, Government and
Economy in Pre-industrial England (London, 1976), pp. 132–65.
7. Hunt, Governance of the Consuming Passions, p. 371; Harte, ‘State Control of Dress’, pp.
132–65.
8. See Berry, The Idea of Luxury; John Sekora, Luxury: the Concept in Western Thought, Eden
to Smollett (Baltimore, 1977).
9. [Nicholas Barbon], A Discourse of Trade (London, 1690).
10. Cited in A.O. Hirschman, The Passions and the Interests, Political Arguments for
Capitalism before Its Triumph (Princeton NJ, 1977), p. 60.
11. The philosophical and theological framework of Mandeville’s thought is discussed in

John Robertson, ‘Epicurean Origins of Enlightenment in Naples and Scotland: Vico,
Mandeville and Hume’, unpublished paper, 2002.
12. Edward Hundert, The Enlightenment’s Fable. Bernard Mandeville and the Discovery of Society
(Cambridge, 1994), p. 181.
13. Cited in, ibid., p. 181.
14. Bernard Mandeville, The Fable of the Bees (1714), ed. Phillip Harth (Harmondsworth,
1970), Remark M, p. 150.
15. See F. Melon, Essai politique sur le commerce (Paris, 1734), and Montesquieu, Esprit des
Lois (Paris, 1748).
16. (Saint-Lambert), ‘Luxe’, D. Diderot and J. d’Alembert, eds. Encyclopédie, ou Dictionnaire
raisonné des sciences, des arts, et des métiers (Paris, 1751–65), Vol. 5.
17. James Steuart, An Inquiry into the Principles of Political Oeconomy [1767], ed. Andrew S.
Skinner (Edinburgh and London, 1966), I, p. 266.
18. See Jan de Vries, ‘Were Eighteenth-century People Aspiring Consumers or Oppressed
Workers?’ Unpublished Paper to History Seminar, 5 February 1998; cf. Berry, The Idea of
Luxury, pp. 138–9 and de Vries, ‘Luxury in the Dutch Golden Age’, this volume.
19. See Dena Goodman, ‘Furnishing Discourses: Readings of a Writing Desk in Eighteenth-
century France’, this volume.
20. David Hume, Essays Moral, Political and Literary (1741, 1742), London, 1903 Part II, Essay
1, ‘Of Commerce’ pp. 259–75; Essay 2, ‘Of Refinement in the Arts’, pp. 275–89.
21. David Hume, ‘Of Commerce’, in Hume, Essays, Moral Political and Literary (1752)
(Oxford, 1963), pp. 259–75, p. 270.
22. Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (1776), ed. R.H. Campbell and A.S. Skinner (Oxford,
1976), Book I, ch. 1, p. 22.
23. Ibid., p. 24.
24. Ibid., Book I, ch. 3, sec. 12.
25. Smith discusses this shift in elite consumption and in urban production as a part of
the ‘natural progress of opulence’ in Book III. For discussion of this, see Maxine Berg,
‘Political Economy and the Principles of Manufacture’, in M. Berg, P. Hudson and M.
Sonenscher, eds, Manufacture in Town and Country before the Factory (Cambridge, 1983),
pp. 33–58, at 45–50; and Neil De Marchi, ‘Adam Smith’s Accommodation of “altogether
endless” Desires’, in Maxine Berg and Helen Clifford, eds, Consumers and Luxury (Man-
chester, 1999), pp. 18–36, at 23–5.
26. Mandeville, The Fable of the Bees, Remark L, p. 144; Jean-François Melon, Of Luxury, in
A Political Essay upon Commerce, written in French by Monsieur M***. Translated with some
Annotations, and remarks by David Bindon, Esq. (Dublin, 1739), pp. 1, 3–8.
27. See De Marchi, ‘Adam Smith’s Accommodation’.
28. Daniel Defoe, A Plan for the English Commerce (London, 1731), p. 166; also p. 78.
29. Ibid., p. 218.
30. Malachy Postlethwayt, Britain’s Interest Explained and Improved, 2 vols. (London, 1757),
vol. 2, p. 395.
31. Mandeville, The Fable of the Bees, Remark B, pp. 96–7.
32. Bernard Mandeville, ‘A Search into the Nature of Society’, in The Fable of the Bees,
p. 353.
33. Defoe, A Plan for the English Commerce, p. 77.
34. John Millar, Origins of the Distinction of Ranks, cited in Hirschman, The Passions and the
Interests, p. 105.
35. See Sarah Maza, ‘Luxury, Morality and Social Change: Why there was no Middle-Class
Consciousness in Pre-revolutionary France’, Journal of Modern History 69 ( June 1997), p.
217.
36. See Kathleen Wilson, The Sense of the People. Politics, Culture and Imperialism in England,
1715–1785 (Cambridge, 1998), pp. 191–2.
37. See James Raven, ‘Defending Conduct and Property. The London Press and the Luxury
Debate’, in John Brewer and Susan Staves, ed., Early Modern Conceptions of Property
(London, 1995), pp. 301–19, p. 304.
38. Vincent Quinn and Mary Peace, eds, Luxurious Sexualities, Textual Practice 11 (3), 1997,
405–16.
39. Sekora, Luxury, pp. 1–2.
40. Ibid., p. 32.
41. See Jonathan White, ‘Representations of the Consumption of the Labouring Poor in
Eighteenth-Century England’, PhD Dissertation, University of Warwick, 2001. Also see
John Styles, ‘Custom or Consumption’, this volume.
42. Sekora, Luxury, p. 12.
43. See Barbara Hardy, The Exposure of Luxury: Radical Themes in Thackeray (London, 1972),
pp. 20–1.
45. See introduction to Vincent Quinn and Mary Peace, eds, Luxurious Sexualities, Textual
Practice 11 (3), 1997.
46. Edward Hundert, The Enlightenment’s Fable: Bernard Mandeville and the Discovery of Society
(Cambridge, 1994), p. 13.
47. See Bernard Mandeville, By a Society of Ladies: Essays in The Female Tatler, ed. M.M.
Goldsmith (Bristol, 1999).
48. See J. Martin Stafford, ed., Private Vices, Publick Benefits? The Contemporary Reception of
Bernard Mandeville (Hull, 1997), p. xii.
49. See David Nokes, John Gay. A Profession of Friendship (Oxford, 1995).
50. See Stephen Copley and Ian Haywood, ‘Luxury, Refuse and Poetry: John Gay’s Trivia’,
in Peter Lewis and Nigel Wood, eds, John Gay and the Scriblerians (London, 1988), pp.
62–83.
51. Raymond Williams, Keywords. A Vocabulary of Culture and Society (London:
Fontana/Croom Helm, 1976; revised edition 1984).
52. Williams, Keywords, p. 13.
53. Cited in Hundert, The Enlightenment’s Fable, p. 209. See his broader discussion in ‘Homo
economica and her Double’, pp. 205–18.
54. Werner Sombart, Luxury and Capitalism (1913), p. 105; David Frisby and Mike Feather-
stone, eds, Simmel on Culture (London, 1997), pp. 187–90.
55. Bernard Mandeville, Fable of the Bees, ed. Kaye, vol. 2, pp. 30–41.
56. Sombart, Luxury and Capitalism, p. 96.
57. See Neil De Marchi and Hans J. Van Miegroet, ‘Ingenuity, Preference and the Pricing
of Pictures: The Smith–Reynolds Connection’, in De Marchi and Goodwin, eds, Eco-
nomic Engagements with Art , pp. 379–412; Maxine Berg, ‘New Commodities, Luxuries
and their Consumers in Eighteenth-Century England’, in Berg and Clifford, eds,
Consumers and Luxury, pp. 63–87.
58. Robert Jones, Gender and the Formation of Taste in Eighteenth-Century Britain: The Analy-
sis of Beauty (Cambridge, 1998).
59. Alexander Gerard, Essay on Taste (London, 1756), p. 194.
60. Katie Scott, The Rococo Interior (Yale, 1995), p. 216.
61. Ibid., p. 226.
62. Ibid., pp. 234–8.
63. See Hundert, The Enlightenment’s Fable, pp. 178–9.
64. See Berry, The Idea of Luxury, pp. 162–77; Istvan Hont, ‘Luxury’, forthcoming in The
Cambridge History of Political Thought; also see Istvan Hont and Michael Ignatieff, ‘Needs
and Justice in the Wealth of Nations: an Introductory Essay’ in Wealth and Virtue (Cam-
bridge, 1993).
65. Donald Winch, Riches and Poverty. An Intellectual History of Political Economy in Britain
1750–1834 (Cambridge, 1996), pp. 76–80, 106–9.
66. Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), revised 1790, eds D.D. Raphael and
L.L. McFie (Oxford, 1976), Book I, iii, ch. 2, pp. 50–2.
67. Smith, ibid., Book IV, ch. 1, pp. 180–3.

68. Winch, Riches and Poverty, pp. 333–8, 366–9. Joyce Appleby, ‘Consumption in Early-
Modern Social Thought’, in Brewer and Porter, eds, Consumption and the World of Goods,
pp. 162–77.
69. Hirschman, The Passions and the Interests, pp. 107–21.
70. Gregory Claeys, ‘The Origins of the Rights of Labor: Republicanism, Commerce and the
Construction of Modern Social Theory in Britain, 1796–1805’, Journal of Modern History,
66 (1994), pp. 249–90; Noel Thompson, ‘Social Opulence, Private Asceticism: Ideas of
Consumption in Early Socialist Thought’, in Martin Daunton and Matthew Hilton, eds,
The Politics of Consumption. Material Culture and Citizenship in Europe and America
(Oxford, 2001), pp. 51–68.
71. Sombart, Luxury and Capitalism, pp. 61, 105.
72. See David Frisby and Mike Featherstone, eds, Simmel on Culture; Thorstein Veblen, The
Theory of the Leisure Class (New York, 1899).
73. See Daniel Miller, ed., Acknowledging Consumption (London, 1995).
74. Colin Campbell, The Romantic Ethic and the Spirit of Modern Consumerism (London, 1987);
also see Jean-Christophe Agnew, ‘Coming up for Air: Consumer Culture in Historical
Perspective’, in John Brewer and Roy Porter, eds, Consumption and the World of Goods
(London, 1993), pp. 19–39, pp. 25–6.
2
Mandeville, Rousseau and the Political
Economy of Fantasy
Edward Hundert
Denis Diderot, setting out to explain the purposes of the Enlightenment’s great-
est monument, said that the Encyclopédie would expose the abuses to which words
have commonly been put.1 In offering ‘luxury’ as the term which best ex-
emplified contemporary conceptual confusion, Diderot counted on his readers’
familiarity with a continuing controversy about the consequences of massively
increased consumption in Europe’s Atlantic rim since the beginning of the sev-
enteenth century. Voltaire, Montesquieu, Hutcheson and Hume had already con-
tributed to this body of argument, which would further be enriched by many
entries in the Encyclopédie itself and, most notably, by Adam Smith’s account in
Book III of The Wealth of Nations of the role of ‘baubles and trinkets’ in the demise
of feudalism.2
Whatever their understanding of the issue, all participants in the eighteenth
century’s luxury debate were obliged to come to terms with Bernard Mandeville’s
Fable of the Bees (1723 and 1728), the text which initiated the controversy by
arguing that ‘luxury’ denoted a cluster of concepts revealed as empty in the
context of commercial modernity, and that, in reality, heightened expectations of
affluence had become constituent features of the modern polity.3 No eighteenth-
century writer sought to expose contemporary society’s diminished stock of moral
capital more forcefully than Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and in what follows I shall
suggest both that his critique of modernity emerged from his encounter with The
Fable of the Bees, and that Rousseau’s deepest insights into the fantasies inherent
in cultures of consumption bear upon our own historical understanding.4
Mandeville achieved great notoriety throughout the eighteenth century, but
not because of any supposed economic doctrines buried in The Fable’s dialogues
and polemical essays. Responsible, rather, was his claim that Christian ethics were
psychologically implausible and that the traditions of moral philosophy derived
from Christianity served the ideological and socialising purpose of keeping
the self-regarding sources of human desire hidden from view. According to
Mandeville, contemporary ethical reasoning falsely moralised social processes. By
displacing impulse as the primary unit from which to comprehend human action,
his contemporaries were prevented from understanding the novel conditions
under which personalities had recently come to be formed. The Fable’s radical
28
Mandeville, Rousseau and the Political Economy of Fantasy 29
analysis of luxury gained its conceptual force within the framework of this larger
consideration of the dynamics of Western history.
Modern commercial societies differ from others – in Mandeville’s view – not
only because of their unprecedented affluence but because the difference between
being and appearing is for commercial moderns the most psychologically signifi-
cant characteristic of public life. Envy and the emulative propensities to which,
through envy, opulence gives rise had become defining features of the modern
moral subject, whose heightened propensities for display and dissimulation could
not be comprehended within the terms provided by the inherited moral
tradition.
Mandeville sought to show that the forms of domination characteristic of pre-
vious social formations had been rendered obsolete. Persons now derived their
social power not from an ability to subdue competitors by force, but from the
attention and deference conspicuous displays of articles of consumption in an
expanding world of goods engendered amongst social actors. The primitive
powers that once enabled governing elites to compel approbation and obedience
no longer applied. Now, ‘costly Equipages, Buildings, Titles of Honour, and every-
thing that Men can acquire’ are the primary ‘Marks and Tokens’ of esteem from
which social power derives.5 In modern conditions, persons are obliged to orient
their public performances to the imperatives of a world of mobile property, in
which relations with others are rarely elemental, but are instead mediated by the
unstable values embodied in possessions themselves. Nowhere was this more
apparent than in the commercial metropolis. In a passage which Montesquieu
cited in his own discussion of luxury, Mandeville wrote that
people, where they are not known, are generally honoured according to their
clothes and other accoutrements they have about them. From the richness of
them we judge of their wealth, and by their ordering of them we guess at their
understanding. It is this which encourages everybody who is conscious of his
little merit, if he is anyways able, to wear clothes above his rank, especially
in large and populous cities, where obscure men may hourly meet with
fifty strangers to one acquaintance, and consequently have the pleasure of
being esteemed by a vast majority, not as what they are, but what they appear
to be . . .6
Mandeville injected into public consciousness the question of what happens

when large numbers of individuals are required to engage with, and are power-
fully moved by, the imagery produced by the display and manipulation of com-
modities. He showed how fantasy had become an integral feature of worlds
transformed by a surfeit of goods. Rather than disciplined attention to work and
duty, the frivolous pursuits of leisure, decisively shaped by the inconstancy and
whimsy of women, had become the energising forces of contemporary prosperity
and, moreover, permanent features of the culture of opulence. These were trou-
bling thoughts indeed at a time when Britain’s most important philosopher could
ask ‘whether a woman of fashion ought not to be declared a public enemy’ and
30 Edward Hundert
republics of the ancient world as well as contemporary Venice were seen to have
been corrupted and made effeminate by luxury.7 Mandeville’s argument was even
more disturbing when placed in the context of his thesis about the role of fashion
in modern European history. ‘The Reformation,’ he wrote, ‘has scarce been more
instrumental in rendering the Kingdoms and states that have embraced it, flour-
ishing beyond other Nations, than the silly and capricious invention of Hoop’d
and Quilted Petticoats.’8
When conceived as driven by fashion industries catering primarily to female
tastes and women’s liberated incomes, commercial exchange could appear radi-
cally transfigured. In Britain particularly, Protestant, especially ‘vulgar Whig’, asso-
ciations of commerce with liberty were fed by complementary misogynist fears
that were themselves exacerbated in the early eighteenth century by the explo-
sion of the European luxury trades. In reducing to self-serving cant the attempt
to moralise economic expansion by associating it with the frugal virtues of pious,
independent citizens, Mandeville challenged his readers to confront the sheer
power of their now unadorned avarice. As he put it, ‘nothing could make amends
for the Detriment Trade would sustain, if all those of that Sex, who enjoy the
happy State of Matrimony, should act and behave themselves as a sober wise Man
could wish them’.9 Indeed,
a considerable Portion of what the Prosperity of London and Trade in general

and all the worldly Interest of the Nation consists in, depends entirely on the
Deceit and vile Strategems of Women; and that Humility, Content, Meekness,
Obedience to reasonable Husbands, Frugality, and all the Virtues together, if
they were possess’d of them in the most eminent Degree, could not possibly
be a thousandth Part so serviceable, to make an opulent, powerful, and what
we call a flourishing Kingdom, than their most hateful Qualities.10
Mandeville transformed the notion of female desire from a localised force

driving recent economic advance into a general principle of social explanation.
His acid observation that a great society depends upon ‘the abominable improve-
ment of Female Luxury’ was meant to and succeeded in challenging one of his
audience’s deepest assumptions about the moral integrity of its own aspirations.11
He forced this audience to confront the possibility that an environment had arisen
in which features of one’s identity previously thought to be essential and endur-
ing had become mere markers distinguishing practices of display and role distance
that could be altered or discarded when they came into conflict with contempo-
rary forms of economic opportunity. Under these conditions, the desire of persons
activated by vanity, ‘pride’s ornamental and vestimentary embodiment’, to have
their self-image acknowledged by others could account for social interaction in a
commercial world inhabited by self-interested egoists.
Private Vices, Publick Benefits, The Fable’s sub-title, was thus a paradoxical thesis
about the contemporary functions of self-regard, supported by an inquiry into
moral psychology both meant and taken by Mandeville’s audience as a threat to
contemporary self-understanding. Mandeville claimed that, from the perspective
of the dramatically altered intersubjective conditions which had come to charac-

terise commercial modernity, an enormous range of social actions could be under-
stood without any reference to outworn moral categories. They were, rather, purely
instrumental attempts to satisfy pride through the promotion of one’s status.
Mandeville recognised that his audience was comprised of persons who pos-
sessed a subjectivity at a considerable remove from any available alternative
account of the person in terms of which he could be said to assent to society’s
norms as an autonomous and self-reflecting member. He put it to his readers that
commerce, rather than being just one sector of the economy, was the environ-
ment within which all other sectors of society exist, and that the polity in which
they lived had insensibly given birth to a semi-autonomous region of civil society
sustained by private fantasies and driven by future prospects of wealth. In this
world, personality is discontinuous with Christian moral commitment, social
standing and identity are distributed through the mechanisms of the market, and
character is nothing more than an artifact crafted by role-players within theatri-
cal forms of social exchange. All would have to remain so, moreover, to ensure
that commercial society would survive and flourish. Mandeville, in other words,
showed how the modern polity could best be understood, not as the context
required for the citizen’s self-realisation, nor as the guardian of his rights, but
rather as the habitat of his desire conceived in terms of consumer satisfaction.
Although Mandeville’s contemporaries were often scandalised by the licentious
premises of these assertions, some thinking that The Fable signalled the imminent
‘destruction’ of ‘the desire of rational esteem’, they would not have been surprised
by the economic content of his arguments.12 From the time of Mun and Sully,
writers on economic subjects had focused on the ability of modern states to gen-
erate a surplus derived from the demand of a restricted class of luxury consumers.
In England particularly, intellectuals during the first decades of the Restoration –
most notably Nicholas Barbon and Dudley North – began to understand that
material possessions beyond those necessary to sustain a frugal existence ‘have
their value’, as Barbon put it, ‘from supplying the wants of the mind’.13
Luxuries were seen to be desired more for their aesthetic effects and power to
compel admiration than for the actual material needs they satisfied. These writers
reasoned that the aggregate demand for economic goods would be intensified in
wealthy trading nations primarily because of the esteem they attracted. Once the
implications of such observations were understood, a process of burgeoning con-
sumption could be seen as normal under appropriate legal and political condi-
tions, since goods in the economic realm, emptied of lasting psychological
satisfaction, would quickly lose their lustre in the face of other novelties supplied
by trade and manufacture.
Mandeville’s primary economic insight – wealth creation in commercial society
depended upon the ‘emulation and continual striving to out-do one another’ –
extended these discoveries. While he concentrated on the spending habits of
monied elites, Mandeville recognised that persons throughout the social hierar-
chy could now participate in patterns of conspicuous consumption, beginning,
as he put it, with ‘the poorest Labourer’s Wife’, and extending
32 Edward Hundert
through the several degrees of Quality to an incredible Expence, till at last the
Prince’s great Favourites and those of the first Rank of all, having nothing
else left to outstrip some of their Inferiors, are forc’d to lay out vast Estates in
pompous Equipages, magnificent Furniture, sumptuous Gardens and Princely
Palaces . . .14
It was this claim about the social significance of hyper-consumption and luxury
spending that The Fable’s readers found both socially shocking and morally
suspect, since the unbridled emulative propensities Mandeville had identified
posed a threat to social stability. In such a society, Henry Fielding warned,
while the Nobleman will emulate the Grandeur of a Prince and the Gentleman
will aspire to the proper state of a Nobleman, the Tradesman steps from behind
his Counter into the vacant place of the Gentleman. Nor doth the confusion
end there: It reaches the very Dregs of the People, who aspire still to a degree
beyond that which belongs to them.15
In the course of these wider arguments, Mandeville made two particularly unset-
tling claims about luxury and its connection with these destabilising social
processes. Luxury consumption, first of all, enriches a nation through the pro-
motion of avarice, the particular vice which has as its unintended consequence
encouragement for the manufacture and circulation of goods. He argued that the
fundamental psychological reality of opulent societies is that they are populated
by egoists responding to opportunities for consumption and display, that they are
driven by excess rather than moderation, and that they are characterised by
extravagance masquerading as refinement. Not only did all ‘great societies’ rest
upon ‘increased wants’, but the satisfaction of these wants and the consequent
creation of others in their stead constitute the propulsive mechanism for change
in the interdependent domains of fashion and morals. In so pointing to an inti-
mate connection between ethical standards and prevailing tastes, Mandeville
arrived at his most radical thesis: the history of the civilising process offered con-
clusive evidence that moral reasoning itself was a species of fashion and, like
changing habits of dress, a dependent feature of the universal search for esteem.16
If true, this claim would demolish arguments within the natural law tradition that,
as Locke put it, conceived of the ‘habits of fashion’ as distinct from and as the
enemy of morality, since they produce a ‘fantastical uneasiness’ that gives rise to
a desire for unmerited honour, power and riches.17
Mandeville’s second disturbing point about luxury is that the conventional
moral condemnation of superfluous material indulgence trades upon the impos-
sibility of arriving at any strict definition of luxury, and thus of moderation, in
which consumption above the level of subsistence could be considered an indul-
gence, and therefore vicious. In conventional usage, he wrote, luxury is ‘that not
immediately necessary to make Man subsist’.18 ‘It increases Avarice and Rapine:
And where they are reigning Vices, Offices of the greatest Trust are bought and
sold; the Ministers that should serve the Publick . . . corrupted, and the Countries
every Moment in danger of being betray’d to the highest Bidders: And lastly, that
it effeminates and enervates the people, by which the Nations become an easy
Prey to the first Invaders.’19 But, he added,
If you tell me, that Men may make use of all . . . things with Moderation, and
consequently that the Desire after them is no Vice, then I answer, that either
no Degree of Luxury ought to be called a Vice, or that it is impossible to give
a definition of Luxury, which Everybody will allow to be a just one . . . [for] if
once we depart from calling every thing Luxury that is not absolutely neces-
sary to keep a Man alive, then there is no Luxury at all.20
The term ‘luxury’, Mandeville sought to show, effectively captures the behaviour
of individuals who, by virtue of their command of monied wealth, possess the
ability to satisfy the desires they share with others. In commercial societies these
desires are decisively shaped by newly liberated emulative propensities which may
be (temporarily) satisfied through the acquisition of socially esteemed goods. The
intemperance of the great, as well as those who ape their habits of living, in no
way threatens public security, Mandeville argued. On the contrary, he claimed
that the historical record provided incontrovertible evidence that modern states
like Britain, recently made great by growing opulence, were in fact more stable
and better able to defend themselves than were the Mediterranean primitives
populating the ancient republics whose supposed virtue and frugality inspired
many of his critics. If correct, Mandeville saw, his understanding of the dynam-
ics of consumption would immediately throw into question the semantic force of
‘luxury’ as conventionally understood. For in asserting that there is no natural
limit to desire, he denied that there was any objective standard of self-sufficiency
appropriate to humans, any telos or summum bonum which individuals or com-
munities naturally seek – a point which so revolted Francis Hutcheson that he
spent much of the rest of his career in a vain attempt to refute it. Indeed, even a
looser definition of luxury than the one inherited from classical and Christian
ethics, Mandeville maintained, would offer no conceptual advantage in under-
standing the moral implications of persons living in societies characterised by
rapidly increasing levels of consumption. The mobility of modern property had
amplified natural acquisitive propensities, which governing classes were power-
less to eliminate and were now required to manage. Commercial moderns had,
largely unknowingly, traversed an unbridgeable gulf, separating themselves
irrevocably from an antique or Christian ethic of private restraint.
The depth of this rupture, with its attendant sense of loss, made The Fable of
the Bees compelling reading for Rousseau. Repelled by what he took to be the
ethical distortions of modernity, Rousseau’s reflections on the economy were
usually second-hand and bore an unwitting resemblance to the discomfort
expressed by members of the nobility at the increasing social power of wealthy
commoners.21 He accepted as obvious the already suspect claim that increased
urban consumption would impoverish and depopulate the countryside, and that,
34 Edward Hundert
as the physiocrat Baudeau put it, the production of domestic superfluities threat-
ened agriculture through an ‘inversion of the natural order’.22
Virtually alone amongst the philosophes, Rousseau argued in the Discourse on
Political Economy (1755) that the proper task of government is to institute sump-
tuary legislation so that ‘the arts of pleasure and pure invention’ would not be
‘favoured at the expense of useful and difficult trades’.23 Indeed, the Parisian intel-
lectuals whose polished sociability he so despised paid considerably less attention
to Rousseau’s economic views than to his rejection of fashionable dress when he
adopted the rustic ‘Corsican’ costume which came to serve as his public emblem.
Rousseau’s engagement with the problem of luxury profoundly shaped his
thinking on virtually all social questions. It brought to the forefront of his cri-
tique of modernity precisely those issues of moral psychology that Mandeville had
insisted were commercial society’s defining features. Mandeville was decisive for
Rousseau because he believed The Fable to be the unembarrassed expression of
modernity’s immoral voice, proclaiming that luxury is the ‘paradox so worthy of
our time’, in which ‘a man is worth no more to the state than the value of his
domestic consumption’.24
Rousseau agreed with Mandeville that luxury spending was a constitutive
feature of the progress of the arts and sciences and of the polite and polished
habits of living which characterised the modern commercial metropolis. Here
especially social understanding itself had been transformed, and the Mandevillian
maxim, as Rousseau called it, that ‘men have all the same passions, above all [that]
self-love and interest lead them, [and] in this they are all alike’, was now taken
to be self-evident.25
Rousseau further agreed with Mandeville that an ethic of self-display, depen-
dent on the encouragement of vanity in successive regimes of fashion, had come
to shape modern morals, producing in its wake a transformation in the concep-
tion of the self. Just as Mandeville had claimed, we ‘now seek our happiness in
the opinion of others’.26
These views achieved international prominence in Rousseau’s enormously
influential Discourse on the Origins of Inequality (1755), which elevated the ques-
tion of luxury into the wider Enlightenment discussion about the moral im-
plications of the progress of civilisation. Rousseau’s conjectural history of the
emergence of culture was modelled, like Mandeville’s, on a secular, Lucretian
account of the evolution of human nature. Its purpose was to offer an anthropo-
logically informed analysis of the discontinuities between any scientifically plau-
sible description of aboriginal, asocial human capacities and the insatiable desires
of socialised men. Rousseau explicitly distanced his imagined savages in the state
of nature from the pre-political primitives described in The Fable by emphasising
the power of pity in their hearts. Still, the amoral endowments of the brutes
Rousseau described bore a striking resemblance to Mandeville’s primitives, whose
physical impulses and self-love conditioned their behaviour.27
Like Mandeville, Rousseau tied the problem of the foundation of society to the
ability of cunning minorities to tame and discipline their fellows. Mandeville had
argued that polities originated in acts of ideological duplicity as elites laid claim
to virtue by disguising their own self-seeking, thereby commanding the respect

and acquiescence of subordinates.28 Similarly, Rousseau described the first society
as founded by the ‘trick of the rich man’ who, assuming ‘the mask of benevo-
lence’, wrested from the weak their consent to agreements sanctifying property
rights, and thereby their own subordination.29 Where they disagreed was that, for
Mandeville, the history of the blessings of civilisation was initiated in this found-
ing moment; for Rousseau, by contrast, the momentous transition to civil life
marked instead a decisive break between a benign human nature and the defor-
mations of the ‘artificial men’ who had come to populate civil societies. Adam
Smith caught just this difference when he reviewed the Discourse of the Origins
of Inequality for The Edinburgh Review: through a feat of ‘philosophical chemistry’,
he wrote, Rousseau had transformed ‘the principles and ideas of the profligate
Mandeville’ into a critique of modernity.30
Once torn from the natural order, Rousseau argued, socialised men were des-
tined to live within regimes of ever-increasing complexity and interdependence.
Commercial society, the most recent expression of what is in essence a history of
increasing inequality, was distinguished by the rise of the ‘liberal and mechani-
cal arts’, themselves dependent for their flourishing upon a widening class of con-
sumers of the luxury items these arts supply. For Rousseau, the processes of
socialisation themselves establish the intersubjective conditions in which ‘the
sociable man knows how to live in the opinion of others; and it is . . . from their
judgement alone that he draws the sentiment of his existence’.31
But in truth, commercial moderns, in sharp contrast to their predecessors, have
at their disposal a hitherto unimagined armoury of goods whose display functions
as the primary vehicle for the construction of a self that has the opinion of others
as an indelible part of its content. In this way, ‘luxury, impossible to prevent
among men greedy for their own commodities and the esteem of others, soon
completes the evil that societies began’.32
Rousseau grasped the deepest implications of Mandeville’s insight that oppor-
tunities for hyper-consumption would intensify the role of vanity as a spur to eco-
nomic expansion, and at the same time encourage and be dependent upon a
theatricised public sphere. As in the theatre, so in modern society, ‘everything
being reduced to appearances, all becomes fractious and deceptive: honour, friend-
ship, virtue, and often even vices themselves, about which men finally discover
the secret of boasting . . .’33
Rapidly changing fashions of dress were the most ubiquitous expressions of
cultures of consumption, as Rousseau was vividly reminded when his decision to
adopt modest attire inspired a fashion craze in Parisian society, soon extending
to Versailles, where the Queen would don peasant costume to play at being a milk-
maid. Such displays only confirmed for Rousseau the association, celebrated by
Mandeville, of feminine power with the arts of excess, and excited his already
developed misogyny – although they did not prevent him from wearing fash-
ionable clothing when opportunities for seduction seemed to demand it. (I cannot
resist adding that on one of these occasions Rousseau failed to win the attentions
of Elisabeth d’Houdetot, the mistress of Saint-Lambert, who wrote the article
36 Edward Hundert
‘Luxe’ for Diderot’s Encyclopédie.) In women’s dress we can discern two distinct
moral economies, he claimed: one represented by Paris where women adopt fash-
ions to conceal those faults the fashion industries themselves define, the other by
rustic communities like that of Clarens in La Nouvelle Héloïse, where, by contrast,
the rejection of superfluities secures material abundance, and dress conforms to
need alone. Rousseau longed for, but certainly did not expect, a transparent social
order in which persons would wear clothing appropriate to their ages and sta-
tions. Here ‘the sign [would] say everything before one speaks’ and, as he fanta-
sised in his polemic against the stage, luxurious adornment would vanish while,
as in ancient Sparta and republican Rome, persons would be on permanent public
view.34
Rousseau’s refusal to accept as legitimate societies in which ‘the less natural
and urgent the needs, the more the passions augment . . . the power to satisfy
them’ derived from his adherence to the ideals of those antique polities which
Mandeville dismissed as absurd, mythic or simply impractical.35 But this utopian
commitment, fuelled by an unstable compound of rage and fascination, also
afforded Rousseau the conceptual distance from which to assess the habits of his
contemporaries. Mandeville had argued that commercial moderns, confronting
one another in societies transformed into markets for marks of esteem, were
obliged to learn the arts of managing impressions in order to establish their public
identities. Regimes of fashion dependent upon a wide circulation of goods were
indelible features of these societies, and Mandeville sought to show that in them
social actors would perforce calculate the symbolic value of these tokens of status,
and then, moved by a desire to emulate the great, acquire and display those items
whose possession one’s credit or disposable income made possible.
Rousseau agreed with Mandeville that the ‘furor to distinguish oneself’ was a
defining feature of modernity. The prosperity brought by commerce and manu-
facture did not signal independence, but rather a permanent preoccupation with
the opinions of others. His critique of these habits, however, went far beyond the
insight that possessions can become morally exhausting. For Rousseau understood
that the rich, as he put it, are ‘vulnerable in every part of their goods’.36
Mandeville had described a social actor who responds to opportunities for con-
sumption through purely instrumental attempts to promote his standing.
Rousseau, by contrast, was perhaps the first to grasp that the symbolic power of
superfluous possessions extends beyond their intended audience so as to define,
if not even to dominate, the very persons who possess them. He understood that
individuals in commercial societies could not be expected simply to delight in
their own plasticity and maintain a spectatorial distance from their own practices
of consumption and display. Luxury goods, he saw, have as one of their greatest
powers the self-endorsement of their possessors. Emulation and the envy from
which it springs might account for the first impulses to consume superfluities, but
no examination of its power could by itself explain the dramatic, and for Rousseau
distorting, transformations of the self promoted in consumer societies. Commer-
cial moderns crafted their public identities through the ostentatious display of
frivolities inaccessible to the majority. But also, and in Rousseau’s view crucially,
luxuries themselves had come to acquire the symbolic power to shape the self-
understanding of the private man behind the public mask, of the actor-consumer
upon whose escalating needs the progress of commercial society depends.
Rousseau was probably right in thinking that his attempts to counter Mandeville
had failed.37
By the 1780s, as the abbé Pluquet conceded in a review of the luxury debate,
Mandeville’s ideas had effectively dissolved the moral and theological connota-
tions of the term, while in Britain, Bentham said, The Fable of the Bees had ‘broken
the chains of ordinary language in the minds of educated persons’.38
In cultures whose middle and upper ranks had largely accepted Mandeville’s
view that the modern economy is founded upon the satisfaction of desire and
that ‘the wants of Man are innumerable’, ‘luxury’ would lose many of its previ-
ous associations with decadence and immorality. In my judgement, Rousseau was
also correct in believing that fashion, once commercialised to become the concern
of more than a few, and hyper-consumption, once generalised to include a vast
range of persons, do not merely increase one’s dependence upon the opinion of
others, but endow objects themselves with the power to promote fantasies of iden-
tity, fantasies that even Mandeville, ‘the most excessive detractor of human
virtues’, could have barely imagined.39 In another discourse, as we have learned
to say, these fantasies would be called alienation on the one hand, and on the
other, the fetishism of commodities.
We are all Mandevillians now, however, although not simply because of
the decomposition of Marxism, nor because more than a few still subscribe to
Mandeville’s cynical appraisal of the possibility of leading a genuinely moral life
in conditions of abundance. As its publishing history demonstrates, The Fable of
the Bees began to gain a modern readership only during the first decades of the
twentieth century, just after Simmel and Veblen detected singular patterns of con-
sumption and display in advanced capitalist societies, particularly in Simmel’s
Germany, where Mandeville first appeared in translation in 1914, and in Veblen’s
America, where, in 1924, F.B. Kaye completed his great edition of The Fable.40
Shortly before publication, the historian Arthur Lovejoy wrote to encourage Kaye,
telling him that Mandeville’s masterpiece contained all the main ideas of Veblen’s
Theory of the Leisure Class.41 After the first postwar boom, when Friedrich von
Hayek proposed that Mandeville was a ‘master mind’, Mandeville’s reputation
rose, and has continued to rise, in proportion to an awareness that the fashion
systems first analysed in The Fable have metastasised into dominant elements of
Western consumer societies, access to whose goods voters expect their govern-
ments to protect and sustain.42
Mandeville’s first readers may have thought it not only perverse but ridiculous
to describe the modern citizen as above all a consumer. Today, we have consid-
erably fewer grounds for such scepticism. We are Mandevillians now not only in
accepting the larger implications of the ‘petticoat thesis’ that the history of con-
sumption is an inextricable element in the history of our selves – but in acknowl-
edging that the management of escalating desire is an unavoidable responsibility
of the modern state.
38 Edward Hundert
As Mandeville’s significance has grown, Rousseau’s has diminished, so that he

is now regarded as a decidedly past master, even in the face of recently revived
communitarian sentiments. Rousseau’s idealisation of peoples free of excess, of
Corsican primitives and Swiss mountain villagers, may evoke nostalgic longings
in some; but these desires, as he would have bitterly recognised, seem as often as
not to be indulged through the purchase of goods that the fashion industries
happily confect for the purpose. Beyond fleeting cravings somehow to re-inhabit
a simpler, less luxurious past through the conversion of its symbols into elements
of decor, the career of Jacobin and Leninist sumptuary regimes have made most
of us more than a little wary of any actually existing Spartan manifestation of the
General Will.
Situated as we are, it is understandable that we have become attentive to the
social functions of opulence in the Renaissance, the Dutch Golden Age, pre-
revolutionary France and, of more immediate interest, to the birth of the first con-
sumer society in eighteenth-century Britain and its attendant pleasures of the
imagination.43
These issues, and the distinguished scholarship to which they have given rise,
speak to us more directly than would have been thought possible even one gen-
eration ago. But this very immediacy, as some of the scholars to whom I have
alluded might have reminded us, may threaten to compromise our attempts to
achieve the historical distance necessary for a full appreciation of the eighteenth-
century world of goods. To the degree that we seek to capture, and not merely to
register, the sense of bewilderment and moral displacement which accompanied
feelings of exhilaration and exuberance in the passage to commercial modernity,
Rousseau’s self-confessed failure may serve as a more useful point of departure
than Mandeville’s surprising triumph.
Notes
1. Denis Diderot, Encyclopédie, in Diderot et al., Encyclopédie, ou Dictionnaire raisonée des sci-
ences, des arts et des matiers, par une société des gens des lettres (New York, 1984), pp. 635–6.
2. Daniel Roche, The Culture of Clothing (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 435–69; Adam Smith, An
Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, 2 vols., ed. A.S. Skinner, W.B.
Todd and R.H. Campbell (Oxford, 1976), pt III, ch. iv. See also Donald Winch, Riches
and Poverty. An Intellectual History of Political Economy in Britain, 1750–1834 (Cambridge,
1996), pp. 57–89, and M.J.D. Roberts, ‘The Concept of Luxury in British Political
Economy: Adam Smith to Alfred Marshall’, History of the Human Sciences 11.1 (1998),
pp. 23–47.
3. Citations to Bernard Mandeville, The Fable of the Bees, or Private Vices, Public Benefits:
The Fable of the Bees, will refer to the volume and page number of the edition of F.B.
Kaye, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1924).
4. For useful discussions of the theme of luxury, see Mary Douglas and Baron Isherwood,
The World of Goods (New York, 1979); Christopher J. Berry, The Idea of Luxury. A Con-
ceptual and Historical Investigation (Cambridge, 1994); and John Sekora, Luxury. The
Concept in Western Thought, Eden to Smollett (Baltimore, 1977). See, too, Peter Stearns,
‘Stages of Consumerism: Recent Work on the Issues of Periodization’, The Journal of
Modern History 69 (March, 1997), pp. 102–17.
5. Mandeville, The Fable, II, p. 126.
6. Charles Secondat, baron de Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws (1748), A.M. Cohler, B.C.
Miller and H.S. Stone, eds. (Cambridge, 1989), Bk VII, ch. 1; Mandeville, The Fable, I,
pp. 127–8.
7. George Berkeley, The Querist, in The Works of George Berkeley, ed. T.E. Jessop (London,
1948), II, p. 117. For related contemporary opinion, see Erin Mackie, Market à la mode.
Fashion, Commodity and Gender in The Tatler and The Spectator (Baltimore, 1977).
8. Mandeville, The Fable, I, p. 356.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid., I, p. 228.
11. Ibid., I, p. 356.
12. John Brown, Estimate of the Manners and Principles of the Times, 2 vols. (London, 1757),
I, p. 173.
13. Nicholas Barbon, A Discourse Concerning the Coining of New Money Lighter in Answer to
Mr Lock’s Consideration about raising the Value of Money (London, 1696), p. 14.
14. Mandeville, The Fable, I, pp. 129–30.
15. Henry Fielding, An Enquiry Into the . . . Recent Causes . . . of the Increase in Robbers [1751],
in Complete Works of Henry Fielding, W.B. Henley, ed. (London, 1903), II, p. 783.
16. Mandeville, The Fable, I, pp. 330–1 and pp. 323–70.
17. John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Peter Niddich, ed. (Oxford,
1975), Book 2, ch. 21, para. 45.
18. Mandeville, The Fable, I, p. 107.
19. Ibid., I, p. 135.
20. Ibid., I, p. 108.
21. R. Galliani, ‘Rousseau, le luxe et l’ideologie nobilière’, in Studies in Voltaire and the Eigh-
teenth Century, no. 268 (Oxford, 1989).
22. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, A Discourse on Inequality, in The First and Second Discourses, Roger
Masters, ed. (New York, 1964), pp. 199–200; Nicolas Baudeau, Principles de la science
morale et politique sur le luxe et les lois sumptuaires (1767), in A. Dubois, ed., Collection des
Economistes (Paris, 1912), p. 14.
23. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Political Economy, in Roger Masters and Christopher
Kelly, eds. and trans., The Collected Writings of Rousseau (Hanover, New Hampshire,
1992), III, p. 154.
24. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on the Arts and Sciences, in The First and Second Dis-
courses, Roger Masters, ed. and trans. (New York, 1964), p. 51.
25. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Narcisse ou l’amant de lui-même, in Oeuvres Complètes, II, Jean
Starobinski, ed. (Paris, 1964), Preface, p. 969n.
26. Rousseau, Discourse on the Arts and Sciences, p. 64.
27. Rousseau, Inequality, p. 131.
28. Mandeville, The Fable, I, pp. 41–57.
30. Adam Smith, ‘A Letter to the Editors of the Edinburgh Review’, in W.P.D. Wightman
and J.C. Bryce eds., Essays on Philosophical Subjects (Indianapolis, 1982), p. 251.
32. Ibid., p. 199.
33. Rousseau, Inequality, p. 180; Rousseau, A Letter to M. D’Alembert on the Theatre, in Allan
Bloom, trans., Politics and the Arts (Glencoe, 1960), pp. 17–25.
34. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Emile, trans. Allan Bloom (Harmondsworth, 1991), pp. 322 and
348; Rousseau, Letter to D’Alembert, pp. 127–8.
36. Ibid., p. 162.
37. Rousseau, Narcisse, p. 966.
38. F.A. Pluquet, Traité philosophique, cited in Ellen Ross, ‘Mandeville, Melon and Voltaire:
The Origins of the Luxury Controversy in France’, Studies in Voltaire and the Eighteenth
Century 155 (1976), pp. 1897–1912, p. 1906; Jeremy Bentham, Introduction to the Princi-
40 Edward Hundert
ples of Morals and Legislation (1800), J.H. Burns and H.L.A. Hart, eds., (London, 1970),
ch. 10, XIII.
40. George Simmel, The Philosophy of Money [1900], trans. Tom Bottomore and David Frisby
(London, 1990); Thorstein Veblen, Theory of the Leisure Class [1899] (New York, 1967).
41. Mandeville, The Fable, II, p. 452.
42. Friedrich von Hayek, ‘Dr Bernard Mandeville’, Proceedings of the British Academy 52
(1966), pp. 125–41.
43. Lisa Jardine, Worldly Goods (London, 1996); Simon Schama, The Embarrassment of Riches:
An Interpretation of Dutch Culture in the Golden Age (London, 1988); Daniel Roche, A
History of Everyday Things. The Birth of Consumption in France, 1600–1800 (Cambridge,
2000); Neil McKendrick, John Brewer and J.H. Plumb, The Birth of a Consumer Society.
The Commercialization of Eighteenth-Century England (London, 1982); John Brewer and
Roy Porter eds., Consumption and the World of Goods (London, 1993); John Brewer, The
Pleasures of the Imagination (New York, 1997).
3
Luxury in the Dutch Golden Age in
Theory and Practice
Jan de Vries
Locating the origins of modern consumerism within the seemingly timeless pool
of luxury consumption is becoming for modern historians something akin to the
search for the Holy Grail. At least three bodies of literature now exist each pro-
claiming to have located the wellspring of modern materialism in as many eras
stretching from the eighteenth century to the present day.1 This essay proposes
that modern consumer behaviour made a decisive advance earlier still, in the
seventeenth-century Dutch Republic. In order to make this argument, I find it
necessary to work backward from the eighteenth century to the seventeenth, and
from British theory to Dutch practice. My thesis, put simply, is that theory fol-
lowed practice with long and curious delays: that a modern form of consumer
culture emerged before a means to describe and defend it existed.
The Old Luxury
Pre-commercial societies deployed a discourse of ‘luxury’ to discuss consumer

behaviour, and luxury consumption was generally a prerogative of the privileged
classes of rulers, warriors, churchmen and landowners. Their desire for luxury was
by far the most important source of support for the craftsmen, artists and per-
formers who produced society’s non-quotidian goods and services. It was luxury
production that supplied the elites with the markers of their status and author-
ity, and that embodied the definitions of refinement of taste, elegance of design
and power of expression. In short, luxury production was the material embodi-
ment of high culture. Its production depended on the appropriation of surplus
resources by elites whose fitness for rule was visibly justified by their patronage
of the suppliers of luxurious goods and services. Luxury consumption in this
context was profoundly conservative, in the sense that it reinforced the prevail-
ing society and culture.
Luxury was an essential prop upholding the established order, yet at the same
time luxury was universally understood to be fraught with moral danger. The
seven deadly sins and all the vices of concern to us were implicated in it: glut-
tony, lust, avarice, malice, anger, greed, vanity, sloth, pride. Only a thin line sepa-
rated the noble patron of the arts from the vain, prideful self-aggrandiser; the
41
42 Jan de Vries
refined palate merged effortlessly with gluttony; the admiration of a fine garment
easily turned to lust. The pursuit of luxury could bankrupt one’s family, under-
mine one’s health and submerge a healthy personality in debauchery.
Nor were the dangers of luxury purely personal. The individuals whose vanity,
pride and gluttony drove them to an arbitrary and limitless pursuit of the sen-
sations of pleasure formed an elite that could become so incapacitated in char-
acter (effeminate) and depleted in purse as to bring about the downfall of the
state. The comforts and pleasures of a luxurious life left men unfit for military
service and averse to taking the hard decisions needed to defend the state. The
study of ancient history made these lessons accessible to every educated Euro-
pean. A ‘Dance to the Music of Time’ led society through a seemingly unavoid-
able cycle leading from poverty via hard work to riches, and from the luxury
supplied by riches to decadence and back to poverty.
This rich complex of associations, between luxury and high culture and
between luxury, personal decadence and societal ruin drew upon both the Chris-
tian and classical traditions. It took shape in the pre-capitalist societies of feudal
Europe, when luxury was associated with – indeed, largely defined by – princely
and episcopal courts. But even in later centuries, as a far more complex society,
with large commercialised and urbanised sectors, emerged in western Europe,
court cultures long exercised a dominant role in defining ‘civilisation’ via their
cultivation of luxury.
Norbert Elias’s The Process of Civilization explored this phenomenon, arguing
that ‘civilisation’ (polite manners, elevated tastes, etc.) flowed via emulation from
the princely courts to the aristocracy and gentry, and so to the bourgeoisie. Later,
the concept of emulation was implanted into British historiography via the influ-
ential thesis of Harold Perkins (in The Origin of Modern English Society) that the
aim of English trading people was to leave their bourgeois origins behind. There
was, he argued, no authentic commercial culture in the eighteenth century. Emu-
lation of the aristocracy, rather than an autonomous bourgeois materialism, must
have been the prime mover of consumer behaviour.2
Earlier, in 1913, Werner Sombart, in his Luxury and Capitalism, had also denied
bourgeois origins to the rise of consumer cultures. Indeed, he saw capitalism more
generally, as emerging not from frugality, savings and investment (as Max Weber
had had it), but from luxury spending – a spending incited by the example of the
court and by the ‘rule of women’ in such environments, which led men into
the reckless pursuit of sensuous pleasure: all those things which ‘charm the eye,
the ear, the nose, the palate, or the touch’.3
Earlier still, Montesquieu had also emphasised the strategic position of women,
although he assessed their role quite positively. They functioned as the inter-
mediaries between the luxury of the old nobility and the more frugal culture of
the new commercial classes. Competition for their favours created the emulative
link, triggering consumption among those endowed with a work ethic, and setting
the stage for a temperate, moderate progress.
All these interpretations focus on the power and influence of an ‘Old Luxury’
of the pre-capitalist society living on to influence – perhaps even to shape – the
Luxury in the Dutch Golden Age in Theory and Practice 43
more commercial society of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. This type
of luxury lives on today, most obviously in the high-fashion apparel and acces-
sories of designers whose authority and influence is secured by the patronage of
elites – preferably non-bourgeois elites. It remains associated with ruinous expense
and moral questions. It would not impress us so much if these dangerous associ-
ations were absent.
The New Luxury
There is another kind of luxury, let me call it the ‘New Luxury’, for which there
was no established place in the pre-capitalist economy, but which is dominant
today. In making this crude distinction I appropriate a rhetorical device deployed
repeatedly by eighteenth-century writers seeking to identify that which required
a re-examination of the old moral strictures concerning luxury consumption. Sir
James Steuart, in 1767, distinguished Ancient Luxury (arbitrary and limitless) from
Modern Luxury (systematical and beneficial); Montesquieu distinguished Persian
Luxury (wasteful and degenerate) from what, ironically, I am forced to call Parisian
Luxury (where the influence of women meets the work ethic).4 Adam Smith had
it, more generally, over the savage state of ‘baubles’ and lavish hospitality and the
higher state of commercial society, and, among modern commentators, Colin
Campbell distinguished the Traditional Consumer (whose utility derived from the
immediate sensation of [corporal] pleasure) from the modern consumer – new to
the eighteenth century – who substitutes illusory for real stimuli, and depends
therefore on a never ending stream of new products to sustain the illusions.5 If
the Old Luxury satisfied a natural appetite, the new depended upon the cultiva-
tion of an addiction.
My New Luxury, rather than being defined by a royal court, is generated by
urban society. Rather than presenting a coherent style and hegemonic cultural
message, it consists of heterogeneous elements. The Old Luxury, striving for
grandeur or exquisite refinement, could be emulated, if at all, only by burlesque
or parody – obvious falsifications. The New Luxury, striving more for comfort and
enjoyment, lends itself to multiplication and diffusion. Where the Old Luxury
served primarily as a marker, a means of discriminating between people, times
and places, the New Luxury served more to communicate cultural meaning,
permitting reciprocal relations – a kind of sociability – among participants in
consumption.6
The New Luxury was a product of the commercial and urban societies that
Europe possessed by the sixteenth century, and which grew in size and influence
in the following centuries. Its promise and its dangers differed from the Old
Luxury. It was accessible to a much larger portion of society, which raised new
dangers of social confusion and the erosion of established hierarchies as diffusion
and emulation subverted the marker function of luxury consumption. Sumptu-
ary laws regulating dress were promulgated more frequently, but could not restore
the old patterns. Moreover, because the New Luxuries had a broader reach, their
aggregate consumption supported larger groups of producers who came to form
44 Jan de Vries
significant industries. In many cases, the luxury products were imported, and on
such a scale that they visibly affected the balance of trade. This attracted the atten-
tion of the state and the development of Mercantilist doctrines, which linked
luxury with imports, and imports with the shipment of gold and silver abroad,
to pay for the luxuries. A drain of coin abroad to pay for needless luxury, the
theory went, struck directly at the economic health of the state. Thus, in the sev-
enteenth century, the old arguments about the moral and social dangers of luxury
came to be joined by new, political ones.
The luxury debate
Luxury consumption had much to answer for, and yet the experience of the
most advanced economies of the time spurred a succession of philosophers from
the 1690s to the 1770s to raise up a fundamental challenge to the arguments
against luxury that I have just rehearsed, with their ancient pedigrees and godly
endorsements.
The ‘great luxury debate’ of the eighteenth century exercised some of the best
minds of the time and led to the fundamental new insights in political economy
of Adam Smith. At its heart was the new understanding, based on experience
rather than theory, that consumer aspirations – the desire for luxury – formed a
powerful wellspring of economic improvement. In fact, it led to what we would
come to call economic development.
In 1691 Sir Dudley North wrote, in his pamphlet Discourses upon trade,
The main spur to trade, or rather to industry and ingenuity, is the exorbitant
appetites of men, which they will take pains to gratify, and so be disposed to
work, when nothing else will incline them to it; for did men content them-
selves with bare necessities, we should have a poor world.7
Steuart, over 70 years later, claimed that:
The moment a person begins to live by his industry, let his livelihood be ever
so poor, he immediately forms little objects of ambition. [He] compares his
situation with that of his fellows who are a degree above him . . .8
Between these two observers are any number of others who noted the recent
appearance of some combination of new desire and new incitements to desire.
David Hume, beginning with the axiom that ‘everything in the world is
purchased by labour’, and asserting further that our passions are the only cause
of labour – that is, motivation to action – concluded that a society of sufficient
specialist producers causes all to apply themselves since, ‘the superfluity which
arises from their labour is not lost; but is exchanged . . . for those commodities
which men’s luxury now makes them covet’.9
The appetites of men, the little objects of ambition, the coveting of luxuries:
aren’t these the seat of the vices – of lust and gluttony, pride and vanity? Could
the unashamed indulgence in these vices lead to the social good of economic pros-
perity and growth? Bernard Mandeville, the Dutch emigrant to England, affirmed
precisely this in his scandalous poem of 1705, The Fable of the Bees.10 He describes
there a human society disguised as a beehive, in which the self-seeking, vain,
envious, lustful behaviour of individuals has the net effect of producing a pro-
ductive, prosperous society.
The Root of evil Avarice

That damn’d ill-natured baneful Vice,
Was slave to Prodigality,
That Noble Sin; whilst Luxury
Employed a million of the poor
and odious Pride a million more.
He concludes:
Thus every part was full of Vice,

Yet the whole Mass a Paradise.
With this challenge to conventional wisdom, a sustained debate of consumer

behaviour and its relationships to society and morality was well and truly
launched. But the social and economic reality to which the debate referred – the
development of a New Luxury – had taken shape earlier, and had developed most
fully not in England, but across the North Sea in the Dutch Republic. Thus, rather
than pursue in greater detail the English debate launched in the generation after
the Glorious Revolution, this essay will turn backward, to inquire into the society
that pioneered the New Luxury in the seventeenth century. Did it also develop a
discourse on luxury that corresponded to the new consumer behaviour of this
society? Or do we have here a situation in which practice outpaced theory, where
what people said about Dutch consumer behaviour was outmoded and mislead-
ing, being based on antiquated social categories.
Dutch luxury in theory
Did the Dutch develop a body of theory about luxury consumption? To answer
this question, we might turn first to the social thought of Calvin and of the
Reformed Church, which laboured to put its stamp on Dutch society in the wake
of the Revolt and Reformation of religion.
For most people today, access to Calvin’s thought is mediated by Max Weber,
or by a potted version of Weber’s argument in the Protestant Ethic. So it may not
hurt to go directly to the source. However, diligent readers of Calvin’s Institutes
and his several Commentaries will be disappointed in what they find. Rather, they
will be disappointed in what they do not find, for Calvin’s views on the material
world did not really differ from those found more generally in sixteenth-century
humanism. With Erasmus and Aristotle he recommended the via media – moder-
46 Jan de Vries
ation in the use of God’s gifts – rather than abstinence. For example, in his expli-
cation of the Lord’s Prayer, Calvin writes about the request ‘Give us this day our
daily bread’:
By this petition we ask of God all things in general that our bodies have need
to use under the elements of this world, not only for food and clothing but
also for everything God foresees to be beneficial to us, that we may eat our
bread in peace.
In his discourse on Christian freedom, Calvin gives evidence that the range of
goods ‘God foresees to be beneficial to us’ might be quite broad: ‘Let every man
live in his station, whether slenderly, or moderately, or plentifully, so that all may
remember God nourishes them to live, not to luxuriate.’
The message is clear, but without specific guidance about practical implemen-
tation. As our means increase, more of what God foresees to be beneficial is avail-
able to us. We are not forbidden to use and enjoy these things. But, Calvin goes
on to warn:
those who, not content with daily bread but panting after countless things with
unbridled desire, or sated with their abundance, or carefree in their piled-up
riches, nonetheless supplicated God with this prayer [give us this day our daily
bread] are but mocking him.
‘Unbridled desire’ turns one’s attention away from the source of one’s material
comforts. That is the line one cannot cross, and Calvin did not think most people
were capable of detecting and honouring that line:
There is almost no one whose resources permit him to be extravagant who does
not delight in lavish and ostentatious banquets, bodily apparel, and domestic
architecture; who does not outstrip his neighbor in all sorts of elegance . . .11
Calvin did not counsel otherworldliness, an escape from the temptations of pros-
perity. Nor did he demand what we would call ‘Puritan abstemiousness’. Such
a course was playing it safe – staying far away from the line. Calvin actually
recommends something much more difficult to implement: station or income-
specific moderation – i.e. keeping material goods in a proper perspective.12
Calvin’s views on luxury were not really exceptional. It is more likely that the
indirect impact of Calvinism, rather than its specific teachings on luxury, had the
greater impact on consumer behaviour, and perhaps the best place to look is in
Calvin’s emphasis on what we might today call the examined life. The beginning
of Christian knowledge was to know one’s true self – that is, one’s own sinfulness
and one’s dependence on God’s grace. It is here where the Heidelberg Catechism
– the introduction to the faith used by the Reformed Churches – began with its
first questions and answers. The Christian was to possess authenticity, in the psy-
chological sense, and this raised a vigorous objection to a ‘culture of appearances’
such as would be fostered by a fashion industry, or even to the theatre, where

the declared intention was to pretend to be what you are not. The use of luxury
goods to project a power, wealth or status one does not possess – to exploit the
anonymity of urban society to deceive strangers through theatrics and the grand
gesture, as an actor fools a (willing) audience – was anathema.
A second intellectual tradition capable of giving shape to a Dutch posture
towards luxury is Republican theory. The most influential – indeed, almost the
only – developed argument in the seventeenth century is found in the work of
the De la Court brothers, Johan and Pieter.13 Their argument, presented in the
1660s, is premised on the belief that all persons seek their own interest, motivated
by the passion of self-love. In monarchies this pursuit is unbridled, uninspected
and unresisted, leading inevitably to decadent luxury – the Old Luxury. In
republics, they reasoned, the human passions are checked by the evident need
for cooperation with others. Consequently, they are subject to self-examination
and therefore they are more likely to be governed and directed towards virtuous,
moderate consumption and prudent frugality.
Just how self-love is channelled in a republic is not developed in their work,
but not long thereafter Jansenist thinkers developed more fully the concept of a
non-vicious self-love channelled by commercial society to become a civilising
agent. Jansenism, a Catholic theology based on the Augustinian tradition that
also shaped Calvinism, emerged first in the Netherlands, North and South, and
attained its greatest influence via the scholars associated with Port Royal, a female
monastery near Paris. Amour-propre, or self-love, they defined as a desire for the
recognition of others. Rather than being a ‘pre-social’ passion of natural man –
base and uncontrollable – self-love in Port Royal philosophy was viewed as a
passion that emerges (providentially, they would say) at a certain stage in societal
development. Only in a commercial society could self-love be directed, via the
civilising mechanisms of reputation and opinion, and by mirroring one’s needs
through the eyes of others.14 Material goods had a new and honourable role in
this new context (and Port Royal philosophy had become familiar to Mandeville
before he moved to England in the 1690s).15
Two conclusions may be drawn from these observations. The first is that one
should not be too quick to align Calvinist teachings with abstemiousness. Like all
Christian theologies, it denounced hedonism, but unlike some it could accom-
modate readily to the material world of a commercial society so long as this did
not undermine ‘authenticity’. Second, republican theory and the Jansenist
concept of self-love combined to lead to an early recognition that some societies
could harness otherwise sinful and harmful human passions to the support of a
healthy polity and dynamic economy. The Dutch Republic appeared to be such
a society, and its hallmark was a self-examined, sociable consumerism.
The religious and the secular strands of this discussion had much in common,
but it cannot be said that they mingled to activate a fruitful, public debate. One
notable exception emerged in the 1730s as Dutch republican thought theorised a
concept of the virtuous citizen that was entirely compatible with, indeed predi-
cated on the existence of, a commercial society. Classical republicanism viewed
48 Jan de Vries
commerce, luxury and economic specialisation (i.e. dependence on others) as

destructive of virtue, and republican states as inherently unstable and short-lived.
Even late in the eighteenth century Rousseau continued to uphold such views. In
Holland, Justus van Effen, publisher of the Hollandsche Spectator (1731–35), argued
that free and commercial societies were the necessary basis for civilised com-
munication and sociability (what we might call an information-rich society). In
monarchies, such as France, sociability led too easily to politesse (‘a refined and
elegant form of behaviour that was pleasing to others, a capacity for smooth and
cultured conversation, a stylish presentation of self’). To Van Effen such a ‘culture
of appearances’, with its hypocrisy, deceptions and dependence on the whims of
fashion, was far removed from the true (republican) politeness based on reason,
virtue and sociability.16 In sum, amour-propre led to a theatricised public sphere in
monarchical societies, such as France, but it could also lead to the establishment
of a new foundation for republican virtue – reasonable and sociable – in com-
mercial societies such as the Netherlands.
Still, the two strands of thought I have identified did not develop into a full-
blown body of theory capable of defending and explaining the ‘real existing’ com-
mercial society that was the Netherlands of the seventeenth century. This may be
because of the conspicuous absence of a third strand: a determined opposition.
Across the North Sea, in England, the re-examination of obsolete social prescrip-
tions concerning luxury got underway later than in the Netherlands, after the
Glorious Revolution. It led almost immediately to a vigorous debate because of
the strength of the conservative opposition. Joyce Appleby speculates that this
debate was triggered by a practical political struggle focused on the East India
Company’s importation of cotton textiles. The defenders of the Company – and
of the consumption of imported luxuries more generally – had to attack the
balance of trade doctrines. In doing so, according to Appleby, they stumbled upon
a defence of domestic consumption as a positive and vital force.17
Nothing like this happened in the Netherlands. There, too, Indian calicoes were
imported on a large scale. The VOC was only slightly behind the English company
in the volume of its imports, and, since a large portion of the cotton goods landed
at London were re-exported to Holland, their impact on Dutch society must have
been great.18 Dutch textile producers duly protested this new competition, to be
sure, but the Republic did nothing to intervene in the importation of cotton
goods. In the absence of a body of theory or state policy to argue against there
was no need to develop an explicit theory in defence of innovative consumption.
What became explicit in England long remained implicit in Holland.
Dutch luxury in practice
A vocabulary to describe adequately the consumer behaviour of a commercial

society shaped by the ‘New Luxury’ took time to develop. Consequently, the con-
temporary commentaries on the material culture of seventeenth-century Holland
– whether written or visual in form – require a careful interrogation on the part
of the modern reader and viewer.
The written records are primarily the observations of foreign visitors, and these
are nearly unanimous in their verdict. But, in interpreting these documents we
must be mindful of the heavy ideological baggage that attached to this subject,
and the propagandistic purposes for which the ‘Dutch Example’ was paraded
before foreign readers.
Visual images appear to offer a rich alternative source of information about this
society. Indeed, Dutch paintings easily seduce us into believing that they offer
framed views of society, where we employ a historian’s gaze, poking about the
paintings for evidence as an amateur sociologist today might by walking down a
Dutch street and glancing into the uncurtained front windows of the houses. This,
too, is a temptation to be resisted, for the new material world revealed in many
of these paintings is typically enveloped in moral and iconographic conventions
steeped in the vocabulary of the Old Luxury.19
The writings of contemporary visitors were unanimous in celebrating what
Constantijn Huygens called ‘Holland’s glorious simplicity’. The English ambas-
sador in the years 1668–70, Sir William Temple, wrote Observations upon the United
Provinces, a book that has long been accepted as an authoritative account of
Golden Age society, if for no other reason than the fact that so many later writers
corroborated, or simply appropriated, his views.20 Temple was concerned to
explain the amazing economic power and prosperity of the Republic to his
envious English readers, and he placed great emphasis on
The simplicity and modesty of their magistrates in their way of living, which
is so general, that I never knew one among them exceed the common frugal
popular air.
He described every social class in turn, and except for the small corps of noble-
men, whom he regarded as poor imitations (of French fashion) rather than good
originals, he concluded with the observation:
There are some customs and dispositions that seem to run generally through
all these degrees of men among them; as great frugality and order in their
expense. Their common riches lye in every man’s having more then he spends;
or to say it more properly, in every man’s spending less than he has coming
in, be that what it will.
Of course, a rich person could save a good deal and still have plenty left to indulge
in extravagance, but Temple thought that such luxury expenditure in the
Republic
. . . is laid out in the fabrick, adornment, or furniture of their houses; things

not so transitory, or so prejudicial to Health and to Business as the constant
excesses and luxury of tables; nor perhaps altogether so vain as the extrava-
gant expenses of clothes and attendance.
50 Jan de Vries
Here is an observation – insightful, in my opinion, of the character of the New

Luxury relative to the Old – to which we will return.
But, for the most part, Temple stressed frugality to the point of self-denial.
By this we find out the foundation of the Riches of Holland . . . For never any
Country traded so much and consumed so little. They buy infinitely, but this
to sell again . . .
They are the great masters of the Indian spices, and of the Persian silks; but
wear plain woollens and feed upon their own fish and roots. Nay, they sell the
finest of their own cloath to France, and buy coarse out of England for their
own wear. They send abroad the best of their butter . . . and buy the cheapest
out of Ireland . . . for their own use.
In short, they furnish infinite Luxury, which they never practice, and
traffique in Pleasures which they never taste.21
Now, no one who has spent an afternoon viewing Dutch genre paintings or still-
lifes can lend full credence to Temple’s observations. Did they really ‘traffique in
Pleasures which they never taste’, and then, for added measure, hang on their
walls paintings of those very pleasures – just to remind themselves of what they
were missing? (See Plates 1a and b.)
Temple’s words alert us to a special feature of Dutch society – it was more than
ordinarily frugal and sober in the face of more than ordinary access to all the
world’s luxuries and pleasures. As Dutch trade expanded, her ports filled with the
precious cargoes brought from the Levant, Russia, Africa, Asia and the New World.
Amsterdam, the foremost port, could be described by 1648 as: ‘The warehouse of
the world, the seat of opulence, the rendezvous of riches, and the darling of the
gods.’22
This unique accessibility to the goods of the world was paired with a growth
in the productivity of domestic agriculture and industry to raise the purchasing
power of broad segments of society as well as make many merchants, investors,
property owners, and industrialists very, very rich. Here, for the first time – on
such a scale and on so enduring a basis – was a society in which the potential to
purchase luxuries extended well beyond a small, traditional elite. A substantial
tranche of society was now in a position to exercise choice – to enter the market
and spend money to fashion a consumer culture.
Interpreting Dutch consumer behaviour
Choice gives freedom, and freedom exposes one to moral dilemmas. Now these
dilemmas were faced by large numbers who earlier, and in other societies still,
had had their consumer choices constrained by the heavy hand of scarcity
and custom, and whose extravagances were channelled narrowly into well-
choreographed displays of excessive eating and drinking.
Simon Schama, in his celebrated book The Embarrassment of Riches, draws with
relish on the venerable arguments about the moral pitfalls that surround luxury
consumption – which he (wrongly, in my view) ascribes to Calvinist preaching –

to evoke a society caught on the horns of a dilemma: its own singular virtues,
producing prosperity, lead inexorably to the vices of luxury. He relies heavily on
paintings and other visual images in making his evocation, and these, I believe,
relied in turn on the ancient themes of luxury’s dangers that derived from
pre-capitalist, pre-market societies – the Old Luxury.
An ally in his project was the view of many historians of earlier generations
that the Republic’s decline after the 1670s was closely associated with, if not
caused by, the onset of a cultural over-ripeness which befell a decadent genera-
tion accustomed to luxury and, therefore, without the character and determina-
tion of their forefathers. On their watch, French fashion overwhelms Calvinist
simplicity, classicism pollutes the fresh spring of Dutch artistic genius and the
burgher families succumb to the blandishments of aristocratic life-styles. This
argument, owing far more to the contemplation of the fall of Rome than to
the reality of seventeenth-century Dutch society, was once uncritically embraced
by historians eager for simple explanations of a difficult subject. (See Plates 2a
and b.)
Rather than succumbing to the seductive vision of republican society in the
grip of the Old Luxury, we should set this venerable, but derivative, imagery aside
and attempt to see the new consumer culture being constructed by the innu-
merable choices of an enlarged population newly endowed with discretionary
income. In discussing their choices, the old discourse remained influential for the
simple reason that it was the only vocabulary available, but the reality of their
behaviour brought into being a distinctive material culture in which the luxuries
were directed towards the home more than the body, and adorned the interior –
of both home and body – more than the exterior. They tended to achieve comfort
more than refinement.23
Mandeville, that notorious champion of prodigality as the road to prosperity,
rejected the conventional wisdom about the sources of Dutch prosperity, as he
also rejected the arguments about Dutch republicanism harnessing and redirect-
ing the passions.24 ‘The Dutch may ascribe their present grandeur to the virtue
and frugality of their ancestors as they please,’ he wrote in the early eighteenth
century. In fact, he retorted with characteristic hyperbole: ‘In pictures and marble
they are profuse, in their buildings and gardens they are extravagant to folly.’ He
conceded that there were no great palaces and courts, but ‘. . . in all of Europe you
shall find no private buildings so sumptuously magnificent as a great many of the
merchants’ and other gentlemen’s houses in Amsterdam and in some of the great
cities of that small province.’
The papal nuncio to Cologne, Pallavicino, made a more penetrating observa-
tion during his visit of 1676. After visiting Amsterdam, where the system of radial
canals around the old medieval city was nearing completion, he noted that ‘only
a nation that does not squander its wealth on clothes or servants could have
succeeded in doing all this with so little fuss.’ ‘All this’, of course, was the erection
of many thousands of comfortable bourgeois homes, restrained by a 30–40-foot
exterior frontage from blatantly advertising the occupants’ wealth, but endowed
52 Jan de Vries
by a 190-foot depth with ample opportunity to achieve a new form of private

domestic comfort.
Exotic luxuries from the four corners of the world found their way into these
homes. Indeed, in 1697 Peter the Great travelled to Holland, among other reasons,
to acquire a fabulous collection of preciosities.25 The bourgeoisie also possessed
costly products of high craftsmanship such as tapestries and furniture. These often
came from the southern Netherlands, where craft traditions of long standing were
sustained by the patronage of local and Spanish courts.
What the cities of Holland themselves offered were New Luxuries. These prod-
ucts required real craft skills, to be sure, but the objective was not to fabricate
something unique. New Luxuries were products capable of multiplication, or
capable of being offered in a gradated range of qualities and prices. The canal
houses, just as more humble abodes, were decorated with Delft tiles of varying
qualities, just as their kitchens and tables made use of the orientally inspired Delft
faïence.26 Similarly, the canal houses were filled with the work of cabinetmakers’
wardrobes and linen chests – and much else. Here again, the great pieces were the
highest expression of a furniture tradition that came up from below, for even
farmers had – albeit more modest – versions of these same items. (See Plate 3.)
Then we come to the paintings. Dutch art, as is well known, was reconstructed
after the Reformation from an Old Luxury to a New Luxury as elite patronage
gave way to a market economy. By developing both product innovations and
process innovations (new themes in the paintings and new techniques of paint-
ing), Dutch artists opened new markets, allowing by mid-century some 700–800
masters to be active simultaneously, producing over the course of the century
many millions of paintings ranging in price from hundreds of guilders to the
‘dozijnwerk’ – work by the dozen – that fetched a guilder or two at the fair. Indeed,
if the possession of paintings in Delft can be generalised to all of Holland –
the province – then something like three million paintings must have hung on
the walls of Holland’s houses by the 1660s.27
One could go on to discuss clock- and instrument-makers – by 1700 a solid
majority of farmers had pendulum clocks hanging on their walls; book publish-
ing – the Republic had 781 printers and sellers in operation by the 1660s, a far
higher density than elsewhere in Europe; popular luxuries like tobacco pipes, and
decorative and utilitarian silver. In contrast to the exotic extra-European objects,
or the most refined material possessions from Brabant or further afield in Europe,
the New Luxuries were usually produced in Dutch cities. Some were imitations
and adaptations of foreign luxuries, such as Delftware, responding to Chinese
porcelain; some were cheaper versions of European luxuries, such as Delft and
Gouda’s tapestry works, or Amsterdam and Utrecht’s silk industry.
Craft production everywhere in Europe depended on specific skills that could
be transferred successfully only by the migration of artisans. Thus, the Republic’s
new crafts and industries inevitably find their origin in diffusion from abroad.
Still, in their new home, they developed a particular form, shaped by the nature
of Dutch demand – urban, burgerlijk, broad-based – and by the prevailing cultural
imperatives. These imperatives could be stamped with the label Calvinist, but
it might be better to invoke the concept of ‘Confessionalisation’.28 Calvinists,

Lutherans, Catholics – every Christian denomination – were concerned in the era
of the Dutch Golden Age to consolidate their projects of religious revitalisa-
tion, to penetrate to the broad base of society with programmes of education,
institutionalisation and greater social control. The cultural dimension of this
multi-centred movement left a deep mark on the design of everyday articles,
on accessible luxuries, on interior decoration and on clothing. This movement
was European rather than specifically Dutch, but it resonated with Holland’s social
and economic structures more fully and more creatively than elsewhere, which
caused the output of Dutch ceramics, paintings, prints, maps, books, furniture,
glass, and the dyeing and printing of textiles to be seen as particularly well suited
to the temper and purpose of the Confessional era. The integrating rather than
differentiating impact of these New Luxuries – their socialising rather than status
differentiating function – is revealed in the broader study of material culture. By
the late seventeenth century the striking feature of Dutch material culture is its
uniformity. The basic forms of expressing status and achieving comfort were
remarkably similar between city and country, and between rich and poor. It was
the cost and specific quality rather than the types of objects and their general
form, that differed.29
From the perspective of the outsider, Dutch society seemed to eschew luxury
altogether, for the Old Luxury was thin on the ground and hidden from view. But
a New Luxury, one we might call modern, or proto-modern, was in fact taking
shape – but could not be easily ‘read’ by the cultural outsider. Nor had Dutch
society itself developed a vocabulary or theory to express it adequately.
Its modernity was, however, in some sense premature. By the third quarter of
the seventeenth century a new cultural movement spread across Europe, ema-
nating from royal courts, associated with aristocracy, and featuring classical and
rococo forms which idealised gallantry and refinement. It affected the Republic
too. Its outward manifestations in the Netherlands are often held up as evidence
of decadence (the inevitable consequence of a prosperity-fuelled addiction to
luxury), but that can be argued only if the Netherlands is studied in complete
isolation from the Europe of which it was part. It remains true, however, that the
Republic was poorly endowed – whether in social structure, craft skills, mentality
or life-style – to offer much that was original to this new cultural project. A
European movement that had interacted with Dutch society to create something
original and powerfully appealing gave way, after 1670, to another European
movement that interacted weakly and derivatively with that same society.
Luxury consumption was not the undoing of the Dutch at the end of the sev-
enteenth century, as is still sometimes claimed by traditional cultural historians.
It wasn’t even a more than ordinary source of anxiety or embarrassment. Instead,
a consumer culture had been established, prematurely perhaps, so that its
eighteenth-century development would seem derivative in comparison with its
seventeenth-century novelty.
But the Dutch did not fashion its bits and pieces of religious and republican
thought into a new discourse to describe and theorise the new reality. Perhaps
54 Jan de Vries
this was because the new commercial society was too self-evident, and the oppo-
nents with whom battle had to be waged were too weak: no political elite to rail
against imported luxuries; no Court against which to wrest the power to define
fashion; no episcopal hierarchy with the power to add bite to its bark.
It was Adam Smith’s achievement, according to Donald Winch, to open up the
prospect of a stable way of living in a world in which the wants of the imagina-
tion were infinite.30 He showed that there only appeared to be a conflict between
morality and wealth, and that moral choice could sidestep the hitherto inevitable
cycles of prosperity and decay. But, in the Dutch Republic they may already have
been living this life, harnessing self-love in practice as philosophers later would
describe in theory.
Notes
1. The claims for an eighteenth-century consumer revolution are most vigorously made
in Neil McKendrick, John Brewer and J.H. Plumb, The Birth of a Consumer Society: The
Commercialization of Eighteenth-Century England (Bloomington, 1982); Carole Shammas,
The Pre-Industrial Consumer in England and America (Oxford, 1990). A late-nineteenth
century rise of consumerism is charted in John Benson, The Rise of Consumer Society in
Britain, 1880–1980 (New York, 1994); Richard W. Fox and Jackson Lears, eds, The Culture
of Consumption: Critical Essays in American History, 1880–1980 (New York, 1983);
Rosalind Williams, Dream Worlds: Mass Consumption in Late Nineteenth Century France
(Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1982). The emergence of a post-World War II consumer
society is analysed in many works. See Gary Cross, Time and Money. The Making of
Consumer Culture (London, 1993); Christopher Lasch, The Culture of Narcissism (New
York, 1979); Roland Marchand, Advertising the American Dream. Making Way for Moder-
nity, 1920–1940 (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1985).
2. Norbert Elias, The Process of Civilization (London, 1981; original German edition, 1939);
Harold Perkins, The Origins of Modern English Society (London, 1968).
3. Werner Sombart, Luxury and Capitalism (Ann Arbor, 1967; original German edition,
1913), pp. 2–5, 60.
4. Sir James Steuart, Inquiry into the Principles of Political Œconomy, 2 vols (London, 1767),
ch. 22, p. 325; On Montesquieu, see Tjitske Akkerman, Women’s Vices, Public Benefits.
Women and Commerce in the French Enlightenment (Amsterdam, 1992), p. 16.
5. Adam Smith, Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (Chicago, 1976;
reprint of Cannan Edition of 1904; originally published, 1776), see esp. Book III, ch. IV,
pp. 432–45; Colin Campbell, The Romantic Ethic and the Spirit of Modern Consumerism
(Oxford, 1987).
6. These are the two cultural purposes of consumption proposed by Mary Douglas and
Baron Isherwood, The World of Goods: Towards an Anthropology of Consumption (New
York, 1979).
7. Sir Dudley North, Discourses upon Trade (London, 1691), p. 27.
8. Steuart, Inquiry, ch. 21, p. 315.
9. David Hume, ‘On Commerce’, Essays: Moral, Political and Literary, T.H. Green and T.H.
Grose, eds., vol. 1 (New York, 1898), p. xx.
10. Bernard Mandeville, The Fable of the Bees: or, Private Vices, Publick Benefits (Oxford, 1924,
republication of the 1732 edition). Mandeville’s poem was first published, as The Grum-
bling Hive, in 1705. In 1714 he republished it, now furnished with explanatory ‘remarks’.
Successively more elaborate editions appeared in 1723, 1728, and 1732. He died in 1733.
11. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Atlanta, 1973; 1536 edition), pp. 109–10,
246.
12. Constantijn Huygens offers a nice illustration of the moral choices before which the
Calvinist stands in his satirical poem about the excesses of court life, The Costly Folly.
Written while Huygens was on a diplomatic mission to the court of King James in
England, he reveals his own temptation to use the necessity of dressing for high state
office as an excuse to indulge in dandyism. The elaborate and costly dress appropriate
to his station was not the problem; rather, it was the unleashing of ‘unbridled desire’
that the occasion seemed to encourage. Cited in Anne McCants, ‘Meeting Needs
and Suppressing Desires: Consumer Choice Models and Historical Data’, Journal of
Interdisciplinary History 26 (1995), p. 196.
13. Pieter de la Court, True Interest and Political Maxims of the Republic of Holland (London,
1702) [Het Interest van Holland, ofte Grond van Hollands welvaren (Amsterdam, 1662)];
Johan and Pieter de la Court, Politieke Discoursen, 2 vols (Amsterdam, 1662);
Anonymous, but attributed to the de la Courts, Zinryken fabulen (Amsterdam, 1685),
translated as Fables Moral and Political, With Large Explications, 2 vols (London, 1703).
14. On Port Royal philosophy, see Akkerman, Women’s Vices, Public Benefits; see also William
Doyle, Jansenism (London, 2000).
15. Mandeville left the Netherlands soon after earning his doctorate at Leiden in 1691. He
and his family had been implicated in the ‘Costerman Riot’ of 1690, an anti-tax riot in
Rotterdam. The Mandevilles appear to have authored and distributed a satirical poem
directed at Rotterdam’s schout, or bailiff, whose unpopularity had been intensified by
his insistence on applying the death penalty to Cornelis Costerman, a member of the
town militia, who stood accused of fatally stabbing a tax collector who had detained a
group in possession of a cask of wine on which no excise had been paid. Mandeville’s
career, even his liberty, were under a cloud, and he decided to leave the country, even-
tually settling in England. For more on this interesting pre-history of the author of the
Fable of the Bees, see Rudolf Dekker, ‘ “Private Vices, Public Virtues” Revisited: The Dutch
Background of Bernard Mandeville’, History of European Ideas 14 (1992), pp. 481–98.
16. Wyger R.E. Velema, ‘Ancient and Modern Virtue Compared: De Beaufort and Van Effen
on Republican Citizenship’, Eighteenth-Century Studies 30 (1997), pp. 437–48.
17. Joyce Appleby, ‘Ideology and Theory: The Tension between Political and Economic
Liberalism in Seventeenth-Century England’, American Historical Review 81 (1976), pp.
499–515. ‘A consumption-oriented model of economic growth threatened major inter-
ests of the ruling class that had coalesced in Restoration England. Dangerous leveling
tendencies lurked behind the idea of personal improvement through imitative buying’
(p. 511).
18. Imports of Indian Cotton Goods (in thousands of pieces per year)
Dutch East English East
India Co. India Co.
1661–70 88 199
1671–80 137 578
1681–90 348 707
1691–1700 278 296
From 1701 to 1740, English cotton goods re-exported to the Netherlands rose from
36 to 51 per cent of the amount brought to England.
19. The possibilities and pitfalls of using visual images as historical sources is discussed in:
Jan de Vries, ‘Introduction’, Jan de Vries and David Freedberg, eds, Art in History; History
in Art. Studies in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Culture (Santa Monica: Getty Center for the
History of Art and the Humanities, 1991), pp. 1–6.
20. Sir William Temple, Observations upon the United Provinces of the Netherlands, Sir George
Clark, ed. (Oxford, 1972; orig. pub. London, 1673).
21. Ibid., pp. 70, 86, 87, 119.
22. In the view of Bruce Lenman, ‘the Dutch had entered an era of consumerism . . . a good
generation before the English.’ He supports this view by invoking the astonishment of
56 Jan de Vries
Samuel Pepys upon being shown round the hold of a captured Dutch East Indiaman in
1665. ‘It affected him like a trip to Aladdin’s cave,’ Lenman relates, for his guides ‘. . .
did show me the greatest wealth lie in confusion that a man can see in the world –
pepper scattered through every chink you trod upon it; and in cloves and nutmeg I
walked above the knees – whole rooms full – and silk in bales, and boxes of copper-
plate, one of which I saw opened.’ And then there were the tales of the bags of
diamonds and rubies that the English captors had ‘taken from the Dutch Vice Admirals
neck’. Bruce P. Lenman, ‘The English and Dutch East India Companies and the Birth of
Consumerism in the Augustan World’, Eighteenth Century Life 14 (1990), p. 51. Robert
Lathan and William Matthews, eds, The Diary of Samuel Pepys (London: 1972) 6: 300.
23. For a stimulating discussion of the origins of domesticity, see Witold Rybczynski, Home:
A Short History of an Idea (New York, 1986), p. 77.
24. Mandeville, Fable, the quotations that follow are from Remark Q, pp. 185–9.
25. See: Renée Kistemaker, Natalja Kopaneva and Annemiek Overbeek, eds, Peter de Grote en
Holland. Culturele en wetenschappelijke betrekkingen tussen Rusland en Nederland ten tijde
van tsaar Peter de Grote (Bussum, 1996).
26. In view of the great success of Dutch ceramics, it is instructive to contemplate their
failure in developing a porcelain industry. No porcelain industry arose comparable to
those of Meissen, Vienna, Copenhagen, Sèvres or Worcester. The technical skills were
not missing; rather, the missing element was the court associations essential to design
and market what was, in essence, a new ‘Old Luxury’.
27. Ad van der Woude, ‘The Volume and Value of Paintings in Holland at the Time of
the Dutch Republic’, in De Vries and Freedberg, eds, Art in History, History in Art,
pp. 285–330.
28. On this concept, see Heinz Schilling, ‘Confessionalization in the Empire’, in Heinz
Schilling, ed., Religion, Political Culture, and the Emergence of Early Modern Society (Leiden,
1992), pp. 205–46; Philip S. Gorski, ‘The Protestant Ethic Revisited: Disciplinary
Revolution and State Formation in Holland and Prussia’, American Journal of Sociology
99 (1993), pp. 265–316.
29. Hans van Koolbergen, ‘De materiële cultuur van Weesp en Weesperkarspel’, in Anton
Schuurman, et al., eds, Aards geluk. De Nederlanders en hun spullen (Amsterdam, 1997),
p. 152; Jan de Vries, ‘Peasant demand patterns and economic development: Friesland,
1550–1700’, in William N. Parker and Eric L. Jones, eds, European Peasants and their
Markets (Princeton, 1975), pp. 234–6.
30. Donald Winch, Riches and Poverty. An Intellectual History of Political Economy in Britain,
1750–1834 (Cambridge, 1996), p. 89.
Plates
1a. Jan Jansz. Van de Velde, ‘Still-life with a Pipe-lighter’, 1653.
1b. Jan Daridsz. De Heem, ‘Still-life of a Banquet Side-table’, 1646.
2a. Jacob Backer, ‘State Dinner’, 1633/34.
2b. Adriaen Backer, ‘State Dinner’, 1683.
3. Pieter de Hooch, ‘Two Women at a Linen Chest with a Child’, 1663.
4
Aestheticising the Critique of Luxury:
Smollett’s Humphry Clinker
Michael McKeon
The Expedition of Humphry Clinker (1771) (Plate 4) is the last – and many would
say the best – of the novels of Tobias Smollett. As with all great works of litera-
ture, its critics have diverged on its interpretation in significant ways; and yet they
have tended to agree on one point whose implications for how to read the novel
are fundamental. This is the conviction that Smollett’s central character, Matthew
Bramble, speaks for its author and therefore articulates Humphry Clinker’s social
and ethical norms. As John Sekora puts it, ‘the acceptable views expressed in the
novel radiate from Bramble’.1 Sekora’s reading is particularly relevant to the con-
cerns of this volume because it comes in the context of an authoritative account
of western attitudes towards luxury, in which it assigns Humphry Clinker a place
of special importance: ‘By literary standards Humphry Clinker is, among other
things, the most successful conservative attack upon luxury in any genre during
the 1750s and 1760s . . .’2 In this essay I hope to show the vulnerability of this
view, most of all if we read Smollett’s novel ‘by literary standards’. By this I mean
several things. First, I aim to attend to the way Smollett’s attitude towards luxury
is clarified if we compare it to his use of other controversial categories of the day
– enthusiasm, sensibility, pastoral, romance – which have a notably literary reso-
nance. Second, and more important, I will suggest how the volatility of these cat-
egories infiltrates the formal dimension of Humphry Clinker. Formality – the dense
network of techniques by which novels, poems and plays implicitly establish their
meaning by situating themselves in relation to existing genres, styles and tradi-
tions of writing – is the hallmark of literary discourse, not the means by which
literary works transcend socio-ethical issues, but the means by which they take a
socio-ethical position. To read Humphry Clinker within the history of literary forms
is to read it most persuasively as a historical artifact.
That Humphry Clinker contains a powerful critique of luxury is, of course, not
to be doubted. And early on in the narrative, we have good reason to anticipate
the sort of novel that Matt Bramble’s obsessive preoccupations suggest: namely,
an affirmation of the backward-looking values of the paternalistic country gen-
tleman, who scours the face of modern Britain lamenting the world we have lost
and railing against its replacement. Matt’s letters home evince a familial and
‘feudal’ care for the tenants of Brambleton-hall, evoking an organic community
57
58 Michael McKeon
hierarchically stratified by relations of personal dependence. Equally charitable to

his tenants and to the poor, Matt shows a notable leniency towards a ‘notorious
poacher’, supposing ‘he thought he had some right (especially in my absence) to
partake of what nature seems to have intended for common use’.3 Brambleton-
hall, thus reflecting the customary view of property as a common use-right, is
apparently a ‘natural economy’ in the sense not only of proper stratification,
but also of appropriate land use. And it therefore provides the normative basis
for Matt’s implacable critique of what luxury has wrought in the rest of Britain,
particularly its cities.
In the spa town of Bath, the burgeoning industries of leisure and tourism have
aggravated an urban development that is entirely unregulated by principles of
necessity or utility. And ‘[a]ll these absurdities,’ says Matt, ‘arise from the general
tide of luxury, which hath overspread the nation, and swept away all, even the
very dregs of the people. Every upstart of fortune . . . presents himself at Bath . . .
men of low birth, and no breeding, have found themselves suddenly translated
into a state of affluence, unknown to former ages . . . [k]nowing no other criterion
of greatness, but the ostentation of wealth, they discharge their affluence without
taste or conduct, through every channel of the most absurd extravagance . . .’.4
‘This portentous frenzy is become so contagious, that the very rabble and refuse
of mankind are infected.’ And those who have fled Bath ‘will be followed by the
flood of luxury and extravagance, which will drive them from place to place to
the very Land’s End . . .’.5 London is even worse.
What I left open fields, producing hay and corn, I now find covered with
streets, and squares, and palaces, and churches. . . . The tide of luxury has swept
all the inhabitants from the open country – The poorest ’squire, as well as the
richest peer, must have his house in town, and make a figure with an extraor-
dinary number of domestics. . . . There are many causes that contribute to the
daily increase of this enormous mass; but they may be all resolved into the
grand sources of luxury and corruption. . . .6
Social emulation and the allure of upward mobility have engendered a crisis
of conspicuous consumption in which everyone apes their betters. Simplicity gives
way to complexity, ordered stability to fluidity and mixture, the natural rule of
sufficiency and need to artificial and limitless indulgence of appetite and want.
According to Matt, ‘the capital is become an overgrown monster; which, like a
dropsical head, will in time leave the body and extremities without nourishment
and support’.7 In other words, the Body Politic has become (to adopt one of Matt’s
favourite figures of speech) ‘diseased’, ‘infected’, ‘consumed’ by a ‘contagion’ for
which only the fast-disappearing natural economy of the countryside, apparently,
affords a cure. Or, to adopt another favourite figure – that of tumultuous liquid-
ity – the stable and settled English way of life has been overwhelmed by a ‘flood’,
a ‘tide’, a ‘torrent’ of luxury that has ‘swept away’ the moderation and tradition
of the past – even, the relatively recent past of Matt’s own youth.
Aestheticising the Critique of Luxury 59
Matt Bramble’s lamentations, grounded in the familiarity of pastoral opposi-

tion (country versus city, nature versus art, past versus present), thus possess the
plausibility of cultural norms. What are the factors that check our impulse to take
Matt’s lamentations as the norm of Smollett’s novel? Most obviously, Humphry
Clinker is something of an innovation in epistolary form in that it assigns signifi-
cant narrative roles to five letter-writers, who are sharply distinguished from each
other in sex, social status, cultural attitudes, even epistolary style. Read against
Samuel Richardson’s already canonical precedent, where the letters of the pro-
tagonist overshadow all others in both number and authority, Smollett’s episto-
lary novel is an experiment in the multiplicity and relativity of perspective. Matt’s
letters to Dr Lewis are intermixed with the letters of other family members, whose
responses to shared experiences reflect so broad a range of values as to suggest
that, in Humphry Clinker, the truth of things lies in a composite and mixed view
of reality.
Only a little less obviously, Matt’s normative status is belied by the ostenta-
tious idiosyncrasy of his judgement. By this I mean not simply his eccentricity,
but the fact that the Bramble family travels have been undertaken expressly as a
cure for his bodily and mental disorders. Matt is the emergent type of the Man
of Feeling, whose ever-present but elusive bodily malady seems to consist most of
all in hypochondria – in the fact that his bodily malady cannot be separated from
his mental condition. As Matt tells Dr Lewis, he has ‘had an hospital these four-
teen years within myself, and studied my own case with the most painful atten-
tion . . .’.8 The problem is that this programme in self-study presumes that
separation of mind and body, of subject and object, which Matt’s illness precludes:
‘I find my spirits and my health affect each other reciprocally . . .’.9 In fact, Matt’s
body provides the perfect analogue for the diseased Body Politic against which he
rails.
In accounting for this condition of mixture and reciprocity, Smollett’s charac-
ters have recourse to the emergent language of sensibility. Thus Matt’s nephew
Jery muses that his uncle’s ‘peevishness arises partly from bodily pain, and partly
from a natural excess of mental sensibility; for, I suppose, the mind as well as the
body, is in some cases endued with a morbid excess of sensation’.10 Sensibility, if
‘excessive’, is also ‘natural’ in its excess, and it plays a role in mixing not only
mind and body but also good and ill humour, tenderness and toughness. In Jery’s
analysis, Matt ‘affects misanthropy, in order to conceal the sensibility of a heart,
which is tender, even to a degree of weakness . . . Indeed, I never knew a
hypochondriac so apt to be infected with good-humour. He is the most risible
misanthrope I ever met with.’11
Jery uses the figure of ‘infection’ here to emphasise a condition of mixture
within Matt’s body just as Matt uses it in reference to the greater Body Politic; the
difference is that the pejorative association of Matt’s usage is absent. No doubt
this owes to differences in point of view. But what are we to make of the fact that
Matt’s far-flung travels, prescribed as a treatment for his illness, recapitulate the
mixture characteristic of his illness at the macro-level? True, this may be a case of
homeopathic medicine, of treating like with like. But at the end of the novel
60 Michael McKeon
Matt’s reflections on his travels seem to validate them in a more absolute fashion:
‘We should sometimes increase the motion of the machine, to unclog the wheels
of life; and now and then take a plunge amidst the waves of excess, in order to
case-harden the constitution. I have even found a change of company as neces-
sary as a change of air, to promote a vigorous circulation of the spirits, which is
the essence and criterion of good health.’12 Here Matt himself positively recon-
ceives the figures of speech that have been so forcefully negative in application
to British society and culture at large. Travel helps revalue the condition that had
seemed a disease – the condition of mixture, liquidity and excess – as in fact a
cure for stagnation.
Mixture is also central to the Bramble family’s travelling entourage. Although
we might expect this family to reflect the ‘feudal’ hierarchy and propriety of
Brambleton-hall, the Brambles are in fact (as Jery calls them) ‘a family of origi-
nals’ recently and haphazardly conjoined by the death of Matt’s sister.13 Matt and
Tabby are not husband and wife but unmarried brother and sister; Jery and Liddy
are their orphaned nephew and niece who, having been educated apart, have
scarcely met each other as the novel opens; and the party is completed by Tabby’s
maid, Winifred. As Matt puts it, ‘I an’t married to Tabby, thank Heaven! nor did
I beget the other two: let them choose another guardian: for my part, I an’t in a
condition to take care of myself; much less to superintend the conduct of giddy-
headed boys and girls.’14 And despite Matt’s candour here, throughout the novel
there is a strong sense in which these highly extended family members variously
act out a scenario of strict familial ties and iron-clad obligations as though to mask
the tenuous instability of their family commitments.
This is evident, for example, in the running sub-plot of Mr Wilson, which punc-
tuates the entire narrative from beginning to end, and which, in eliciting dia-
metrically opposed responses from the various family members, also economically
demonstrates their utter disparity and mixture. As Liddy is surreptitiously pursued
by Mr Wilson, who appears to be a common player, Jery plays, with a passion
bordering on the bodily, the antiquated patriarchal role of possessive elder brother
enraged at this threat to family honour: ‘I must own, my blood boils with indig-
nation when I think of that fellow’s presumption . . .’15 Matt, the putative pater-
familias, is by contrast quite moderate in his response. If we sense in Jery’s
overemphasis on patriarchal family relations a masquerade that compensates for
their insubstantiality, what light does this shed on Matt’s patriarchal care for
Brambleton-hall?
The tenuousness of Bramble family ties is perhaps most obvious in the fact that
we are well into the novel before we even meet its eponymous hero, and are close
to the end of it before we discover that he is the missing familial link, Matt’s long-
lost son. And yet from our first sight of him, Humphry Clinker’s identity is self-
consciously shrouded in the antiquated trappings of family romance. When the
Bramble family first meets him he’s ‘a shabby country fellow’ and a ‘beggarly
rascal’ who none the less has ‘a skin as fair as alabaster’, a hint of higher origins
quickly adumbrated by Matt’s charitable donation, by which Humphry ‘meta-
morphosed himself’ into Matt’s footman ‘by relieving from pawn part of his own
clothes, with the money he had received from Mr. Bramble’.16 We may well wonder
at the way Matt’s charity thus appears to contribute to the social mobility he
despises. And Matt himself soon bristles when he finds Humphry holding forth
to a crowd in the role of untutored Methodist preacher – a crowd that includes,
in Jery’s words, ‘all the females of our family . . .’.17 ‘What you imagine to be the
new light of grace,’ says Matt to Humphry,
‘I take to be a deceitful vapour, glimmering through a crack in your upper story

– . . . Heark-ye, Clinker, you are either an hypocritical knave, or a wrong-headed
enthusiast; and in either case unfit for my service – if you are really seduced
by the reveries of a disturbed imagination, . . . some charitable person might
provide you with a dark room and clean straw in Bedlam, where it would not
be in your power to infect others with your fanaticism . . .’18
Matt’s language of ‘infection’ and ‘enthusiast’ ‘imagination’ invites us to see

Humphry through his eyes, as a germ of that social disease – the disease of mobil-
ity and mixture – which Matt despairs of in the Body Politic. But we cannot help
being reminded, as well, of Matt’s own diseased body and the mobile spirits
unleashed by his sensibility.
By now it is clear that in Humphry Clinker Smollett has constructed a dynamic,
multi-levelled analogy between the nation, the family and the individual body in
which each level serves as a cautionary index to the state of the others. Thus the
destabilising excess of upward mobility at the macro-level is replayed by the
anomaly of Humphry’s elevation into the Bramble family, as well as by the enthu-
siastic vapour glimmering in his own ‘upper story’. However, at any single level
of the analogy, the multiplicity of potentially comparable elements challenges us
to sustain, or to question, the order of the structure itself. If Humphry’s religious
enthusiasm is a sign of vapourish excess, what about Matt’s sensibility; or the
‘family-pride’ of his nephew, whom Matt refers to in this state as ‘the hot-headed
boy’?19 Although Jery seems to think ‘all the females of our family’ are suscepti-
ble to Humphry’s Methodism, sex is complicated here by social status. Liddy tem-
perately remarks that ‘as yet I am not sensible of these inward movements, those
operations of grace, which are the signs of a regenerated spirit; [however] [s]ome
of our family have had very uncommon accessions, particularly my aunt and Mrs.
Jenkins . . .’.20 Later on, Liddy’s scepticism about Win has increased: ‘[A]ll this
seems to be downright hypocrisy and deceit – Perhaps, indeed, the poor girl
imposes on herself – she is generally in a flutter, and is much more subject to
vapours . . .’21
In the gendered usage of contemporaries, ‘vapours’ are to women as the psy-
chosomatic illness of ‘hypochondria’ is to men. And the vapours that seem truly
characteristic of women in particular are those not of religious enthusiasm but of
romantic love; as Matt suggests (and as we’ve already seen in Liddy), ‘the passion
of love has in some measure abated the fervour of devotion . . . Love, it seems, is
resolved to assert his dominion over all the females of our family . . .’22 Yet Liddy’s
love reminds us of nothing so much as Matt’s hypochondria: according to him
62 Michael McKeon
‘her colour fades, her appetite fails, and her spirits flag. – She is become moping
and melancholy, and is often found in tears.’23 However, the symptom of spiritual
excess that is shared by all the Brambles – the one family trait that truly conjoins
this family of originals – is sensibility itself. Humphry Clinker is strewn with what
its characters refer to generically as ‘affecting scenes’, moving tableaux of human
distress and transfiguration that provide family members a chance to display, with
the paradoxical engagement of spectatorial detachment, their sympathetic and
charitable responses.24 The instability of excessive affect – the aesthetic response
to life as though it were art and to art as though it were life – is thus paradoxi-
cally the stable foundation on which family likeness is grounded, the answer to
the question of Bramble family identity.
In time Matt is reconciled to Humphry’s Methodism, not because it loses its
aura of enthusiastic excess, but because Matt learns to valorise that excess by asso-
ciating it with the sensible passions he values in a grateful servant. ‘If there was
any thing like affectation or hypocrisy in this excess of religion, I would not keep
him in my service; but so far as I can observe, the fellow’s character is downright
simplicity, warmed with a kind of enthusiasm, which renders him very suscep-
tible of gratitude and attachment to his benefactors.’25 Not yet aware of their
biological connection, Matt and Humphry are permanently reconciled through a
sequence of affecting scenes in which their reciprocal service and care are mani-
fested through figures of liquidity that extend, and positively transform, an image
whose negativity is established very early on in the ‘tide of luxury’ and the filthy
waters at Bath. No reader can forget Matt’s mounting hysteria at the infectious
corruption lurking in these supposedly curative fluids. But if early on liquidity is
a disease masquerading as a cure, Matt discovers with Humphry that the process
can also be reversed. At first viewing, Matt had mistaken Humphry’s preach-
ing for the theatrics of a quack mountebank.26 Having failed to cure his master
through spiritual salvation, at Scarborough, Humphry hears Matt’s cry at the cold-
ness of the water and ‘took it for granted I was drowning, and rushed into the
sea, clothes and all, overturned the guide in his hurry to save his master. . . . [H]e
seized me by one ear, and dragged me bellowing with pain upon the dry beach
. . . I was so exasperated . . . that, in the first transport, I struck him down . . .’27
Three months later, farce recurs as near-tragedy. While attempting to ford a
river swollen by rain water, the family carriage is overturned by the ‘impetuosity’
of the ‘flood’ and Jery witnesses the ‘melancholy spectacle’ of Humphry dredging
up his apparently lifeless master: ‘The faithful Clinker, taking him up in his arms,
as if he had been an infant of six months, carried him ashore, howling most
piteously all the way, and I followed him in a transport of grief and consterna-
tion –’ Humphry lets Matt’s blood, and ‘in a little time the blood began to flow
in a continued stream’ and Matt is truly saved. The several family members express
their fear and relief according to their own peculiar sensibilities. ‘As for Clinker,
his brain seemed to be affected. – He laughed, and wept, and danced about in
. . . a distracted manner . . .’28
So Matt, literally saved and reborn by his own son, is chastened and purged
by exhibiting, in little, the impetuous liquidity that almost takes his life. As if to
recapitulate this contradictory drama on the macro-levels of family and nation,

Matt immediately settles on Humphry an annuity that, by rendering him finan-
cially independent, provides the social ‘circulation’ and upward mobility needed
to fulfil Humphry’s status as a dangerous germ of social disease. Whereupon
Smollett, as if to set this act of charity in a more proper light, immediately fulfils
his earlier promise of family romance by revealing, with all the self-conscious
trappings of romance discovery, that Humphry is really Matt’s natural son, born
while Matt was still using his mother’s name so as to inherit her estate. Or as Matt
puts it, Humphry is ‘a crab of my own planting in the days of hot blood and
unrestrained libertinism’, an admission that confirms our sense that Matt and
the things he purports to despise are ineluctably mixed.29 Tabby now affects to see
in Humphry’s face the signs that he ‘hath got our blood in his veins’; however,
we know that it is not the genealogical blood of patrilineage, but the ‘hot blood’
of sensibility, that marks Humphry as a Bramble family member.
Not satisfied with his act of narrative charity, Smollett quickly engineers the
other romance discovery we have been waiting for, which elevates Mr Wilson from
the lowly status of strolling player to that of a gentleman. Or as Lydia puts it, ‘the
slighted Mr Wilson is metamorphosed into George Dennison, only son and heir
of a gentleman’, who also happens to be Matt’s old college friend.30 Win’s semi-
literate version of this is a characteristically ludicrous transformation of Ovidian
metamorphosis itself: ‘The player man that came after miss Liddy, and frightened
me with a beard at Bristol Well, is now matthewmurphy’d into a fine young gen-
tleman . . .’31 As is often true, however, Win’s malapropism is a disease that bears
a cure, a grotesque linguistic mixture that bespeaks the association we ourselves
are likely to make between the two discoveries, along with the truth that, in the
modern world, proper names are as exchangeable as financial estates.
In the romance tradition, the convention of discovered parentage customarily
reconciles outer birth with inner worth, confirming the nobility of character we
have already identified in the foundling or bastard by revealing an elevated
patriline. Humphry’s inner worth is never in doubt; but in Smollett’s version we
feel not so much the seamless dovetailing characteristic of the traditional family
romance as the ragged mixture of authentic upward mobility. Raised in the work-
house and trained as a country blacksmith and ostler, Humphry may be elevated
to the status of first-born gentry at the end of the novel, but his actual existence
will be as a husbandman on his father’s farm, and his demeanour remains the one
in which he was socialised by the real world. We might even see this as Smollett’s
version of realism. Under modern conditions of social fluidity and exchange, it is
not improbable that Matt should discover his footman to be his son, and his family
to be a micro-version of the burgeoning British nation that has been Matt’s spec-
tacle for the past seven months: that is, a heterogeneous collection of individuals.
Smollett parodies the antiquated tropes of ‘romance’ so as to preserve while
suspending them, an experiment whose results are suggested by the way he
has his characters use the emergent tropes of the ‘romantic’. In the highlands of
Scotland, Jery feels ‘an enthusiastic pleasure when I survey the brown heath that
Ossian was wont to tread’, and he finds the banks of Loch Lomond ‘agreeably
64 Michael McKeon
romantic beyond all conception’.32 Matt agrees: ‘Every thing here is romantic
beyond imagination.’33 Romance becomes romantic through the secularisation of
spirit, when romance claims to supernatural description can be sublimated into
affective response. The sublimity of the Scottish landscape is not a condition of
its being but an enthusiastic feeling of its viewer, oxymoronically imagined as that
which is ineffably ‘beyond’ imagination. When both letter-writers note that a ‘Mr.
Smollett’ has his house at Loch Lomond, they remind us that the liminal experi-
ence of romantic sublimity – of being poised between subject and object, imagi-
nation and reality – is also what we feel in the presence of Smollett’s reflexive play
with romance endings, suspended between the story and its telling, between what
is half-perceived and half-created.
This is also, of course, the mixed state of mind of the aesthetic, which calls for
neither belief nor disbelief, but the willing suspension of disbelief. Smollett
positively transvalues romance and enthusiasm by aestheticising their critique as
error so that it becomes instead an acknowledgement of their pleasing service-
ability as fiction. Something similar may be said of his transvaluation of luxury.
In Humphry Clinker, Smollett holds before us the traditionalistic lamentation of
fluidity and excess even as it is replaced by the celebration of Humphry’s expedi-
tion, his expeditious journey of upward mobility. Matt’s ferocious critique of
luxury in the Body Politic is never explicitly contradicted – any more than is his
dejection at his own bodily disorder. Instead, Smollett suggests that in both cases,
the supposedly normative condition of order and stasis is less the cure than the
symptom of disease. Midway through his travels, Matt remarks that ‘I now begin
to feel the good effects of exercise – I eat like a farmer, sleep from mid-night till
eight in the morning without interruption, and enjoy a constant tide of spirits,
equally distant from inanition and excess . . .’.34 By the same token, even as Matt
continues to condemn the tide of mobility and circulation that engulfs the Body
Politic, he shows us that his welfare depends on it. This can be seen if we attend
to the way the Bramble family’s journey both exemplifies and challenges the tra-
ditional tropes of pastoral opposition – of country and city, nature and artifice,
need and want.
While still in Bath, Matt writes, ‘I have, for the benefit of my health, projected
an expedition to the North . . .’.35 Centuries-long patterns of cultivation in the
British Isles had long since made standard the coding of ‘south’ and ‘north’
as ‘developed’ and ‘underdeveloped’, respectively. But because the Brambles’
leisurely and incremental travel northward is experienced and rationalised as a
continuous chain of pastoral movements from ‘south’ to ‘north’, each link in the
chain – for example, crossing the Tweed from England to Scotland – is plausible
in itself, yet radically relativised by its placement in a more comprehensive series.
Thus the lowlands are to the highlands as England is to Scotland; and epistolary
relativity only complicates things further, since where Jery sees industry and
prosperity in the farms of Northumberland, Matt finds ‘the English side of that
river neither so well cultivated nor so populous as the other’.36 The contradictory
Obadiah Lismahago raises the effect to the level of colonialist ‘macro-pastoral’
when he sets against the barbaric cannibalism of the American Indians their
incredulity at the barbarism of a people who ‘pretended to create God himself, to

swallow, digest, revive, and multiply him ad infinitum, by the help of a little flour
and water . . .’.37 The result is that what we are urged at each moment to see as
mutually exclusive values and behaviour are repeatedly shown to overlap, mix or
lapse into indistinguishability. But this is at least in part because, as Matt’s eye
for circumstantial detail makes obvious, the modern circulation of commodities
renders city and country inseparable, two sides of the same coin.
As we have just seen – and as Matt’s cherished natural economy at
Brambleton-hall would make us expect – comparisons and contrasts tend to
concern matters of agrarian improvement, productivity and consumption. In
London Matt is diverted by the contradictory phenomenon of the ‘public gardens’
at Ranelagh and Vauxhall, and perplexed by the vast urban market of ‘Covent-
garden’, with its ‘fresh eggs imported from France and Scotland’; although he also
admits it ‘affords some good fruit’. Daily life in London mysteriously sustains pas-
toral antithesis by effacing or inverting it: ‘[B]y five o’clock I start out of bed, in
consequence of the dreadful alarm made by the country carts, and noisy rustics
bellowing green pease under my window.’38 Matt’s critique of luxury, undimin-
ished by such scenes, coexists with the accumulation of evidence that Matt
himself is quite dependent upon its tidal ebb and flow. In Bath he excoriates the
‘mob of impudent plebeians’, whose circulation will increase ‘till the streams that
swell this irresistible torrent of folly and extravagance, shall either be exhausted,
or turned into other channels . . .’ But in the very next paragraph he remarks to
Dr Lewis that ‘[b]y your advice, I sent to London a few days ago for half a pound
of Gengzeng; though I doubt much, whether that which comes from America is
equally efficacious with what is brought from the East Indies . . .’.39 Like his bastard
son Humphry Clinker, Matt’s ginseng is the sign of his secret role in the modern
circulation of things. Is the exotic medicinal herb a ‘need’ or a ‘want’? Already in
the habit of capitalising on the international market, Matt is slowly revealed to
be fully, and knowingly, submerged in the cultural liquidity from which he stri-
dently attempts to distance himself.
The revelation culminates in the highlands of Scotland, and then in the
romance discoveries that bring the novel to its close. North of Inverary, Matt
writes home appreciatively about the traditional husbandry of black cattle, and
with deep feeling about what he calls the ‘patriarchal’ influence the chiefs con-
tinue to exert over their clan members. But he also speculates that ‘[t]he most
effectual method I know to weaken, and at length destroy this influence, is to
employ the commonalty in such a manner as to give them a taste of property and
independence . . .’ In Matt’s thinking this might be done most effectively by estab-
lishing a cod fishery. ‘It cannot be expected,’ he muses, ‘that the gentlemen of
this country should execute commercial schemes to render their vassals inde-
pendent . . . but a company of merchants might . . . Our people have a strange itch
to colonize America, when the uncultivated parts of our own island might be
settled to greater advantage.’40
Matt’s modernising ideology of improvement surfaces most decidedly in the
final episodes, when his old friend Charles Dennison recounts having used the
66 Michael McKeon
most advanced methods ‘for making experiments in agriculture’ to improve his

own estate, and Matt himself then helps Baynard toward achieving the same
end.41 We may be surprised to hear Matt apply to these improvements the same
idealising pastoralism that he has used to describe the natural economy of
Brambleton-hall. Indeed, the process is depicted less as a modernisation than as
a restoration: ‘[T]he pleasure-ground will be restored to its original use of corn-
field and pasture,’ and Matt orders Baynard’s gardener to ‘turn the rivulet into its
old channel, to refresh the fainting Naiads . . .’42 Thus Matt employs pastoral idyll
to accommodate and familiarise agrarian reality. And as he makes epistolary prepa-
rations for the family’s return to Brambleton-hall and we find that no modernising
improvements are required there, we are confronted by a final discovery – that
the traditionality of Brambleton-hall and its paterfamilias has all along been a self-
conscious pastoral trope, a late allusion to the country-house poem.43 The social
norm is really social theatre, a performance of pastoral convention that is no less
a pleasing fiction than the romance convention of discovered parentage.
A passionate critic of luxury and extravagance, Matt ends by showing his
involvement in, and tacit approval of, precisely those socioeconomic develop-
ments on which the rise of luxury has depended. On the face of it this sounds,
at worst, like sheer hypocrisy, at best like a radical conversion. In fact, it feels more
like the disclosure of character traits that have always been there, just below the
surface of performative archaism. Something similar can be felt in the romance
discoveries that provide formal closure for Smollett’s novel, whose old-fashioned
incredibility is refashioned as the aesthetic enjoyment of a self-conscious trope
made realistic by the fluidity of modern social intercourse. In the end, reading
Humphry Clinker is a lesson in learning to discern, beneath the broad façade of
traditionality, the innovative modernisations which that façade helps facilitate
and humanise.
Notes
1. John Sekora, Luxury: The Concept in Western Thought, Eden to Smollett (Baltimore, 1977),
p. 240.
2. Ibid.
3. Tobias Smollett, The Expedition of Humphry Clinker, ed. Lewis M. Knapp and Paul-Gabriel
Boucé (New York, 1984), pp. 14–15; see p. 5.
4. Ibid., pp. 36–7.
5. Ibid., p. 57.
6. Ibid., pp. 86–7.
7. Ibid., p. 87.
8. Ibid., p. 23.
9. Ibid., p. 154.
10. Ibid., p. 17.
11. Ibid., pp. 28 and 49.
12. Ibid., p. 339.
13. Ibid., p. 8.
14. Ibid., p. 12.
15. Ibid., p. 224.
16. Ibid., p. 83.
17. Ibid., p. 137.

18. Ibid., p. 138.
19. Ibid., pp. 144 and 145.
20. Ibid., pp. 135–6.
21. Ibid., p. 260.
22. Ibid., p. 208.
23. Ibid., p. 235.
24. Compare ibid., pp. 20–3, 185–6, 263–4.
25. Ibid., p. 154.
26. Ibid., pp. 99–100.
27. Ibid., p. 184.
28. Ibid., pp. 313–14.
29. Ibid., p. 319.
30. Ibid., p. 336.
31. Ibid., p. 337.
32. Ibid., pp. 240 and 238.
33. Ibid., p. 248.
34. Ibid., p. 219.
35. Ibid., p. 66.
36. Ibid., pp. 214 and 207.
37. Ibid., p. 193, p. 196.
38. Ibid., pp. 88–9 and 120–2.
39. Ibid., pp. 37–8.
40. Ibid., pp. 253–6.
41. Ibid., pp. 320–8 and 343–4.
42. Ibid., p. 343.
43. Ibid., pp. 350–1.
Plate
4. ‘Matthew Bramble Recognises Some Ancient Friends’, from Tobias Smollett, The Expedi-
tion of Humphry Clinker, 1793.
Part II
Delectable Goods
Luxury was material goods and their acquisition as much as it was discourse. Dena
Goodman, in Chapter 5, ‘Furnishing Discourses’, analyses the characteristics of
particular luxury goods such as furniture as a material manifestation of the dis-
course of luxury. Goodman sets out a debate on luxury from the mid-eighteenth
century in France conveyed in terms of Old versus New Luxury. Like the cat-
egories set out by de Vries for the Dutch Republic, these counterpoised wealth,
status and power with commerce, utility, taste and comfort. Modern commerce
displaced barbaric luxury. The French writing desk made for women epitomised
the modern luxury consumer good. It conveyed the transformation of luxury into
a fashion economy. Furniture-makers produced writing desks in a whole range
of types and qualities. They developed new techniques in veneers, varnishes and
lacquers, marquetry and spring mechanisms, and made use of exotic woods of the
Old and New Worlds. And it shifted the status categories of old luxury to the
gender categories of new luxury.
Chapter 6, ‘The Circulation of Luxury Goods in Eighteenth-Century Paris’
shows how the luxury goods and novelties which flooded Paris over the course
of the eighteenth century were circulated and exchanged in a sophisticated busi-
ness economy of intermediaries. Laurence Fontaine argues that the goods them-
selves circulated as an alternative currency, goods easily turned to cash through
pedlars, pawnbrokers or revendeuses à la toilette in order to settle gambling debts
or pay for other expenses. Pedlars conducted an international luxury goods trade
through an extensive range of shopkeepers. These goods also circulated at all levels
of society through a wide range of dealers, secondhand clothing sellers and those
who dealt in fabrics, lace and jewellery in visiting their clients at home. Fontaine
provides us with a taxonomy of the metropolitan trade in luxury goods, and the
distribution and credit networks that diffused from an economy of luxury to one
of fashion.
Luxury was not, however, simply a discourse and material world of the wealthy
and the middling orders, but was also one of the poor. John Styles, in Chapter 7,
‘Custom or Consumption? Plebeian Fashion in Eighteenth-Century England’,
argues that clothing conveyed respectability, status and fashion. Even amongst
the poor, new and relatively luxurious clothing was bought at particular stages
69
70 Delectable Goods
of the family life cycle. Young men and women invested their first adult earnings
in suits or dresses in the best materials they could afford to reflect recent fashion
trends. Styles incorporates the labouring poor into the broader consumer culture,
but sets this expenditure within a customary economy where best clothing was
worn at occasions shaped by the festive calendar.
5
Furnishing Discourses: Readings of a
Writing Desk in Eighteenth-Century
France
Dena Goodman
When you stop in front of a little eighteenth-century writing desk in one of the
furniture galleries of a museum such as the Louvre, the Victoria and Albert or the
Metropolitan Museum of Art today, what do you see? (See Plates 5 and 6.) What
world does that piece of furniture disclose to you? I imagine that for most people,
the exquisite marquetry, gilt bronze mounts and feminine curves of such a piece
call up the opulent, aristocratic world of court and salon in the waning years of
the French monarchy – a world in which ridiculously and unfairly wealthy women
and men performed their inherited status and privilege in sumptuously decorated
surroundings at the expense of the great mass of the people. The feelings called
up in this moment of encounter probably contain a mixture of romantic nostal-
gia for the beauty, elegance and innocent pleasures of such a life and moral con-
demnation for its corruption, decadence and the guilty oppression of those whose
poverty and hard work sustained it.
This moralised vision of a desk and the world it evokes is indebted to both the
French Revolutionaries who justified their extra-legal actions as the necessary and
moral destruction of such a world, and to the Romantics and Reactionaries who,
taking the Revolutionaries at their word, mourned its loss. It has been renewed
culturally many times over in the intervening years. In the novels of Balzac, for
example, the greed and ugliness of the post-revolutionary bourgeoisie always
evoked the beauty and lost innocence of the old regime. More recently, films
such as Ridicule (1996) have moralised on that beauty by showing the pleasures
to be saturated by cynicism; and art exhibitions such as ‘The Splendors of
Versailles’ (1998), which brought furniture, paintings and other artifacts from
the royal palace to Jackson, Mississippi, have made sure to moralise even as they
glamorised it.1
Mary Sheriff suggests that it was the nineteenth-century German cultural his-
torian Jacob Burckhardt ‘who generalized the term rococo and used it to describe
the dissolution he saw in the late phases of all periods and styles. Rococo, in other
words, was synonymous with degenerate.’2 Perhaps this is where Karl Toth, writing
in Germany after World War I, got the idea of the rococo as ‘the quintessence of
French Femininity’ and the ‘most feminine of Epochs’. For Toth, ‘French culture
is therefore artificiality, [the] cultivation of luxury.’3 French culture had a ‘secure
71
72 Dena Goodman
and unique place in mankind’s cultural household’, as the luxury of civilisation

itself, according to Toth, but it had to be stripped of all power and simply ‘care-
fully cherished’. What he called ‘German labour-culture’ would regenerate civil-
isation by assuming the power wrested from feminine France in the name of world
peace.4
The metaphorical identification of eighteenth-century furniture with a
moralised and gendered historical and cultural construction of the old regime is
not always so inflammatory, but it remains prevalent. For example, it underlies
Leora Auslander’s argument in Taste and Power: Furnishing Modern France. ‘Objects,
especially domestic objects, played a distinctive role in the representation of
power under absolutism,’ she writes; ‘the crown displayed its strength both
through its possessions and through its control of those who made, sold, and
bought them. An absolute monarchy would in principle have only one style in
domestic objects, and the state would determine it.’5 Although Auslander goes
on to glorify furniture-makers by asserting that ‘actual creativity and innovation
could only come from the artisans themselves’, the thrust of her argument is that
furniture reflects the social and political order, and the old regime was an order
shaped by an absolute monarchy concerned only with the display of power.6 Thus,
the historical meaning of an eighteenth-century writing desk lies in the way it
reflects royal taste and displays the power of monarchy through the emulation of
royal style by the owner of the desk.7
Such a historical interpretation of old regime furniture is problematic on two
counts. First, its mimetic reading is based on a kind of pathetic fallacy whereby
it transfers (although does not ascribe) to inanimate objects a human moral judge-
ment. Second, the simple picture on which it is based of a royal and aristocratic
old regime concerned exclusively with the maintenance and display of power can
be seen as itself moralistically driven in the light of more than a decade of revi-
sionist scholarship on the old regime and the French Revolution that has revealed
a vibrant public sphere (in which the monarchy was one player among many);
a breakdown of the traditional social order; and a dynamic, commercialised
economy well before 1789.8 If we want to turn the writing desk into a mirror of
the old regime, we could see reflected in it the dynamic processes of commerce
and consumption that were tearing apart the traditional world that Auslander
evokes. And indeed, in this chapter I will try to remove our writing desk from the
romanticised pre-modern world of noble artisans, powerful kings and courtly
aristocrats in order to situate it within the framework of the modern world of
consumer culture that began to take shape in Paris in the eighteenth century.
This essay is thus presented as a contribution to the understanding of the
dynamic of French commerce and consumption in the eighteenth century, the
culture and society which they shaped, and the way in which we read furniture
historically. But rather than making the writing desk stand for this alternative
vision of eighteenth-century French society, I propose that we look for its meaning
in the discourses and debates in which members of that society sought to make
sense of a changing world. In particular, I propose to dissociate the rococo writing
desk from the descriptive marker ‘luxury’, typically associated with the old regime,
Furnishing Discourses 73
and to relocate it in relation to competing discourses of luxury and commerce in

the matrix of which attitudes towards material goods were and continue to be
articulated. In this way I hope to excavate the desk from the layers of discursive
meaning in which it is embedded, while at the same time contributing to a better
understanding of a culture constituted by those layers of discourse constructed
upon a small but significant piece of furniture.
The French writers who engaged in the eighteenth-century debate on luxury mar-
shalled moral, political and economic discourse in an effort, in Daniel Roche’s
words, ‘to understand the power of things’.9 Roche has laid out the debate well,
dividing it into several stages. In traditional society, he argues, there was no serious
debate about luxury because luxury supported rather than challenged the social
order in its limitation to the few, and because, in the greater scheme of things,
the Christian notion of charity was meant to compensate for the inequality luxury
defined.10 The first modern critique of luxury emerged in response to the great
political changes wrought by Louis XIV in the last decade of the seventeenth
century. An aristocracy humbled by the redistribution of wealth and power to
‘new men’ at their expense learned to deploy the language of the ‘common good’
to legitimise a new public role for themselves as representatives of the nation and
champions of social order. They attacked luxury (in the wrong hands) as disrup-
tive of that social order and called for moral leadership to arrest its growth. They
invoked both Christianity and the ancients in defence of their position.
By 1730, Roche shows, a defence of luxury had been articulated that attacked
‘ancient frugality’ as a myth and argued that luxury created work and thus engen-
dered rather than squandered wealth. Whereas the attack on luxury was propelled
primarily by political change, the defence of luxury was a validation of an expand-
ing economy. By 1740, when the first French translation of Bernard Mandeville’s
Fable of the Bees appeared, the ground was already laid for its reception.
Mandeville’s radical refusal to moralise economic behaviour, as well as his loca-
tion of that behaviour in human nature, stimulated a debate on economic matters
in salon, academy and print that continued through to 1789. Voltaire, champion
of the moderns, weighed in in the 1730s; various encyclopedists and physiocrats
dominated the discussion in the 1750s, within and without the pages of the
Encyclopédie; while at the same time, Rousseau staked out his position against
the Enlightenment as an attack on luxury.
By the 1760s, the Rousseauian reaction seemed to have won the day. Sarah
Maza has argued recently that in the second half of the eighteenth century,
‘luxury’ was not so much the key term in a debate as it was the marker for a
certain anxiety – ‘a convenient code for all of society’s perceived problems’.
Whereas Voltaire and other early eighteenth-century French anglophiles had
defended luxury as a stimulus to the economy, industry and invention, by the
1760s, luxury had lost its defenders. Maza suggests that as France entered a period
of social crisis leading up to the French Revolution, luxury came to be associated
74 Dena Goodman
again with social disorder, with the England that had humiliated France in the
Seven Years’ War – indeed, with change of all sorts. It was invoked out of concern
for, among other things, ‘aristocratic profligacy, the effects of commerce and con-
sumerism on society, and the condition of the countryside’.11 In other words, the
aristocratic attack on luxury launched at the end of the seventeenth century had
been turned back on the aristocracy by Rousseauian moralists who now attacked
luxury throughout society and society through luxury. No longer able to repre-
sent themselves as the victims of court-supported luxury, the aristocracy were
now the object of their own critique. And modernising commerce, far from
reordering society by following Mandevillian human nature, simply destabilised
it further. There was no longer an economic justification for, or a proper social
location of, luxury; there was no place for it to hide.
Maza’s interpretation explains the demise of the defence of luxury in the 1760s,
but it does not explain what happened to the arguments in favour of luxury that
had been central to the defence of modernity, civilisation and Enlightenment
itself right through the 1750s. For the champions of modernity, civilisation and
Enlightenment gained momentum just as the chorus of attacks on luxury swelled.
The 1760s and 1770s were, by all accounts, the high point of the high Enlight-
enment. My point here is not to dispute that for many commentators ‘luxury’
served as a convenient portmanteau in which to toss all the things that they asso-
ciated with the social anxiety they felt in the face of significant social change.
Rather, I would like to suggest that it was possible to use ‘luxury’ in this way only
once a new discourse had come into use to contain the rivers of goods flowing
into Paris from around the globe and the even greater number of novelties being
produced in the workshops of Parisian artisans and provincial manufacturers for
a broadening public of consumers.
In the first half of the eighteenth century, ‘luxury’ and ‘necessity’ – categories
which had developed in a world of few objects where there was a large gap
between the many who made do with the simple objects of necessity and the very
few who asserted their power and status by displaying the extravagant objects of
luxury – became increasingly inadequate. As the number of objects in circulation
increased along with their diffusion through society, the words ‘luxury’ and
‘necessity’ lost both meaning and power. At the same time, ‘luxury’ was hope-
lessly burdened with a set of moral and political connotations that could not be
shaken off.
We can see in the attempts of various men of letters before the 1760s to defend
luxury their struggle to comprehend this new world of goods within an old dis-
course before abandoning it altogether. Voltaire’s approach, for example, was
simply to declare a new definition of luxury by shifting its associations: ‘We have
finally arrived at the point where luxury resides only in taste and in comfort,’ he
wrote in the Siècle de Louis XIV (1751). ‘We have left vain and exterior pomp to
the nations who still know only how to display themselves in public and where
the art of living is unknown.’12 But even Voltaire could not legislate in matters
of definition, and his attempt to change the meaning of ‘luxury’ by associating
it with a new culture of taste and comfort only contributed to the proliferation
of meanings of it.
‘Luxury’ had come to mean so much and so little that Saint-Lambert, who
tackled the subject for the Encyclopédie, was forced to admit that he could not
‘claim to assemble here all the good and the bad that has been said of luxury’. He
would limit himself to the main arguments for and against it, and ‘to showing
that history contradicts all of them’.13 In the article ‘Encyclopédie’, Diderot chose
luxe as his example of a word in desperate need of definition. ‘We say, without
any of us being mistaken, of an infinity of objects of all sorts, that they are luxu-
ries,’ he wrote, ‘but what is this luxury that we attribute so infallibly to so many
objects? Here is the question which will not be answered with any precision except
as a result of a discussion which those who demonstrate the most accuracy in the
application of the word luxury have not had, are not perhaps even in a position
to have.’14
Diderot’s use of luxe as an example of a word in need of definition suggests the
impasse which the debate on luxury had reached in the 1750s. Arguing that there
were different kinds of luxury – an old-style luxury which functioned as a display
of power, and a new kind of luxury which stimulated commerce while demon-
strating and orchestrating politeness and civility – only confused the issues. What
philosophes such as Diderot and Saint-Lambert needed was a new discourse in
which it would no longer be necessary to devise or defend such distinctions as
that between luxe d’ostentation which entailed ‘unproductive expense’ and luxe de
commodité, which contributed to ‘creative labour’; or more simply, between luxe
vicieux and luxe utile.15 Since attitudes towards the word luxury were clearly going
to be harder to change than those towards the goods and practices it was being
asked to describe, the new world of goods that was making Paris a mecca for shop-
pers would be situated within a new discourse of commerce in which fashion,
taste, utility and comfort, rather than wealth, status or power, were the key deter-
minants of meaning and value. Luxury would remain as a moral category with
which to condemn those consumers whose practice of consumption was seen as
morally wrong, socially useless and politically harmful.
‘It is by means of the Merchant that gold circulates, that the agreeable is joined
to the useful, that the world is enriched, and that France makes known in
all countries its fashions, its nice things, its industry,’ declared Louis-Antoine
Caraccioli, in Paris, le modèle des nations étrangeres, ou l’Europe française (1777).
‘Work then, ingenious Lyonnais, elegant Parisians,’ he continued; ‘everything you
do will be exalted as a masterpiece, so much confidence is there in your talents.
. . . The most minor bagatelle that leaves your hands carries the imprint of deli-
cacy and taste.’16 Was Caraccioli advocating luxury? ‘I will not discuss here the
advantages and disadvantages of luxury; that is not my point,’ he declared.
76 Dena Goodman
I will leave it to some to say that it is the cause of all our misfortunes; to others,
that it is the soul and spring of Monarchies; and while they are arguing, I’ll go
to sleep, rousing myself only to observe that Europe without French elegance
remained gothic, and would still be buried under its gold, and that in con-
tracting the happy habit of spending wisely and with taste, it has emerged from
its lethargy, and the agreeable is mixed with the useful to render life sweet and
comfortable.17
Rather than debate the virtue and value of luxury, men of letters such as
Caraccioli effectively changed the subject by focusing on questions of productiv-
ity, utility, taste, comfort, industry, improvement and innovation. By the 1770s,
the abbé Raynal was no longer contrasting bad luxury and good luxury, but luxury
and commerce. In the historical introduction to his Histoire des deux Indes, a best-
selling compendium on European colonialism and global trade, Raynal praised the
commercial Arabs of the Middle Ages, who used their wealth to cultivate ‘the arts
and letters, and were the only conquering nation to have advanced the reason and
industry of men’. By contrast, ‘barbaric ostentation’ characterised the French nobil-
ity before the commercial revolution. ‘The expense of their table was excessive; and
this savage luxury, of which there are still too many vestiges, afforded no encour-
agement to any of the useful arts,’ Raynal declared.18 Modernising commerce had
eventually overthrown the regime of medieval luxury – but it was also responsible
for the modern barbarism of slavery. When Raynal contemplated how to bring
those whom commerce had enslaved into civilisation after securing their freedom,
he recommended not only that they be given European ‘laws and manners’, but
also ‘our superfluities. We must give them a country, give them interests to study,
productions to cultivate, and articles of consumption agreeable to their respective
tastes,’ he urged.19 For Raynal as for Voltaire, the point was not to condemn all that
went beyond bare necessity as sinful luxury, but to contrast the unproductive and
selfish display of wealth with the productive and socially beneficial use of it. By
associating it with commerce, the superfluous could now be embraced as a civilis-
ing force in modern society without carrying the taint of barbarous luxury.
If the debate on luxury became one-sided in the second half of the eighteenth
century, it was because a new language had been developed in which to appreci-
ate and promote the production and consumption of a rapidly expanding range
of goods that could no longer be comprehended within the moral terms of the
traditional opposition between luxury and necessity. Even as luxury was con-
demned, superfluities, comfort, circulation, industry and novelty were loudly
celebrated as indications of a healthy commercial economy, polite society and
modern civilisation. The universal condemnation of luxury was as much a part
of the celebration of commercial society as it was a symptom of a rising anxiety
about social change and dynamism. The Rousseauian ancients and Christian
moralists who condemned modernity were joined by enlightened moderns who
now contrasted a barbaric luxury with modern commerce and the produc-
tion, consumption and circulation of goods that were central to modern society,
civilisation and progress.
The criterion of taste and the concept of fashion were crucial to the develop-
ment of the discourse of commerce. They allowed men of letters to condemn
ostentation as bad taste, while allowing merchants to offer customers of widely
diverging means a broad range of goods which all fell within the canons of
approved taste and fashion. As Jennifer Jones has shown in the case of clothing,
Parisian merchants, with the help of the press, promoted commerce by aban-
doning luxury and adopting taste as the fundamental criterion of fashion.20 They
made fashion a function of knowledge rather than wealth, and gave power to
those who carried the authority of taste.21
As Carolyn Sargentson has shown, the Parisian marchand-merciers were key to
the transformation of the luxury trade into a fashion economy. The merciers had
been incorporated as a guild in the early fifteenth century to handle the increas-
ing number of goods that were either imported or fell between the provenance of
the different guilds that produced finished goods; by the eighteenth century they
were taste-setters who specialised in the exotic and in the realm of ‘enjolivement’.22
This could mean having three Chinese porcelain cups set into gilded bronze
holders, mounting them on a Japanese lacquer tray and selling them as an écritoire
or inkstand. Or it could mean knocking down Japanese lacquer chests into panels
and sending them out to ébénistes to be veneered onto furniture frames of French
design. In these ways, the merciers contributed to the stylistic blending of East and
West they dubbed chinoiserie and created a market for goods defined by fashion
and taste.23
Taste allowed one to discriminate, but it was also deliberately inclusive. As
Jennifer Jones points out, ‘the insistence that taste, rather than luxurious fabrics
and jewels which only the wealthy could buy, was the most important quality for
dressing fashionably served, on the one hand, to distinguish true taste from mere
wealth, but it also worked to broaden the potential market for Parisian fashion.’24
If, for example, a dress could not be praised simply for being made of expensive
fabric, nor could it be condemned on these grounds: as independent markers of
value, fashion and taste could be had cheaply but also very expensively. In Jones’s
words, those involved in what we might rather call the fashion trades than the
luxury trades, ‘organised the economy of taste not around class, but rather around
gender and nationality, with French women possessing the most refined taste’.25
Everyone, from shopgirls to Madame de Pompadour, could participate in and
contribute to the profits of the fashion trade and in so doing contribute to
French national pride and economic power.26 Men of letters, from journalists to
philosophes, would assert their own authority by challenging both the royal court
and its aesthetic of ostentatious display by means of the notion of taste. Paris and
not Versailles would be promoted as the capital of the modern, civilised world, as
‘the centre where all talents, all arts, and all taste come to perfect themselves and
flower’, as one journalist enthused.27
Furniture-making was not the least of these arts. We can see in the evolution
of the furniture trade in the eighteenth century a shift from an economy rooted
in the discourse of luxury to one that operated within the new discourse of com-
merce, in which taste and fashion played key roles. Louis XIV made Paris the
78 Dena Goodman
European salespoint for luxury goods; in the eighteenth century, the marchand-
merciers, with the help of men of letters, made it the centre of fashion.
The Parisian furniture trade was given a major boost in the seventeenth century
by Louis XIV’s personal, political and economic interest in luxury. Like the
Gobelins tapestry works, the Gobains glassworks and the Lyons silk industry, the
work of the ébénistes was both to furnish the court and boost the economy. Indeed,
from the second half of the seventeenth century to the present, Paris has remained
associated with the trade in ‘luxury’.28 Louis XIV and his successors were respon-
sible for bringing to Paris a few notable ébénistes to produce furniture directly for
the Crown as artisans privilégiés. They were followed by many others, mostly from
the Low Countries and Central Europe, encouraged by a broadening market. The
newcomers settled into the Faubourg Saint-Antoine and other areas of the city
where they could work out of the control of the guild of menuisiers and hoped
eventually to join them. By the end of the seventeenth century, the standard in
both technology and design in fine cabinetry was set in Paris rather than in
Augsburg, Antwerp or Florence, as it had been in the past.29
As Michael Sonenscher has pointed out, luxury goods were soon ‘more than
an array of ornate objects left to a grateful posterity for careful identification and
display: they were one of the most substantial components of the eighteenth-
century urban economy’.30 That is, ‘luxury’ goods and the ‘luxury’ trade had
expanded far beyond the practice of luxury as display associated with the aris-
tocratic elite of the court, just as discussion of them had burst the bounds of the
moral discourse of luxury. The furniture and other expensive, elegant and exotic
goods purchased by the traditional elite were now a niche in the roomier space
of the fashion economy. Luxury was now located at one end of a continuum of
consumption whose unity was defined by fashion.
The novelty and taste which characterised fashion stimulated builders and mer-
chants to invent specialised furniture, such as the voyeuse – a chair on which a
woman was meant to kneel backwards, resting her elbows on the upholstered top
rail for ease of watching others play at cards – as well as multifunctional pieces,
such as a table fitted out for letter-writing, needlework and tea-drinking.31 Inno-
vation was evident in veneers and shapes of furniture, as well as in techniques of
making and marketing it. Those who supplied consumer demand developed ways
to make existing goods cheaper in order to reduce costs and reach a widening
market while devising expensive new designs and products to satisfy their most
exclusive clients. The fashion economy also stimulated people of means to trade
in old pieces for new ones, thus boosting the stocks of dealers in second-hand
goods who sold them to lesser folk at a significant reduction in price.32 The dual
imperative to reduce prices while maintaining an exclusive high-end defined the
fashion continuum along which commerce hummed.
Writing desks such as the one that caught our eye in the museum were a mid-
eighteenth-century invention. They were, first, a specific market response to rising
consumer demand, as letter writing took hold as a fashionable practice (especially

among women).33 They were also a subset of the profusion of small, specialised
tables that flooded the market and filled the apartments and hôtels of Paris. From
the 1740s on, the variety of writing desks on the market went well beyond the
stylistic shifts by which furniture historians have associated the shape of a leg
with the reign of a king. They were designed and marketed in a remarkable array
of shapes, from slant-fronts to roll-tops to elaborately engineered mechanical
desks.34 This multitude of forms and the engineering of the clockwork mechanisms
within them are obvious testimony to the inventiveness of merciers and ébénistes.
The veneers of lacquer, wood marquetry or porcelain which covered them,
however, are, to our post-industrial eye, more often seen as the epitome of tradi-
tional craftsmanship. Yet even veneers demonstrate the modern fashion economy
at work.
Writing desks first started to be made in Paris around 1745. From the beginning
there were very expensive and very modest models available, even at the most
fashionable shops. This was not a case of an exclusive item designed for royalty
trickling down to less elevated consumers. A mercier might display one desk
veneered with rare and expensive Japanese lacquer for the most exclusive clien-
tele, while furnishing a desk in the same style and taste, but veneered in the
cheaper Chinese lacquer or French vernis martin, to a much broader, but equally
fashion-conscious market.35 In fact, the same client might purchase both. In 1752,
Madame de Pompadour bought two writing desks veneered in Japanese lacquer
for 560 livres apiece. Three years later, she had one veneered in Chinese lacquer
for only 48 livres. She bought both from the same mercier, Lazare Duvaux, who
also sold pieces veneered in the even cheaper French imitation.36
French vernis martin, which had come to dominate the Parisian market for light
furniture by the 1740s, made fashionable chinoiserie accessible to a broad market.37
Meanwhile, in the shops of the merciers, where pieces veneered in French, Chinese
and Japanese lacquer stood side by side, customers learned to practise the dis-
crimination that would define connoisseurship. Within the world of fashion, the
elite and those who catered to them learned to use taste to add value to certain
goods.38 Thus, while the Martin brothers brought down the price of lacquer with
their invention of vernis martin, the merciers taught their elite clients to value
Japanese lacquer even more, both because of its rarity and because of its quality
– apparent only to the true connoisseur.
A similar dynamic of product innovation and marketing can be seen at work
in marquetry veneers. Marquetry veneering had been used since the Renaissance
to hide carcasses of common wood (oak or even pine) and not particularly notable
construction.39 The aesthetic of marquetry was based on the mosaic which
required inlay pieces of various sharply defined colours; its value was enhanced
by the richness and rarity of the inlaid materials: the semi-precious stones of
pietra-dura, which came to France from Italy early in the seventeenth century;
80 Dena Goodman
and the ebony inlaid with ivory, tortoiseshell, mother-of-pearl and precious metals
with which Louis XIV’s ébénistes made the pieces that furnished his court.
The great innovation of the eighteenth century was to substitute exotic hard-
woods newly available from America for the more expensive precious metals,
stones, ivory and mother-of-pearl.40 These bois des Indes could be sliced more
thinly and worked more intricately than native European woods because of their
firmness and close grain; they also came in a breathtaking array of colours, unlike
anything coming out of European forests, and in colourful contrast as well to the
ebony that had been coming in from Africa, Madagascar and India.41 America,
wrote the author of the Dictionnaire du citoyen (1762), ‘can be regarded as the
wealth of Europeans’. Among the various products it furnished Europe, from gold,
silver and diamonds to sugar, coffee, tobacco and cotton, were ‘woods for mar-
quetry and construction’.42 These included the dark Amaranth or purplewood
from Dutch Guiana, which contrasted nicely with the golden bois de Cayenne or
the pale yellow bois de citron from Saint Domingue. In the 1740s, pinkish-yellow
Tulipwood from Brazil came into use; by 1750 it had become the most popular
ground for floral marquetry. By the 1760s, the use of mahogany from Cuba was
widespread, and during the years of Louis XVI’s reign demand for it increased.
The 1780s saw the introduction of pale yellow satinwood from the Antilles, which
contrasted well with the dark red mahogany.43
Wood marquetry was considerably cheaper to produce than either pietra-dura
or the ebony-based ébénisterie, which came to be known as ‘Boulle marquetry’ after
Louis XIV’s ébéniste, André-Charles Boulle (1642–1732).44 Wood marquetry,
however, required different skills and technology – specifically, the ability to slice
wood thinly and jigsaw it into curved pieces. As the veneers got thinner, the like-
lihood of ruining a piece of expensive wood with the jigsaw increased. The cutting
of these leaves of exotic woods into small, intricate shapes was the most demand-
ing part of the ébéniste’s job.45 Thin veneers were not simply a tour de force of crafts-
manship, however, they were the result of technological innovation and a
significant means of lowering the cost of materials. In the eighteenth century,
materials, not labour, determined the price of finished goods.46 In 1772, the Avant
Coureur, a Parisian weekly, published the description of a new spring-driven jigsaw
that was less prone to break the piece of wood being sawn.47 When the ébénistes
reached the limits of their saws, they cut costs by avoiding imported woods when-
ever possible. This could be done by dyeing domestic woods such as maple to
cover large surfaces that did not require fine cutting.48 Connoisseurs learned to
tell the difference between exotic and dyed woods, as they distinguished among
Japanese, Chinese and French lacquer (see Plates 5 and 6).
As innovation brought down the cost of materials, and wood marquetry
became fashionable, the demand for skilled woodworkers increased in Paris and
London, where demand was high enough and guild restrictions were minimal
enough to support specialists in cutting and veneering.49 Not just the wood, then,
but the craftsmen were imported, mostly from the Low Countries and Germany.
The names of the most well-known ébénistes of the eighteenth century are largely
Flemish, Dutch or German: Criard from Brussels, van Risamburgh from
Gröningen, Vandercruse, also Dutch, Molitor from Luxembourg, Latz from

Cologne, Oeben from Heinsberg near Aix-la-Chapelle and the Dutch border,
Cramer and Weisweiler from the Rhineland, Riesener and Roentgen from West-
phalia.50 The number of ébénistes multiplied in the Faubourg Saint-Antoine, where
foreigners and labour costs were unencumbered by guild restrictions, direct sales
to the public avoided the mercier’s mark-up, and those without the polish of the
elite were perhaps more welcome as customers.
But the privileged artisans and the merciers in the rue Saint Honoré were
certainly not losing business. The merciers started ordering expensive porcelain
plaques from the royal factory at Sèvres and having ébénistes mount these on desk
frames; the privileged artisans started to produce signature designs in expensive
materials, like the cube marquetry and mechanical tables of Oeben, or the gilt-
bronze mounts in classical motifs of Weisweiler, that would make their work
recognisable and expensive, and would carry prestige without violating the
canons of taste which made it fashionable. In the 1770s and 1780s, the most
expensive writing desks made for the most exclusive clientele (the international
court elite) were veneered in Japanese lacquer, Sèvres porcelain and Cuban
mahogany, yet they were part of the same fashion system and represent the same
taste as the more modest desks veneered in wood marquetry.51 As in the case of
lacquer, developments in marquetry materials and techniques both responded to
demand for fashionable writing desks among an expanding letter-writing public,
and stimulated design innovations that kept the top segment of the market
securely exclusive.
Merciers and ébénistes together expanded the market for fine furniture by main-
taining fashionability, while assiduously catering to the high end with new and
rare veneers whose appreciation demanded a cultivated and refined taste – as well
as a hefty outlay of money, of course. Even the most fashionable shops on the
rue Saint Honoré catered to both ends of the market by selling goods in a broad
price range. The most modest writing desk sold by Lazare Duvaux to one of his
female clients cost a mere 30 livres. He described it as ‘a small table, with a writing
slide and a drawer, veneered in satinwood.’ Six months earlier, Madame de
Pompadour had bought a similarly described desk, but veneered in lacquer and
equipped with silver fittings (‘a lacquer table, with a drawer and a writing slide,
the jars in silver’), for 534 livres.52 Beyond the veneer, silver fittings and, more
frequently, gilt bronze mounts, made a fashionable desk into a luxury item. The
cost of materials more than the workmanship jacked up the price. Yet even here,
the rich and powerful could not simply heap on the gold and silver. Luxury
had to be in good taste and within the parameters of fashion if its owner were
to be admired. As Caraccioli told his readers:
If one means by luxury that massive sumptuosity that knows only how to gild
and tinge with blue and spend profusely, the Europeans do not owe to the
French the glory of having succeeded in this regard; if, on the contrary, it is a
question of charm, of graciousness, of comforts, and even of magnificence, they
are indebted both to the Parisians and to the Lyonnais. They commission them
82 Dena Goodman
to furnish [their homes] and to clothe them, and never was a commission better
executed.53
Trusting to the good offices of a respected merchant like Lazare Duvaux and the
name of a well-known ébéniste assured the client that her purchase would testify
to her refinement and good taste. By the last decades of the century she could
turn to the fashion press for guidance as well. In the 1780s, the Cabinet des Modes
declared itself a ‘work that gives an exact and prompt knowledge, as much con-
cerning new Clothes and Hairstyles for both sexes, as of new Furniture of all sorts,
. . . & generally of all that Fashion offers that is singular, agreeable, or interesting
in all genres’.54
The writing desk known as the bonheur-du-jour epitomised the fashion trade in
furniture. This joint creation of enterprising ébénistes and merciers came in the full
range of shapes, styles and veneers, from whimsical, but not particularly expen-
sive wood marquetry to the most expensive porcelain (see Plates 7 and 8). At the
same time, it was eminently practical for serving the letter writer’s needs: its
writing surface was supplemented by one drawer fitted with an écritoire, and an
additional set of locked drawers and pigeonholes for letters received, blank paper
and other epistolary needs. It is generally thought to have been aimed specifically
at the new female market associated with fashion consumption and the fashion-
able practice of letter-writing. An ébéniste may have invented the design, but Pierre
Verlet assures us that the merciers were responsible for popularising it with the
catchy name that evoked novelty, fashion and a comfortable happiness.55 Art
historian Geneviève Souchal calls the bonheur-du-jour ‘one of the most graceful
inventions of a century abounding in such inventions’.56
Our little desk, the one that first caught our eye in the museum, is a bonheur-
du-jour. Is it a ‘luxury’ good? Or is it, rather, a commodity, a consumer good? Was
its purpose to display the good taste of its owner, or to be useful in her daily prac-
tice of letter-writing? Was the woman who sat at this desk to write a letter – to a
friend, a daughter, a sister, a husband or a son – a modern consumer whose friends
and family were dispersed by commerce, state expansion, and an infrastructure
of roads, coaches, packet boats and sailing ships? Or was she a decadent aristo-
crat, scribbling a note to her young lover while her husband was off, minding his
own affairs or the king’s? Her silk dress is cut and beribboned in the latest fashion;
the walls of the room in which she sits are papered, also in the latest fashion, and
hung with mirrors and genre paintings by fashionable modern painters; in the
comfortable chair near the fire lies a novel, half-read, that was recently favourably
reviewed in the Avant Coureur; children can be heard reciting their lessons in
another room; servants, including the letter-writer’s personal maid, are at their
work throughout the house. But none of these things tells us if she is an aristo-
crat concerned with the display of social power, or a courtesan in good times, or
the wife of a successful merchant – only that she is wealthy. Nor do they tell us
if she is corrupt or virtuous – only that she is fashionable. This scene cannot reas-
sure us, any more than the desk can, that she and her world were decadent and
deserved their imminent destruction, or that, to the contrary, they were vibrant
and dynamic and poised to triumph.
What is perhaps most interesting is the possibility that whether this woman
and this desk are viewed in terms of luxury and display, or as representing fashion
and modern practices of consumption, she, in her association with it, will be
equally susceptible to charges of feminine vanity and frivolity, wastefulness and
moral laxity. For although Maxine Berg and Helen Clifford are right in saying that
the champions of the modern commercial economy made every effort to shift the
debate about things from a moral to an economic discourse,57 it is nevertheless
true that by shifting the marker of consumption from the status category of aris-
tocracy to the gender category of women, consumption was remoralised, even as
commerce and the commercial economy retained their masculine associations.58
By the nineteenth century, the gendering of consumption as feminine was secured
by the masculinising of its binary opposite, production. This has resulted not only
in the gendering of the working class as male producers, as Joan Scott has shown,
but the writing of economic history from the perspective of supply rather than
demand.59 Even the new interest in the ‘Consumer Revolution’, as Amanda
Vickery points out, has shifted attention to the male entrepreneurs and middle-
men who created or met demand, rather than to consumers themselves, still con-
sidered irrational, manipulable, fickle, in a word – feminine.60
Like any other object, the bonheur-du-jour is neither feminine nor masculine.
In itself it represents neither the decadence of the Old Regime, nor its crafts-
manship, civilisation, or commercial dynamism. It exists as the subject of various
discourses, past and present, each of which gives it meaning while using it to lay
out a certain vision of the culture and history in which it is seen to figure. The
bonheur-du-jour helps to reveal these multiple discourses and the concerns of those
who deployed them. Unlike an object of nature (a tree, a mountain, a seashore),
however, the bonheur-du-jour is not already there, simply to be played upon by
competing discourses. Its very existence is a function of a set of practices of pro-
duction, distribution and consumption that are historically defined and discur-
sively situated. For this reason, a desk produced, marketed, purchased and used
within a discourse of luxury in which power is displayed through ostentatious
wealth must differ in some way from one produced, marketed, purchased and
used within a discourse of commerce in which value is ascribed in terms of notions
of taste and fashion, and where utility and novelty are legitimising factors.
Perhaps the best way to understand the bonheur-du-jour and its world is at the
intersection of these two discourses and the practices they shaped. In so doing,
we can perhaps break down both the Enlightenment opposition between barbaric
aristocratic luxury and modern consumption and the nineteenth-century oppo-
sition between feminine consumption and masculine production. We can thus
perhaps break free of the moralising they entail to come to a more complex under-
standing and appreciation of a writing desk and, by extension, of the woman who
used it.
84 Dena Goodman
Notes
1. ‘Styles of furniture reflected the personalities of the three monarchs. Louis XIV had fur-
niture built for show, rather than for comfort. He was not concerned about whether
people had a place to sit while waiting for his royal appearance.’ ‘Teachers’ Guide’ to
‘Splendors of Versailles’, Http://www.splendors-versailles.org/index2.html.
2. Mary D. Sheriff, Fragonard: Art and Eroticism (Chicago, 1990), p. 27.
3. Karl Toth, Women and Rococo in France, trans. Roger Abingdon (Philadelphia, 1931),
p. 341.
4. Ibid., p. 371.
5. Leora Auslander, Taste and Power: Furnishing Modern France (Berkeley, 1996), p. 29.
6. Ibid., p. 110.
7. Ibid., esp. pp. 35–40, 58. It should be pointed out that Auslander is following rather
than establishing a model interpretation here. As Carolyn Sargentson notes, citing
classic sociologists Norbert Elias, Werner Sombart and Thorstein Veblen, ‘France has
been held up as a paradigm of court culture, a society whose consumption is driven by
the observance of the behaviour of the court and the emulation of it by city consumers.’
Sargentson, Merchants and Luxury Markets: The Marchands Merciers of Eighteenth-Century
Paris (London and Malibu, 1996), p. 5 and n. 19.
8. The ‘revisionism’ that now undergirds scholarship on the old regime and the French
Revolution came into its own in the late 1980s. Useful review essays include Sarah Maza,
‘Politics, Culture, and the Origins of the French Revolution’, Journal of Modern History
61 (1989), pp. 704–23; Jack R. Censer, ‘Commencing the Third Century of Debate’,
American Historical Review 94 (1989), pp. 1309–25; Lynn Hunt, ‘Forgetting and Remem-
bering: The French Revolution Then and Now’, American Historical Review 100 (1995),
pp. 1119–35; Suzanne Desan, ‘What’s after Political Culture? Recent French Revolu-
tionary Historiography’, French Historical Studies 23 (2000), pp. 163–96. On the economic
dynamism and consumer culture of the old regime, see Daniel Roche, The People of Paris:
An Essay in Popular Culture in the Eighteenth Century, trans. Gwynne Lewis (Berkeley,
1987); A History of Everyday Things: The Birth of Consumption in France, 1600–1800, trans.
Brian Pearce (Cambridge, 2000); Colin Jones, ‘Bourgeois Revolution Revivified: 1789 and
Social Change’, in Colin Lucas, ed., Rewriting the French Revolution: The Andrew Brown-
ing Lectures 1989 (Oxford, 1991), pp. 69–118; and ‘The Great Chain of Buying: Medical
Advertisement, the Bourgeois Public Sphere, and the Origins of the French Revolution’,
American Historical Review 101 (February 1996), pp. 13–40; Cissie Fairchilds, ‘The Pro-
duction and Marketing of Populuxe Goods in Eighteenth-Century Paris’, in John Brewer
and Roy Porter, eds, Consumption and the World of Goods (New York, 1993), pp. 228–48;
Robert Fox and Anthony Turner, eds, Luxury Trades and Consumerism in Ancien Régime
Paris: Studies in the History of the Skilled Workforce (Aldershot, Hampshire and Brookfield,
Vt., 1998), esp. the articles by Michael Sonenscher and Gillian Lewis; Colin Jones and
Rebecca Spang, ‘Sans-culottes, Sans Café, Sans Tabac: Shifting Realms of Necessity and
Luxury in Eighteenth-Century France’, in Maxine Berg and Helen Clifford, eds, Con-
sumers and Luxury: Consumer Culture in Europe 1650–1850 (Manchester: Manchester
University Press, 1999), pp. 37–62.
9. Daniel Roche, France in the Enlightenment, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Cambridge, Mass.,
1998), p. 562. The following discussion is based on Roche’s analysis of the luxury debate,
pp. 561–74.
10. On the seventeenth-century defence of luxury as a means of reinforcing the social order
when limited to the traditional elite, see Carolyn C. Lougee, ‘Le Paradis des Femmes’:
Women, Salons, and Social Stratification in Seventeenth-Century France (Princeton, 1976),
pp. 94–7.
11. Sarah Maza, ‘Luxury, Morality, and Social Change: Why There Was No Middle-Class
Consciousness in Prerevolutionary France’, Journal of Modern History 69 (June 1997),
p. 217.
12. Voltaire quoted in Philippe Perrot, ‘De l’apparat au bien-être: Les avatars d’un superflu
nécessaire’; in J.-P. Goubert, ed., Du Luxe au confort (Paris, 1988), p. 42. Perhaps Jean-
François de Saint-Lambert was thinking of luxury as comfort, too, when he wrote in
the article, ‘Luxe’: ‘Thus there is a luxury in all estates, in all societies: the savage has
his hammock, which he buys with animal skins, the European has his couch, his bed.’
Denis Diderot and Jean Le Rond d’Alembert, eds, Encyclopédie, ou Dictionnaire raisonné
des sciences, des arts, et des métiers (Paris, 1751–65), 9:763. On the eighteenth-century
distinction between furniture of display and furniture of comfort, see Pierre Verlet, La
Maison du XVIIIe siècle en France: Société, décoration, mobilier (Paris, 1966), p. 11; on the
new meaning of comfort in eighteenth-century Anglo-American society and its role
in reshaping consumption, see John E. Crowley, ‘The Sensibility of Comfort’, American
Historical Review 104 (June 1999), pp. 749–82.
13. Saint-Lambert, ‘Luxe’, Encyclopédie, 9:764.
14. Diderot, ‘Encyclopédie’, Encyclopédie, 5:635A. Keith Baker reads Diderot’s spotlighting
of luxury here as a marker of ‘the more profound problem of a society in structural dis-
array’. Condorcet: From Natural Philosophy to Social Mathematics (Chicago, 1975), p. 19.
See also Pierre Rétat, ‘Luxe’, Dix-Huitième Siècle, no. 26 (1994), pp. 79–88.
15. Perrot, ‘De l’apparat au bien-être’, p. 42; Saint-Lambert, ‘Luxe’, 9:766.
16. Louis-Antoine Caraccioli, Paris, le modèle des nations étrangeres, ou l’Europe françoise
(Venice/Paris, 1777), pp. 55–7.
17. Caraccioli, Paris, le modèle des nations étrangeres, p. 120.
18. Guillaume Thomas François Raynal, Histoire philosophique et politique des établissemens et
du commerce des Européens dans les deux Indes (Geneva, 1782), 1:12, pp. 20–1.
19. Raynal, Histoire philosophique, 5:137.
20. Jennifer M. Jones, ‘Repackaging Rousseau: Femininity and Fashion in Old Regime
France’, French Historical Studies 18 (Fall 1994), p. 947.
21. The marchande de modes and the marchand mercier were in this sense like the salon-
nière, whose taste was expressed in her selection of guests based on individual merit
and her ability to elicit from them both brilliance and harmony. These essentially
aesthetic criteria contested the rank-based society of display that was the social
counterpart of ostentatious luxury associated with the royal court. See Dena Goodman,
The Republic of Letters: A Cultural History of the French Enlightenment (Ithaca, 1994),
ch. 3.
It should be noted that in matters of taste, authority is always unstable and subject
to contestation, as Reed Benhamou emphasises in her discussion of the change from a
baroque style based on symmetry, formal rules, and repeated motifs to a rococo style
based on novelty and imagination. Benhamou, ‘Furniture Production in 18th-Century
France: An Interactive Process’, European Studies Journal 1 (1984), p. 49.
22. Sargentson, Merchants and Luxury Markets. See also the pathbreaking article of Pierre
Verlet, ‘Le Commerce des objets d’art et les marchands merciers à Paris au XVIIIe siècle’,
Annales E.S.C. 13 (January–March 1958), pp. 10–29; and Cissie Fairchilds, ‘The Produc-
tion and Marketing of Populuxe Goods in Eighteenth-Century Paris’, in Brewer and
Porter, Consumption and the World of Goods, pp. 228–48.
23. Sargentson, Merchants and Luxury Markets, ch. 4.
24. Jones, ‘Repackaging Rousseau’, p. 959.
25. Ibid., p. 960.
26. By 1793, a character in one of Isabelle de Charrière’s novels (a French duchess who has
emigrated to London), could say obnoxiously to the English Lady Caroline Dupont:
‘You could really be taken for a Frenchwoman . . . you have the taste of one, you have
the figure: Wasn’t your mother in Paris a few months before your birth?’ Lettres trouvées
dans des portefeuilles d’émigrés (Paris, 1993), p. 45.
27. Magasin des modes nouvelles [new volume], pp. 1–2; quoted in Jones, ‘Repackaging
Rousseau’, p. 962.
28. See Steven L. Kaplan, ‘The Luxury Guilds in Paris in the Eighteenth Century’, Francia 9
86 Dena Goodman
(1981), pp. 257–98; Sargentson, Merchants and Luxury Markets; and the recent volume
edited by Fox and Turner, Luxury Trades and Consumerism in Ancien Régime Paris.
29. Louis XIV was the first French king to make furniture a significant royal expenditure;
his predecessors had invested mainly in jewellery and tapestries. See Alexandre Pradère,
French Furniture Makers: The Art of the Ébéniste from Louis XIV to the Revolution, trans.
Perran Wood (Malibu, Ca., 1989), pp. 9–11; Michael Stürmer, ‘An Economy of Delight:
Court Artisans of the Eighteenth Century’, Business History Review 53 (Winter 1979), pp.
496–528; Verlet, La Maison du XVIIIe siècle, pp. 17–18.
30. Michael Sonenscher, Work and Wages: Natural Law, Politics and the Eighteenth-Century
French Trades (Cambridge, 1989), p. 211.
31. Mimi Hellman discusses these objects and many others that ‘structured and delimited
the behavior and appearance of individuals according to culturally specific codes of
social conduct’, in ‘Furniture, Sociability, and the Work of Leisure in Eighteenth-Century
France’, Eighteenth-Century Studies 32 (Summer 1999), pp. 415–45. See also Pierre
Devinoy, Le Meuble léger en France (Paris, 1952), p. 19.
32. Pradère, French Furniture Makers, pp. 24–5. Here are three ways we can see the circula-
tion of second-hand furniture: (1) The Parisian marchand-mercier Lazare Duvaux notes
in his daybook that on 9 December 1748, he sold a writing table to the Marquise de
Coëtlogon for 240 livres, and then bought it back from her in 1749 for 192 livres [Livre-
journal de Lazare Duvaux, Marchand-bijoutier ordinaire du Roy, 1748–1758, ed. Louis
Courajod (Paris, 1965), vol. 2, transaction #64]; (2) Madame de Genlis relates in her
memoirs that it was the purchaser of her late father-in-law’s desk, which she was in the
process of selling, who discovered his will upon springing open a secret drawer [Mémoires
inédits de Madame la Comtesse de Genlis, sur le dix-huitième siècle et la révolution françoise,
depuis 1756 jusqu’à nos jours (Paris, 1825), 3:331]; (3) under the rubric Effets et Marchan-
dises à Vendre, the French commercial press known collectively as the Affiches gave the
public notice of auctions of seized goods, including household furniture and the inven-
tory of bankrupt businesses dealing in furniture (see, e.g., Annonces, Affiches et Avis Divers
de Picardie, Artois, Soissonnois et Pays-Bas François, 13 August 1774, no. 33).
33. Elizabeth C. Goldsmith, ‘Authority, Authenticity, and the Publication of Letters by
Women’, in Goldsmith, ed., Writing the Female Voice: Essays on Epistolary Literature
(Boston, 1989), pp. 46–59; Katherine A. Jensen, ‘Male Models of Female Epistolarity; or,
How to Write Like a Woman in Seventeenth-Century France’, in Goldsmith, ed., Writing
the Female Voice, pp. 25–45. See also Jensen, Writing Love: Letters, Women, and the Novel
in France, 1605–1776 (Carbondale, IL, 1995); Susan Lanser, Fictions of Authority: Women
Writers and Narrative Voice (Ithaca, 1992).
34. Devinoy, Meuble léger en France, pp. 18–19; Verlet, La Maison du XVIIIe siècle, pp. 162–4,
pp. 193–4.
35. The first writing desks documented by Pradère are two secrétaires en pente, one carrying
the stamp of the ébéniste Jacques Dubois, and the other B.V.R.B. One is veneered in
Japanese lacquer and the other in vernis martin. Pradère dates both to 1745–49. Pradère,
French Furniture Makers, pp. 170 and 192. Guillaume Janneau dates both the toilette and
the ‘bureau de dame’ after 1735, and notes that they appear at the same time. Janneau,
Le Mobilier français: Le Meuble d’ébenesterie (Paris, 1993), p. 68. He notes that the secré-
taire à dessus brisé (i.e., secrétaire en pente) appeared in Wallonie in the 1730s and in Paris
a decade later (p. 80). See also Pierre Verlet, ‘Le Commerce des objets d’art et les
marchands merciers à Paris au XVIIIe siècle’, p. 17.
36. Louis Courajod, ed., Livre-journal de Lazare Duvaux, Marchand-bijoutier ordinaire du Roy,
vol. 2: transaction #1138 (3 June 1752); transaction #2189 (3 July 1755).
37. Sonenscher, Work and Wages.
38. Sargentson, Merchants and Luxury Markets, p. 74.
39. John Whitehead, The French Interior in the Eighteenth Century (New York, 1993), p. 127.
40. Whitehead gives the credit for this innovation entirely to the competitive practices of
the marchand-merciers who, as he notes, specialised in exotic goods and materials. French
Interior in the Eighteenth Century, p. 130.
41. Encyclopédie méthodique, ou par ordre de matières, par une Société de Gens de Lettres, de
Savans et d’Artistes.: Arts et métiers mécaniques [by Jacques Lacombe] (Paris and Liège,
1782–91), 27: pp. 301–2; Michael Stürmer, ‘ “Bois des Indes” and the Economics of
Luxury Furniture in the Time of David Roentgen’, The Burlington Magazine 120 (Decem-
ber 1978), pp. 800–1.
42. Dictionnaire du citoyen, ou abregé historique, theorique et pratique du commerce (Amsterdam,
1762), 1:viii.
43. Pradère, French Furniture Makers, p. 431. Michael Stürmer writes that the price of
mahogany only came down low enough to bring it into general use in 1770. Stürmer,
‘ “Bois des Indes” ’, p. 800.
44. In the second half of the eighteenth century, authentic Boulle pieces veneered in old
lacquer were the only furniture to have value as antiques rather than as novelties. They
were the first type of furniture to be collected. Their value rose with time, while other
furniture was simply considered old or used and thus was cheaper than new pieces
which reflected the latest fashion and the most modern taste. See Pradère, French
Furniture Makers, p. 24. It should also be noted that Boulle pieces were used for the old-
fashioned purpose of decorating appartements de parade, which were themselves going
out of fashion. Imitation Boulle of ‘ebonised wood’ was used for large bureaus plats
meant to impress, but never for the small letter desks discussed here. Whereas a bureau
plat of real Boulle marquetry could run to 1,000 livres, one of ebonised wood was sold
for a mere 96. See Sargentson, Merchants and Luxury Markets, p. 25; Whitehead, French
Interior, p. 130.
45. Abbé [Pierre] Jaubert, Dictionnaire raisonné universel des arts et metiers (Paris, 1773), 3: p.
112. ‘The veneers were hand-cut to a thickness of about 12 –1 of an inch by craftsmen “who
do only this work. . . . These sawyers are paid by the pound, that is, on the basis of the
piece of wood brought to them . . .” ’ Roubo, quoted in Benhamou, ‘Furniture Produc-
tion’, p. 46.
46. Pradère, French Furniture Makers, pp. 24–5.
47. Avant Coureur, no. 28, 13 July 1772.
48. Stürmer, ‘ “Bois des Indes” ’, p. 802; Jaubert, Dictionnaire raisonné, 2: pp. 88–9, 3: pp. 112;
Benhamou cites Guillaume Janneau, L’Epoque Louis XV (Paris, 1967), 81–2 for
her detailing of the available dyes as follows: ‘One silver-gray, three greens, four
blacks, 17 whites, 21 yellows, and 33 reds’ (‘Furniture Production’, p. 46). On colour
innovation in eighteenth-century France see Sarah Lowengard, ‘Colours and Colour
Making in the Eighteenth Century’, in Berg and Clifford, Consumers and Luxury, pp.
103–17.
49. Stürmer, ‘ “Bois des Indes” ’, pp. 800–1.
50. Lesser-known ébénistes include Schneider from Augsburg, Baumhauer, Benneman,
Schwerdfeber, and Stockel also from Germany. See Pradère, French Furniture Makers, for
sketches of all the major ébénistes.
51. Of the many books on eighteenth-century French furniture, Pradère, French Furniture
Makers is the most exhaustive and the most lavishly illustrated. The reader will find in
it excellent examples, often illustrated in full colour, of every sort of writing desk in
every possible veneer.
52. Livre-Journal de Lazare Duvaux, transactions #804 (8 May 1751) and #650 (22 November
1750).
53. Caraccioli, Paris, le modèle des nations étrangeres, p. 119.
54. Cabinet des Modes/Magasin des modes nouvelles, françaises et anglaises (Paris, 1785–90). See
also the francophone Journal [des Luxus und] der Moden, edited by F.J. Bertuch and G.M.
Kraus (Weimar, 1786–99), which featured many plates of fashionable furniture, includ-
ing a sécretaire en pente and a rolltop desk in 1787.
88 Dena Goodman
55. Pierre Verlet, La Maison du XVIIIe siècle en France, pp. 204–5. See also Henri Havard, Dic-
tionnaire de l’ameublement, et de la décoration depuis le XVIIe siècle jusqu’à nos jours (Paris,
1887–90), 1: pp. 352–3. Pradère credits the marchand merciers with the invention of the
bonheur-du-jour (French Furniture Makers, pp. 39–40), while Whitehead more diplomati-
cally claims only that they provided customers with the variety of small tables for letter-
writing which they demanded, including the bonheur-du-jour (The French Interior in the
Eighteenth Century, p. 135).
56. Geneviève Souchal, French Eighteenth-Century Furniture, trans. Simon Watson-Taylor
(New York, 1961), p. 67.
57. Maxine Berg and Helen Clifford, ‘Introduction’, to Consumers and Luxury, 3.
58. See especially Jennifer Jones, ‘Repackaging Rousseau’, p. 960. Both Jones and Daniel
Roche show how women came to be the target market for consumer goods as luxury
gave way to fashion. See Roche, France in the Enlightenment, pp. 554–5, and The Culture
of Clothing: Dress and Fashion in the Ancien Regime, trans. Jean Birrell (Cambridge, 1994).
59. Joan Wallach Scott, ‘Women in the Making of the English Working Class’, in Gender
and the Politics of History (New York, 1988); Neil McKendrick, ‘Introduction: The Birth
of a Consumer Society: The Commercialization of Eighteenth-Century England’, and
‘The Consumer Revolution of Eighteenth-Century England’, in Neil McKendrick, John
Brewer, and J.H. Plumb, The Birth of a Consumer Society: The Commercialization of
Eighteenth-Century England (Bloomington, In., 1982), pp. 1–33.
60. Vickery, ‘Women and the World of Goods: A Lancashire Consumer and Her Possessions,
1751–81’, in Brewer and Porter, Consumption and the World of Goods, p. 274.
Plates
5. Bonheur-du-jour, open, attributed to Topino, Louis XV period.
6. The same bonheur-du-jour closed.
7. One of a pair of oval bonheur-du-jours, stamped Topino, c. 1775.
8. Lady’s bonheur-du-jour writing table, 1765.
6
The Circulation of Luxury
Goods in Eighteenth-Century Paris:
Social Redistribution and an
Alternative Currency
Laurence Fontaine
Trans. Vicky Wittaker
Until recently research has laid emphasis more on how luxury goods were pro-
duced and consumed than on the actual business activity surrounding them, even
though light is beginning to be shed in certain areas. An analysis of the whole
spectrum of activities involved in distributing luxury and fashion goods is out of
the question here: the task is too great. I am not attempting to determine all
merchant circuits in which luxury and fashion goods played a part; in particular
I shall not discuss those merchants involved with the court, the aristocracy and
tourism, to which Carolyn Sargentson has recently devoted an excellent study,
just as I will not be tackling the role of fairs – such as those held in Saint-Germain
and Saint-Laurent – where whole sectors specialised in these types of goods.1
I shall concentrate on more ordinary and lesser-known distribution circuits, and
on those distribution circuits which lay at the heart of the ways in which luxury
and fashion goods were introduced and circulated in the city.
I must first stress how difficult it is to circumscribe and accurately define what
constituted a ‘luxury’ item or a taste for luxury because ‘luxury’ is a changing
social and cultural category. Cultural and political models which are diverse and
change over time shape forms of consumption. These forms and the things them-
selves are metamorphosed into objects of luxury, desire or fashion. In doing so,
they bear witness also to the power of those who classify them into something to
be coveted. It is not therefore surprising that the dictionary of commerce written
by Savary des Bruslons has no entry for luxury, although it does have one for
fashion. In its own way it explains that ‘luxury’ is a cultural category and a notion
expressing social relations.
The goods considered as luxury items in eighteenth-century Paris varied widely
over time and between social groups. For some people luxury was represented by
a pair of stockings or a cheap watch; for others it meant diamonds, curios or even
an abundance of those same objects which were held in esteem by the poor. Louis
Sébastien Mercier was scandalised by the spread of luxury in the capital: ‘The
89
90 Laurence Fontaine
Parisian who does not have an income of ten thousand livres ordinarily has
neither bedsheets, nor towels nor undershirts; but he has a repeater watch,
mirrors, silk stockings, lace . . .’2 In Diderot’s L’Encyclopédie, Saint-Lambert
eloquently expresses under the heading ‘luxe’ how society in its entirety was
concerned with luxury: ‘without an abundance of luxuries, men of all ranks
believe themselves to be poor’.3
Caught between pleasure and social competitiveness, luxury goods created new
business opportunities and new low-level jobs at all levels of society, and it is this
which interests me here. Though it is a necessary area of study, I shall not reflect
upon the changing goods which came upon the market, nor on the way in which
these goods changed character as they changed hands. My main concern, then,
will be to examine how such goods circulated away from the established shops,
what the informal practices of sale and resale were, and how luxury goods became
part of the city’s financial economy. I shall first examine the relationships between
shops and pedlars, then I shall highlight how luxury goods were also part of two
other economic circuits. The first circuit is linked to the resale market: one of the
intrinsic mechanisms of the economy of luxury goods and of the ways in which
goods were acquired and circulated within society. The second circuit, although
affected by the economic cycle of fashion, was primarily the result of other
influences: it was a reflection of the precariousness of the economy throughout
the ancien régime, poorly developed monetarisation, the ‘flexibility’ of the job
market and the lack of financial institutions. Luxury goods circulated not just as
themselves but as an alternative currency – not just for legal (or illegal) traders in
difficulty, but for the majority of private individuals. As a result, this second
circuit played a significant role in the economy of luxury goods and of the city
itself, to which it lent an indispensable flexibility.
It is not an easy task to bring these circuits out of their obscurity and study
them more closely because there is a lack of material: we are often dealing with
an informal economy which, unless its activities became criminal, almost entirely
escaped being recorded. Hence I shall take as my guide the commentators of the
time, in particular Louis Sébastien Mercier, who will be my first point of entry
into this urban economy. His pen may be readily moralising, determined to cas-
tigate licentiousness and the decline in morals, or lecturing when an opportunity
for praising family values arose, but his eye is extremely sharp. His ability to appre-
hend, whenever they existed, economic micro-circuits, the social and cultural
practices attached to them and the menial jobs they created is always corrobo-
rated by other sources.
Luxury goods and trade circuits

Shopkeepers and pedlars
When considering the circulation of luxury goods it is traditional to focus upon
two markets: the market supplied by the elegant boutiques whose customers were
the aristocracy and the rich bourgeoisie, and that supplied by pedlars who catered
for the ordinary people, with goods moving from the first market to the second
The Circulation of Luxury Goods in Eighteenth-Century Paris 91
market when objects became too common for the rich to consider them worth
having any more.4 I want to show here that the ways in which luxury goods were
circulated were more complex than this and that the boutique and peddling
worlds interpenetrated at all levels.
The boom in trade that took place in the eighteenth century was characterised
by an increase in the number of shops, and although Mercier expressed concern
about the rush by ‘people with nothing to sell’ to set up shop, given how rapidly
they came unstuck, he was pleased that this meant that salesmen no longer paced
‘the landings of firms, ready to catch the regular customers’ but became up-
holsterers and decorators busy looking after their window displays.5 In contrast
to the sedentary businesses, the itinerant merchants criss-crossed the markets and
streets, climbed up and down stairwells, and went into the inns – which then
looked just as much like bars as multiform markets where deals were struck (or
settled), and where the pedlar would spread out his new wares and his smuggled
goods.6
In the city sedentary businesses and travelling merchants were still largely
intermingled – even though the boutiques selling luxury goods had begun to
dominate certain streets – but drawing the line between them is made no easier
by comparing social origins and business practices.7 Many of the shopkeepers were
actually from the ranks of itinerant merchants, even if the city archives conceal
this fact, just as the shopkeepers themselves, once successfully established, were
very reluctant to reveal their social trajectory. The peddling profession was also
one in which success meant setting up shop and the first setback a return to the
road. At the end of the day, over and above the competition between them, shop-
keepers and pedlars made use of one another and relied on one another to sell
their goods.
In France, until the eighteenth century, the majority of pedlars operating in
the city belonged to extensive networks made up of family and countrymen.
These peddling networks relied on emigrants who had succeeded in opening up
a shop in the city. Their business structure operated on two levels: the first was
constituted by immediate family and other relatives who supported a family
banking system and, by opening warehouses and city shops, extended over a huge
geographical area. The second level was a distribution system which was tied to
migration. This was a tightly circumscribed structure with a clear hierarchy, built
on temporary migration and the manpower of men from the home village.8
The role played by peddling in the distribution of objects of modernity has
already been shown: travelling merchants have always added small luxury and
fashion items to their basic stock. In the eighteenth century watches and printed
matter were among the goods popular with packmen. All account books, no
matter how modest, bear this out, and many examples can be found by going
through the business ledgers held in the Paris archives.9 As was the case with
printed matter, and at the same time as watches started to appear in pedlars’ stock,
certain families began to specialise in clocks and watches, and jewellery. In France
these families were from the Savoie.10 Analyses of these pedlars’ circuits and of
their business practices demonstrate the central role which they played in the sale
of luxury goods, distributing as many upmarket goods as inexpensive items, and

supplying the aristocracy and a number of other merchants (both sedentary and
itinerant) as well as a more humble clientele.
Let us briefly consider Pierre Rullier, a Savoyard pedlar who covered the north
and east of France, using Paris as a base. He rented a room for the year in Paris at
Mme Lanoe’s where he kept his business ledgers and a certain amount of
merchandise. His landlady also forwarded his mail if he had to change his itin-
erary. Pierre’s circuit had two geographies: one physical, the other epistolary. In
the first he met customers in the towns and at fairs, in the second – and this is
what fills the pages of his ledger – he undertook to supply them with goods at
their request. To do this he used the postal service, stagecoaches and his nephews;
and maintained a network of postboxes which enabled him to receive goods and
have them forwarded to wherever his clients asked. His intermediaries were
innkeepers, relatives and faithful customers, all of whom were merchants, and,
lastly, the firms who acted as intermediaries with his own foreign suppliers. Some
examples: on 28 November 1771 he was in Boulogne and had goods sent to Paris
for one of his customers; on 28 December he was in Saint-Quentin and was
paid for a watch which he had had sent from Paris to his customer on 27 June;
on 11 June 1772 he was in Arras putting ‘a package of goods in the coach for
Paris’, etc.
The Rullier brothers – because Pierre’s brother was also a pedlar but in a more
northern territory, since he covered northern France and southern Belgium – sold
watches and gold and silver jewellery: snuff-boxes, earrings, crosses, rings, chains,
buttons, tumblers and goblets. They also sold these precious metals as ingots or
bullets to jewellers and supplied goldsmiths with watchmaker’s tools and with
watch-glasses. The only objects they sold which fell outside this specialisation
were Langres knives. Their suppliers came from the great centres of European
watchmaking: Switzerland and England via a great variety of channels.11
Establishing the value of the goods Pierre Rullier sold has proved extremely
difficult because he rarely recorded the details of his transactions: at most he
indicated the total value of the parcel of goods he had received. Moreover for
transactions concerning a single item, particularly watches, he preferred to note
the code of four to six letters for which he knew the corresponding financial value,
and only rarely specified (as in the following two examples) that the watch coded
‘aadp’ was worth 475 livres and the one coded ‘aabp’ was worth 1,230 livres.
However the originality of his methods of bookkeeping means that some ranges
of prices can be established.
What do the prices which the pedlar charged tell us? Rullier sold silver snuff
boxes for between 27 and 49 livres and bought them in Geneva for between 23
and 33 livres. Crosses were available in five different styles, ranging from 12 to
25 livres for the biggest. But he also sold a diamond cross for 84 livres. Watches,
which were the articles that sold the most for this type of business, were avail-
able in an even wider price range: between 4 livres and 1,230 livres.12 If we con-
sider low prices charged for watches, then we can understand why they spread so
quickly: for most people the price only represented a few days’ work.
The novel aspect of Rullier’s account book lies in the fact that the vast major-
ity of his clients were shopkeepers. This adds a previously unsuspected dimension
to peddling and, where these particular goods were concerned, gives the pedlar
the advantage in the question of market share between sedentary businesses and
travelling merchants. Rullier in fact supplied shopkeepers along the way, but also
by mail. The time he spent writing letters and sending goods to his customers, or
having goods sent, demonstrates the importance of this aspect of his business.
Individual customers, on the other hand, were rare. Admittedly, he might have
sold small items for cash, which he didn’t bother to write down as his account
book was more of an aide-mémoire as far as his correspondence was concerned
than a usable accounting document. The few individual customers who do appear
in it had purchased expensive items – a gold repeater watch for the innkeeper
from Maubeuge, or a cross inlaid with diamonds, perhaps even silver watches of
lesser value.
Another original aspect of Rullier’s business was how he sold items to in-
dividuals via his customers’ shops, leaving watches and items of jewellery for the
shopkeeper to sell, fixing usually a minimum price and specifying that if the
shopkeeper managed to get a better price for it they would split the profit. He
would collect the unsold item when he would next return. Rullier also undertook
repairs, but it is difficult to see how this worked except that he would easily give
the customer another watch while the first was being repaired.
Lastly, Pierre lent large sums of money to some of the merchants who had stalls
at the fairs (789 livres, for example, to a merchant from Reims; 531 livres and
then another 203 livres to another ‘ordinarily resident at Abbeville, travelling
with the fairs’). This was a classic example of a supply chain, following the same
patterns as the peddling hierarchy.
The Rulliers illustrate that pedlars were not just occasional and archaic
vehicles in a rapidly changing business world, nor makeshift solutions to the
slow development of the shopkeeping network, nor those left behind by the com-
mercial boom. Many of them were able to take advantage of the possibilities
created by rapidly expanding markets – in particular the markets for luxury goods
and new products – and became intermediaries between the manufacturers and
the shopkeeper, while continuing to look for sales to individuals, either directly
or by using the shops as intermediaries.
Chambrelans and revendeuses13

Let us also mention the better-known figure of the chambrelan who sold goods
illegally, that is without licence or in breach of commercial regulations, or used
the pedlar to sell his products for him.14 The wives of craftsmen would often sell
their husbands’ products illegally, ignoring the statutes of craft corporations or
retailing regulations. Women selling fans would position themselves on bridges
or at church doors where they could reach a large female clientele. Fraud and
illegal sales, which took place at all stages of a product’s life, were so common
that the police ignored them unless a particular complaint was made by one of
the guilds.15
In fact the police tolerated and made use of the revendeuses (women selling
secondhand clothes). Some of them worked as a group and were in touch with
the police informers; others managed to combine the two roles and were in-
formers and sold stolen clothes at the same time.16 The revendeurs and revendeuses
had much in common with the pedlars. Like them they ranged in status from
rich merchant to occasional dealer who was practically a beggar; again like the
pedlars they not only sold to individuals but also acted as the link between dif-
ferent merchants, and their practices were often similar since they too used the
shops to sell certain items which their street clientele was not in the habit of
buying. Secondhand clothes were at the heart of this business which was con-
trolled by the secondhand clothes dealers and the revendeurs of both sexes.17
Public sales
These took place on three types of occasion: when an inheritance was being
settled, when a business had failed and when objects were being disposed of which
had been pawned, but not recovered. Louis Sébastien Mercier denounced in
general terms the way in which the shopkeepers dominated these sales, doing
everything in their power to prevent access to private individuals. These sales,
he declared, were in the control of the grafinade:
These are a group of merchants who do not outbid each other at sales because
all those who are there when an object is purchased have a share in it; however
when they see that an individual desires a particular object they force up the
price of it and bear the loss which, although significant for a person acting
alone, becomes slight when divided between all the members of the league.
These leagues exist for jewellery, diamonds, clocks and watches: they prevent
the public from taking advantage of inexpensive goods . . .
The women selling old hats and the revendeuses, adds Mercier, act similarly and
documents belonging to the most successful merchants on the rue du faubourg
Saint-Honoré confirm that they were in the habit of getting part of their stock
from the public sales.18
According to Mercier the merchants’ success in controlling these sales meant
that Les petites affiches, one of the first French newspapers to announce the
auctions which took place after a death, ‘are only of service to upholsterers,
jewellers, merchants in the fashion business, and the young men who trade in
horses, pictures and diamonds’, whereas by making the information about these
sales easily accessible the paper should have been helping individuals to break
into this type of business.19
The ‘curieux’
The upper classes, with their cabinets full of curios, took part in this business too:
Our great lords call themselves ‘curieux’ [collectors of curios], yet are more
often than not glorified brocanteurs [secondhand dealers] who buy not from
need or passion, but so that they may have jewellery, horses, pictures, antique
prints and so forth cheaply. They set up stud farms or cabinets which rapidly
become shops: we believe them to be fervent enthusiasts of the fine arts; in
actual fact they love money. The vases, bronzes and masterpieces to which they
seem so attached and appear to idolise are available to anyone who’ll relieve
them of them for gold.20
The entries for ‘curieux’ and ‘brocanteur’ in l’Encyclopédie back up Mercier on this.21
Moreover, paying for new objects by getting rid of older ones was common
practice between the aristocrats and their suppliers.22
Luxury goods and financial circuits
I do not intend to analyse here the financial sectors, nor go into the com-
plexities of credit, but to understand the role of luxury goods in financial
circuits certain characteristics of eighteenth-century financial practices should be
highlighted. Credit was still largely a matter between individuals and the ways in
which it operated were very specific depending on who was borrowing and who
was lending. Everything hung on the time allowed (or refused) to repay the loan,
and not everyone had equal access to time. It depended on social status: the higher
you were in society, the more time played in your favour and against your
creditor. As a result those without social status – the majority – all those who had
no property on which to secure their loans, would have access to credit (except-
ing credit within a community) only by pawning their possessions – effectively a
deferred sale.
However, there was one type of debt which fell outside of the equation linking
time and social status: gambling debts, which had to be paid without delay.
Indeed, gambling debts fall outside the ordinary culture of credit since, by its very
nature, to gamble is to consume money. It is therefore out of the question, since
it risks distorting the very act of gambling, to include these debts within an
economy of credit which was oriented towards the future when they were really
part of a consumer economy rooted in the present. Gambling was extremely
common both at the court and in the town.23
Revendeuses à la toilette and courtiers

The absence of financial institutions combined with the poor circulation of money
and the numerous occasions on which people needed cash created openings
for intermediaries, positions which required discretion and the ability to enter
into every type of home. Moreover, the aristocracy could not openly engage
in business. Some of these professions, such as revendeuse à la toilette, were the
province of women; others, like courtiers (brokers), were exercised by both sexes.
The revendeuse à la toilette is welcome anywhere. She brings you fabrics, lace
and jewellery which belonged to someone who needed cash to pay gambling
debts. She is in the confidence of the finest ladies, who ask her opinions and
arrange several matters on the basis of her advice. She is entrusted with curious
secrets, and generally keeps them fairly faithfully.
It has been said that a revendeuse à la toilette must prattle endlessly but
none the less maintain unfailing discretion, must possess boundless agility, a
memory for objects, unflagging patience and a strong constitution.
Women such as this only exist in Paris. They make their fortune in a very
short time.24
Trevoux’s dictionary also mentions their existence: ‘In Paris those women who
go to private houses with old clothes or jewels which others wish to be rid of are
called revendeuses à la toilette.’25 Savary too stresses that this profession existed only
in Paris, but he also highlights the role they played in the circulation of contra-
band. ‘In Paris those women who go to people’s houses to sell second-hand clothes
and jewellery which others wish to get rid of are called revendeuses à la toilette.
They are also often involved in the clandestine sale of smuggled or illegally
imported goods, such as fabrics from the Indies, Indies painted canvases, Flanders
lace, and so forth . . . either on their own account or acting on behalf of someone
else.’26 (See Plate 9.)
Mme Leonard, ‘courtière and revendeuse à la toilette’, owed five creditors
nearly 30,000 livres for ‘merchandise entrusted to her’, amongst whom were
two haberdashers, and she dealt in all kinds of goods: Persian rugs, fabrics from
the Indies, satins, dresses, jewellery, watches.27 Marie-Anne Riffant was another
revendeuse à la toilette who specialised in cloth and muslins, competing illegally
with the women who sold household linen. She also lent money to other (female)
usurers.28
Let us turn once again to Mercier as he describes the activities of the courtiers:
The man who offers you money looks gaunt and half-starved; he wears old
clothes. He is always tired; he sits down when he comes in, for in a day he
covers all parts of the city in order to match sales and purchases and to link
the frequent exchanges of various goods.
First, you place in his hands your bills of exchange. He leaves: within the
hour they will have been scrutinised by the entire clique of courtiers. Then he
comes back to offer you cheap stockings, hats, braid, cloth, raw silk, books –
he’ll even offer you horses. It’s up to you to turn these objects into money.
Suddenly you’re a hatter, a hosier, a bookseller or a horse dealer.
Your bill of exchange has been paid in merchandise; sometimes you’ll get a
quarter of it as cash. And the same courtier, whom you’re obliged to turn to
again, is also the man to take this merchandise off your hands: a new piece of
sharp practice which soon reduces your bill of exchange to a third of its orig-
inal value.29
The lack of ready cash was therefore sometimes a reason for and sometimes a
pretext for the parallel circulation of goods.
‘Affaires’
Selling secondhand clothes was an important activity between individuals, as well
as for the dealers who were behind some of the collectors. This activity was simply
called ‘affaires’.
This is the generic term to describe any form of trading in secondhand goods.
Rings, cases, jewellery and watches circulated in place of money. If someone
needs money, he starts out with the contents of a shop. He will lose, it is true,
more than half his investment when he wants to turn it into cash; but this is
what is called ‘affaires’.
Young people are often involved in this type of business. Dresses, skirts, neg-
ligees, cloth, lace, hats, silk stockings are all traded. They know that they will
be tricked, yet need pushes them onwards and they take on all sorts of mer-
chandise. A mass of men are engaged in this destructive industry, and the upper
classes are among the most skilful among them.30
Further on Mercier returns to this activity: ‘There is an enormous trade in jew-

ellery: among rich men items of jewellery are constantly being resold. Certain
individuals have in their homes stocks of jewellery to rival the shops of the jew-
ellers themselves: they’re jealous and proud of this honourable reputation.’31
Mercier sees the origins of this circulation of luxury goods between individuals
lying in the rapid tempo of changing fashions and in the need to possess several
versions of certain objects like snuff-boxes and items of jewellery.32 In this he
agrees with Georg Simmel’s analyses which have recently been supported by Carlo
Poni’s work on the strategies employed by silk merchants in Lyons.33
This circulation is generated both by fashion’s need to renew itself and by a
basic need for money, whether it be to help to acquire the latest stylish objects
or for other reasons entirely. The fact remains that jewellery and fashion items
circulated as though they were paper money, except that their drop in value was
significant and rapid. Those working in the clothing industry were all caught up
in this financial circulation, which was essentially usurious given the huge drop
in value once an item had been sold on once. The importance of this market can
be seen in the numeric division between occupations in the clothing industry:
those involved in the production of new clothes around 1725 totalled 3,500 tailors
and dressmakers compared with 700 secondhand clothes dealers, as many linen
sellers, and between 6,000 and 7,000 revendeuses.34
Pawning goods
In working-class urban milieux, people pawned objects incessantly when there
was no work. This practice is particular to social groups and economies which are
too poor to support an economy in which risk can be measured over time; the
fragility of their existence forces them to live an unpredictable economy where
only the present matters. Pawning which is a sale disguised in a loan is therefore
one of the most important financial tools in these economies.
Because this private sector of the economy was extremely active and powerful
and more often than not was controlled by the biggest merchants and financiers,
it was very difficult for official pawnshops to become established in France. All
attempts to set up pawnshops in France – despite the fact that people such as
Colbert were in favour of them – failed until the end of the 1770s.35 At this point
the increase in pauperism and the pressure from a group of bankers and politi-
cians who, like Necker, believed in the need for cheap credit and felt that this way
of helping the poor was more effective than charity, enabled the creation on
9 December 1777 of the Paris pawnshop.36 Its success was immediate. Three
months later the crowds were such that it was necessary to increase the size of
the shops and create several divisions.37 In fact, the pawnshop was the only insti-
tution that enabled the poor to resist the financial practices of private interme-
diaries who played on lack and necessity.
Let us turn once again to Louis Sébastien Mercier who was present at the
opening of this pawnshop:
Nothing better demonstrates how much the capital needed this lombard than
the never-ending crowds of applicants. Such peculiar and incredible tales are
told that I dare not set them down here without first having sought more
precise information which will allow me to guarantee their veracity. There is
talk of forty barrels filled with gold watches, doubtless to express the prodigious
quantities which have been deposited. What I know for sure is that I have seen
between 60 and 80 people waiting their turn there, each one come to borrow
not more than six livres. One was carrying his shirts, another a piece of furni-
ture, another what remained of a wardrobe, and another his shoe buckles, an
old picture, some poor clothes, and so forth. They say that there is a new crowd
there almost every day, and this gives a very clear idea of the extreme short-
age of money from which most of the city is suffering . . .
Rich people borrow as well as the poor. One woman gets out of her carriage,
wrapped up in her coat, and deposits 25,000 francs worth of diamonds so that
she can go gambling in the evening. Another takes off her petticoat and asks
for the price of a loaf of bread . . .
We are assured that a third of the effects are not collected: a further proof of
the strange shortage of cash. The sales which take place offer many luxury
goods at low prices, which may harm the smaller merchants somewhat. But
besides this it is no bad thing that these goods, which were excessively highly
priced, should now experience a drop in their phenomenal rates.
It is said that the system is already being abused. The poor are bullied, and
the objects offered by the destitute are estimated at too low a price, which
means that they are being offered virtually no help. Charity should be the
driving force and should be more important than other superficial and vain
considerations. It would not be hard to turn this establishment into a temple
of mercy, generous, active and compassionate. The good work has begun: why
should it not be completed in a way which will satisfy the poorest people
most?38
The letters patent of 9 December 1777 set the loans at four-fifths of the value,
measured by weight, of gold and silver; and two-thirds of the estimated value for
other objects. The right of the state to retain 2 deniers per livre per month for
administrative expenses implicitly capped the interest rates on the loans at 10
per cent. Three livres was the minimum amount which could be borrowed.39 The
Parisian pawnshop appears to have acted as a bank for the Parisian artisanal
classes, as the nature of the objects pawned and the smallness of the loans attests.
Of the 600,000 loans made in a year, 550,000, ranging from 3 to 24 livres, incurred
expenses which were higher than the value of the object.40 Four divisions of the
establishment, each accepting nearly 80,000 articles worth around a million livres,
were set aside for clothes, linen, cloth, and fabric remnants. More valuable objects
were pawned in three further divisions. Diamonds, jewellery, lace and brand new
items were covered by the first of these. In 1789 the total value of the loans for
the 52,221 objects of this type pawned was 7,630,667 livres. Figures such as these
justify Mercier’s claims that the wealthy borrowed just as much as the poor did.
Silverware, watches, bronzes, buckles, swords and pictures were pawned in the
second division, which was very popular, recording 89,641 articles worth
5,420,145 livres. On 26 August 1783 alone 139 gold watches were deposited. Of
the 1,500,000 livres in sales in 1788, 600,000 was made from the clothes of the
poor, 300,000 from silverware, 200,000 from watches, 200,000 from jewellery and
only 200,000 from merchandise.41
In January 1789 in his ‘Mémoire sur les calamités de l’hiver 1788–1789’,
Desbois de Rochefort attributed the unemployment in the watchmaking industry
in part to the pawnshop sales; and in the complaint books the merchants who
sold feathered fashion accessories also bemoaned the competition posed by the
pawnshops. Observations made by employees of the pawnshop enable us to
qualify these accusations as they show that it was often the merchants themselves
who pawned items, and this claim is backed up by remarks made by the pawn-
shop evaluators in their ‘Observations sur le Mont-de-Piété’ published in 1790.
Once again Mercier is right when he says that the establishment of the Parisian
pawnshop caused the price of diamonds and luxury goods to fall, which delights
him even if ‘the smaller merchants suffered a little because of it’.42
The activity of the Parisian pawnshop also provokes questions about the
enthusiasm of the ordinary people for the gold watches and jewellery which
appear in inventories drawn up after a death: their presence may not be explained
solely in terms of their usefulness or a desire to imitate the upper classes – they
were also valuable objects which were easily turned into cash.43 On the same
morning in 1788, two midwives, a wine merchant and a tailor, amongst others,
passed before the estimators at the pawnshop and had their gold watch valued at
84 livres; then a cobbler with silver buckles for which he got 32 livres; a jeweller
with a clock for 252 livres; and a middle-class woman from the rue d’Argenteuil
who deposited 150 livres worth of silverware. A carpenter brought a seven-volume
set of Voltaire’s works; a dancer from the Délassements-Comiques pawned his
theatre costumes; someone else deposited four pictures estimated at 260 livres,
and so forth.44
The operation of the pawnshop – and of the numerous organisations offering

similar loans – demonstrates how important it is to locate the act of buying and
selling objects not only in a symbolic economy but also within the real workings
and the constraints of the day-to-day economy: in the eighteenth century money
was scarce, work and life precarious and financial institutions were heavily
involved with merchandise.
Notes
1. Carolyn Sargentson, Merchants and Luxury Markets. The Marchands Merciers of Eighteenth-
Century Paris (London, 1996), p. 66. Robert M. Isherwood, Farce and Fantasy: Popular
Entertainment in Eighteenth-century Paris (Oxford, 1986). Mickael Szanto, ‘Liberatus
artibus restituta. La foire Saint-Germain et le commerce des tableaux. De l’échoppe
Goetkindt aux loges Valdor (1600–1660)’, Economia e Arte Secc. XIII-XVIII, Istituto Inter-
nazionale Di Storia Economica ‘F. Datini’. Prato, 33, 2002, pp. 149–86.
2. Louis Sébastien Mercier, Tableau de Paris, text edited by Jean-Claude Bonnet, 2 vols
(Paris, 1994), p. 1088.
3. Saint-Lambert, ‘Luxe’, in Denis Diderot and Jean Le Rond d’Alembert, eds, Encyclopédie,
ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts, et des métiers (Paris, 1751–65), 9, 764.
4. Cissie Fairchild, ‘The Production and Marketing of Populuxe Goods in Eighteenth-
century Paris,’ in Consumption and the World of Goods, John Brewer and Roy Porter eds.
(London, 1993), pp. 228–48, p. 242.
5. Louis Sébastien Mercier, Le Nouveau Paris, Etalages, pp. 1212–14. Surveys around
1680–1700 recorded the population of Paris as between 400,000 and 500,000 people;
around 1750 this would have been close to 600,000, and it exceeded the 700,000 mark
just before the Revolution. Daniel Roche, La Culture des apparences (Paris, 1989), p. 71
and Le Peuple de Paris (Paris, 1981), pp. 254–6.
6. Pierre Verlet, ‘Le commerce des objets d’art et les marchands merciers à Paris au XVIIIe
siècle’, Annales ESC, (1958), XII, pp. 10–29, pp. 15–17; Jean Hillairet, Dictionnaire His-
torique des rues de Paris, 2 vols (Paris, 1963). Carolyn Sargentson, Merchants and Luxury
Markets; Claire Walsh, ‘Shopping in Early-Modern London c. 1660–1800,’ PhD thesis
European University Institute, 2001.
7. Sargentson, Merchants and Luxury Markets, pp. 18–20.
8. Laurence Fontaine, History of Pedlars in Europe (Cambridge, 1996).
9. Archives de la Seine, D5 B6 889. As well as the fabrics which constituted his core busi-
ness, in the 1780s, Jean Baptiste Duport the elder sold a number of gold watches for
around 175 or 200 livres – 60 livres for silver ones – and some cardboard snuffboxes.
Similarly Cahen – who left a 15-page notebook detailing his purchases, sales and
expenses in 1770, a year in which he planned to travel as far as Poland – bought and
sold calico handkerchieves, watches, gloves and small items of jewellery. Bookselling
pedlars also always added watches to their wares. Archives de la Seine D5 B6 592,
account book belonging to Gilles Noël, a bookselling pedlar, who also sold gold watches
from Geneva for 300 and 280 livres, and repeater watches with gold cases from Paris
for 312 livres.
10. Fontaine, History of Pedlars. Hélène Viallet, Les Alpages et la vie d’une communauté
montagnarde: Beaufort du moyen âge au XVIIIe siècle, Mémoires et Documents publiés par
l’Académie Salésienne vol. 99, Documents d’ethnologie régionale, n° 15, 1993.
11. For more details see Laurence Fontaine, ‘Pierre Rullier colporteur horloger-bijoutier savo-
yard au XVIIIe siècle’, in Quand la Montagne aussi a une Histoire. Mélanges offerts à Jean-
François Bergier, Martin Körner and François Walter, eds. (Berne, 1996), pp. 167–75.
12. This is the range of prices and quality which we have been able to ascertain. Rullier sold
a gold repeater watch with an enamel portrait of a figure, a diamond hoop and a
diamond push button for 1,230 livres; a gold repeater watch for 475 livres; engraved
gold watches for between 160 and 200 livres; gold watches for between 182 and 123
livres; silver watches for between 90 and 60 livres; a gold chain for 200 livres; and other
silver ones for which he hoped to get 120 livres. Alongside these jewellery watches he
also had six watches with spring mechanisms from Paris which he’d bought for 12 livres,
and 45 ‘non-gold’ watches which he’d acquired for 406 livres 10 sols, which puts
watches at scarcely more than 9 livres each. Finally there is an enigmatic reference to
two watches for 4 livres. For more information on repeater watches, see David S. Landes,
Revolution in Time. Clocks and the Making of the Modern World (Cambridge, 1983).
13. There are many terms in French for ‘secondhand dealers’ – brocanteur, revendeur, etc. –
and not enough English equivalents, so I have chosen to keep their terms in the
original French, since they are later defined. (‘Seller on’, or even ‘seller’, would not be
appropriate in English.) Note of the translator.
14. Fairchild, p. 237. Steven L. Kaplan, ‘Les corporations, les “faux-ouvriers”, et “le faubourg
St Antoine au XVIIIe siècle” ’, Annales ESC (1988), pp. 353–78, and ‘Les “faux ouvriers”
de Paris au XVIIIe siècle’, in La France d’ancien régime: Etudes réunies en l’honneur de Pierre
Goubert, vol. 1 (Toulouse, 1984), pp. 325–31. Michael Sonenscher, Work and Wages:
Natural Law, Politics and the Eighteenth-century French Trades (Cambridge, 1989). Ray-
monde Monnier, Le faubourg Saint Antoine (1789–1817) (Paris, 1981), pp. 49–81.
15. Fairchild, pp. 240–1.
16. Roche, La Culture des apparences, pp. 318–19.
17. Ibid., pp. 313–45. For more information on secondhand clothes dealers who specialised
in clothes from the court, see Sargentson, Merchants and Luxury Markets, pp. 106–7.
18. Mercier, Tableau de Paris, vol. 2, pp. 109–11; Sargentson, Merchants and Luxury Markets,
p. 32.
19. Mercier, Tableau de Paris, vol. 2, p. 312.
20. Mercier, Tableau de Paris, vol. 1, pp. 808–9.
21. See also Annie Becq, ‘Artistes et marché’, in La Carmagnole des Muses. L’homme de lettres
et l’artiste dans la Révolution, Jean-Claude Bonnet ed. (Paris, 1988), pp. 81–95.
22. Carolyn Sargentson, Merchants and Luxury Markets, pp. 32–3.
23. Francis Freundlich, Le Monde du jeu a Paris (1715–1800) (Paris, 1995).
24. Mercier, Tableau de Paris, vol. 1, p. 392.
25. Idem, p. 392, note 1.
26. Jacques Savary des Bruslons, Dictionnaire universel de commerce, d’histoire naturelle et des
Arts et Métiers, 5 vols. Copenhagen, 1759. Art. revendeur, revendeuse.
27. Roche, La Culture des apparences, p. 336.
28. Ibid., pp. 336–7.
29. Louis Sébastien Mercier, Tableau de Paris, vol. 1, ch. DLIII, Courtiers, vol. 2, pp. 57–60.
31. Ibid., p. 415.
32. ‘Such as different snuff boxes for summer and winter; the former light, the latter heavy,
and which have to be changed every day. This is how one knows [recognises] a man of
taste. One is excused from having a library, a natural history collection and pictures if
one has 300 boxes and as many rings’. Ibid.
33. Georg Simmel, ‘Fashion’, originally published in International Quarterly, 10, 1904 – Georg
Simmel, On Individuality and Social Forms. Selected Writings, edited with an introduction
by D.N. Levine (Chicago, 1971) pp. 294–323; Charles F. Sabel and Jonathan Zeitlin, ‘His-
torical Alternatives to Mass Production: Politics, Markets and Technology in Nineteenth-
Century Industrialisation’, Past and Present 108 (1985) pp. 133–76; Carlo Poni
demonstrates how silk merchants exploited this inherent characteristic of fashion:
‘Fashion as flexible production: the strategies of the Lyon silk merchants in the eigh-
teenth century’, in Worlds of Production: Flexibility and Mass Production in Western Indus-
trialisation, Charles F. Sabel and Jonathan Zeitlin eds. (Cambridge, 1997) pp. 37–74. See
also Sargentson, Merchants and Luxury Markets, ch. 5, p. 97f.
34. Roche, La Culture des apparences, pp. 328 and 344.

35. Yannick Marek, ‘Au carrefour de l’économique et du social: l’histoire du mont-de-piété
de Rouen (1778–1923)’, Le Mouvement social, n° 116, 1981, pp. 70–1 et Le ‘clou’ rouen-
nais des origines à nos jours (1778–1982) du Mont de piété au Crédit municipal. Contribu-
tion à l’histoire de la pauvreté en province (Rouen, 1983). Jean-Pierre Gutton, ‘Lyon et le
crédit populaire sous l’ancien régime : les projets de monts-de-piété’, in Studi in memoria
di Federigo Melis, vol. IV, Giannini Editore (1978), pp. 147–54.
36. Marek, p. 70.
37. In 1783, there were 406,428 articles worth 16.5 million livres (16,659,733); in 1787,
there were a further 70,000 (477,666) worth 18 million (18,212,019). In 1780, there
were 50 employees; in 1782, 60; in 1787, 84. In 1789 the great upheaval of the two pre-
vious winters required 7 warehouse men, 82 pawnbrokers, and 88 clerks which, added
to those managing it, made a total of 194 officials. Robert Bigo, ‘Aux origines du Mont
de Piété parisien’, Annales d’histoire économique et sociale (1932), pp. 113–26, p. 118.
39. Bigo, p. 121.
40. Ibid.
41. Bigo, pp. 121–5.
42. Mercier, Tableau de Paris, pp. 662–3.
43. In Paris in 1700 13 per cent of servants and 5 per cent of wage-earners owned a watch.
Watches spread rapidly throughout the eighteenth century and, in the 1780s, 70 per
cent of inventories relating to servants mention them, as do 32 per cent relating to
wage-earners. Roche, Le Peuple de Paris, p. 226. Initially it was cheap watches which
people bought (27.1 per cent in 1725 and 17.2 per cent in 1785), but the major phe-
nomenon was the lightning increase in ownership of gold watches (7.1 per cent in 1725
compared with 54.7 per cent in 1785). The same trend can be observed for jewellery,
and the number of inventories in which they figured rose from 49.2 per cent in 1725
to 78.1 per cent in 1785. Fairchilds, p. 230. The fall in the number of cheap watches
should be approached carefully: it might simply mean that they were no longer con-
sidered by many as being worthy of recording in an inventory. Fairchild, ibid.
44. Bigo, p. 124.
Plate
9. ‘The Modiste’. Ascribed to François Boucher.
7
Custom or Consumption? Plebeian
Fashion in Eighteenth-Century England
John Styles
Bread, cheese, butter, meat and potatoes: the ‘5 principel Things that poor Peple
want to bye,’ asserted an anonymous threatening letter received at Lewes in Sussex
during the famine year of 1800.1 Although the precise composition of the ple-
beian diet varied from region to region, there is little doubt that in good years, as
in bad, basic foodstuffs represented the largest single item in the budgets of ple-
beian families in eighteenth-century England. But should we assume that because
basic foodstuffs were the principal things that plebeian men and women wanted
to buy, they were the only things that they wanted, or, for that matter, were able
to buy? Did they aspire to purchase, or succeed in purchasing, commodities that
we might usefully describe as luxuries?
There is currently a tendency among historians whose sympathies lie with
‘those whom the consumer society consumed’ to deny that labouring people were
much affected by those changes in consumption that have been identified
as comprising an eighteenth-century consumer revolution, and then mainly to
their disadvantage.2 For Edward Thompson, throughout the eighteenth century
‘capitalist process and non-economic customary behaviour are in active and con-
scious conflict, as in resistance to new patterns of consumption’. It was only in
the aftermath of the Industrial Revolution and its accompanying demographic
revolution, well into the nineteenth century, that, according to Thompson, the
‘needs’ of working people were remodelled, the threshold of their material
expectations raised, traditional cultural satisfactions devalued and the authority
of customary expectations destroyed.3 For Robert Malcolmson, the ‘expanding
culture of consumerism . . . was almost entirely inaccessible to the great majority
of the nation’s population’.4 In a more technical vein, Adrian Randall and Andrew
Charlesworth worry that ‘the boundary line between the consuming classes and
the poor may have been set rather higher than some of the more optimistic
accounts of market penetration might presume’.5
Like almost all the opinions expressed by historians on the subject of plebeian
consumption in the eighteenth century, these views are not grounded in
substantial empirical work. Rather, their proponents assert a number of powerful
objections to those meliorist interpretations of eighteenth-century England that
have presented it as a socially inclusive ‘consumer society’, in which the labour-
103
104 John Styles
ing poor enjoyed increased access to what are defined as luxuries or convenien-
cies, as opposed to necessities. They offer three main objections. First, a straight-
forward denial of Neil McKendrick’s influential claim (itself based purely on the
views of polite commentators) that his eighteenth-century consumer society
extended to many among the labouring poor; that ‘the expansion of the market
[for fashionable clothing], revealed in the literary evidence, occurred first among
the domestic-servant class, then among the industrial workers, and finally among
the agricultural workers’.6 Second, a reassertion of the pessimistic view of the
effects of early factory industrialisation on working-class living standards. Third,
an insistence that any increase in the threshold of material expectations among
plebeian men and women was incompatible with the continuation of their tra-
ditional customary satisfactions and defences.
This chapter intervenes in the argument between pessimists and optimists by
considering the ways plebeian women and men spent on clothes in eighteenth-
century England. Clothing is crucial to this argument because it was the element
of plebeian expenditure most likely to embrace fashionable display. The capacity
of fashionable display to provoke emulation has been a central element in efforts
to define and explain plebeian luxury, whether by eighteenth-century commen-
tators, or by modern historians. The chapter argues that McKendrick and other
optimists have been right to insist on the capacity of large numbers of young
adult plebeians to indulge in the pleasures of stylish clothing, although the evi-
dence they use is of questionable value. The chapter goes on to argue, however,
that such behaviour did not necessarily require these young plebeian consumers
to give up the commitment to custom that Edward Thompson saw as the
principal defence of working people against the rigours of the free market.
Custom and consumption were often allies, not enemies. Plebeian custom
embraced the market as often as it resisted it. The customary assumptions and
practices that ordered many aspects of plebeian life in early modern England were
symbiotically entwined with the development of the early modern market
economy. Often they flourished precisely because they provided opportunities and
legitimising excuses to participate in attractive forms of commercialised con-
sumption. As Hans Medick has argued, ‘[Edward] Thompson’s work lacks an analy-
sis of those quieter, but equally “communal” characteristic manifestations of the
everyday life of the plebeian lower orders, which developed – to a considerable
extent in harmony with the growth of capitalistic markets – in consumption,
fashions and especially in drinking culture.’7
Even Medick, however, puts too much stress on the elements of resistance and
picaresque ‘irrationality’ in everyday plebeian consumption, so concerned is
he to distinguish plebeian life from the stereotype of an emerging, rational
‘bourgeois’ culture. Such cultural stereotypes, too often derived uncritically from
eighteenth- and nineteenth-century models, can be profoundly misleading in
the study of eighteenth-century consumption. This is true at every social level.
Plebeian Fashion in Eighteenth-Century England 105
Thus the stereotype of the ultra-fashionable, gambling, spendthrift aristocrat,

itself assiduously cultivated and disseminated in the late eighteenth century by
the circle around Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire and the Prince of Wales,
entirely ignores those prudent and pious nobles whose sympathies lay with
George III. Equally, the stereotype of the rational, calculating, self-denying bour-
geois fails to comprehend the often ruinous expenditure on personal and com-
mercial display incurred by many eighteenth-century businessmen.8 In the same
way, the stereotypical view of eighteenth-century plebeian culture, which presents
it as collectivist, anti-individualistic, immune to economically rational calculation
and overwhelmingly short-term in its time horizons, ignores the obvious varia-
tions of plebeian experience which grew out of differences of gender, age, loca-
tion, and employment. Even among single adult working men, who were perhaps
the group in the plebeian population most likely to fall into unpredictable,
picaresque lives, patterns of consumption varied considerably.
At one extreme was Johnny Chapman, the pitman employed by the father of
the wood engraver, Thomas Bewick, on the banks of the Tyne in the 1750s and
1760s. Bewick describes him, not unsympathetically, in the Memoir he wrote
towards the end of his life as dressing in rags, living on the most meagre of diets
and spending all his spare cash on periodic drinking binges in Newcastle.9 At the
other extreme were working men like the teenage William Hutton, in 1739 an
impoverished apprentice stocking weaver at Nottingham, who spent two long
years ‘with a little over work and a little credit, to raise a genteel suit of clothes’
and who goes on in his autobiography to plot the failures and successes of his
late teens and early twenties in terms of his ability to accumulate clothes that
were stylish by the standards of his peers.10
Not that we should conceptualise patterns of consumption among single
plebeian men as a single spectrum bounded by these two extremes. There were
working men hungry to acquire petty, fashionable luxuries like watches or laced
hats, who subsequently discarded them with little concern for accumulation –
many deep-sea sailors appear to have behaved in this way while on shore. There
were also working communities which enforced limits on sartorial display. The
buckle-maker James Gee, who arrived in Walsall from Dublin looking for work
in the 1760s wearing a cocked hat that was smart by Dublin standards, was
reluctantly obliged to conform to what he called ‘the custom of the place’ and
wear a round hat with a brim that flapped down over the face.11 Nor were these
variations simple reflections of occupational or residential stability. It was the
improvident pitman Johnny Chapman who enjoyed settled residence and employ-
ment, and the calculating, accumulating apprentice William Hutton who took to
the road in search of material self-advancement.
What follows is an exploration of the clothing practices of some important
sections of the young adult population between the 1740s and the 1790s. It
indicates that the material aspirations of plebeian English women, in particular,
were higher and more dynamic than the pessimists contend.12 It also suggests how,
at some stages in their lives, they might have enjoyed the means to fulfil those
aspirations. But let me begin in the harsh final decade of the eighteenth century,
106 John Styles
with some of the most impoverished groups in English society – the labouring
families whose budgets were recorded and analysed by the Reverend David Davies
in his Case of the Labourers in Husbandry of 1795 and by Frederick Morton Eden in
his State of the Poor of 1797. Both these men collected detailed information on
income and expenditure for large numbers of labouring families spread across
Britain, including information on clothing. The picture that emerges is a dreary
one of shabby clothes made from coarse materials that were worn for too long.
Things do not appear to have been so bad that adults were obliged to wear all the
clothes they owned at once; most of the budgets allow for a change of undergar-
ments, stockings and, in some of the more fortunate cases, outer garments and
even footwear. Usually adults (although sometimes not their children) appear to
have possessed all the basic elements that constituted a decent eighteenth-century
English wardrobe, in contrast to some of their Scottish equivalents. But for a
number of the families it was only with extraordinary difficulty that these minimal
standards were sustained.
This bleak picture of the clothing of the labouring poor is in marked contrast
to the generally positive impression of their dress offered by foreign commenta-
tors such as the Swede Kalm, the Frenchman Grosley and the German Moritz
between the 1740s and the 1780s.13 The immediately obvious reason for these
inconsistencies is chronological. The researches of both Davies and Eden were
prompted by concerns about deterioration in the economic position of the labour-
ing poor in the 1780s and 1790s, as registered in the rising cost of poor relief.
There is little doubt that the progressive rise in the cost of basic foodstuffs in the
second half of the eighteenth century, which does not seem to have been matched
by a corresponding improvement in wages in the south at least, meant that
Davies’s southern agricultural labourers were under considerable financial pres-
sure when their budgets were drawn up at the end of the 1780s. Eden’s budgets
for labouring families were compiled in the war years between 1794 and 1796,
the majority of them in the immediate aftermath of the devastatingly bad harvest
of 1795. Many of his families faced a ruinous combination of unprecedentedly
high food prices, falling industrial wages and reduced opportunities for industrial
work.
There remains, however, another crucial consideration – the family life-cycle.
Almost all of Davies’s and Eden’s budgets are for families, mainly families with
large numbers of young dependent children. This was the first of the two stages
in the life-cycle of the family when the balance between income and expenditure
was at its most precarious (the second being old age).14 As Davies pointed out,
mothers with very young children were restricted in the amount of paid work
they could undertake, even if it was available. Although children might secure
some money income from the age of five or six, their earnings at that early age
were very small. This, however, was a limited stage in the life of most parents.
Between leaving home and marriage, the majority of labouring people spent a
long period during which many of them earned and, at least as far as clothing is
concerned, consumed independently. Usually this involved one of the various
forms of live-in service or apprenticeship, with adult wages sometimes achieved
for men by the age of nineteen.15 Typically the majority of late eighteenth-century
labouring children left home in their mid-teens, but the average age of first
marriage was nearly 26 for men and over 24 for women.16 Earlier in the century,
the period between leaving home and marriage was longer still, because both
sexes tended to marry later.
Savings and stocks of clothing accumulated in the financially independent
years before marriage might see a couple through the first few years of child-
bearing, but the need to support several infant children and a nursing mother
who could earn little must have progressively impoverished many labouring
families. Nevertheless, the heavy initial financial burden of young children began
to reduce (assuming both parents remained alive) by the time the parents turned
40, as childbearing ended and children grew older. At this stage, older children
and wives who did not have to look after infants could provide an increasing con-
tribution to family income (assuming paid work was available for them). At the
same time, some of the older children began to leave home (at least semi-
permanently), reducing claims on family resources. It is the fact that most of the
families in the Eden-Davies budgets were at or near the first trough in the family
poverty cycle that accounts for some of the worst deficiencies in their clothing.
The pressure that infant children placed on family resources was not, of course,
just a problem for labouring families. Detailed, long-term family accounts do
not survive for eighteenth-century labouring families. It is possible, however, to
observe the effects of the family life-cycle on clothing expenditure in the accounts
of at least one plebeian family, the Lathams of Scarisbrick in west Lancashire
between the 1720s and the 1760s.17 The Lathams are the poorest family for whom
long-term, detailed financial records survive from the period. Nevertheless, they
enjoyed many economic advantages not available to the Eden-Davies families.
They farmed a smallholding of approximately 20 acres on fertile land suitable for
mixed agriculture in an economically expanding region; they had access to
grazing and turbary rights on newly reclaimed common land; they lived in an
area where industrial outwork for women was increasingly plentiful.
Families like the Lathams are usually identified by historians as part of that
extensive middling sort that was such an important feature of the eighteenth-
century English social hierarchy. There is good reason to admit them to that cat-
egory’s broad and ill-defined embrace, but we should not forget that the Lathams
were far removed from its upper echelons and were in no sense wealthy in the
contemporary sense of the word. Unlike most yeoman farmers, they did not
employ permanent domestic or farm servants. Indeed, it could accurately have
been said of them, just as it was of petty landholders in nearby Cumberland in
the 1760s, that ‘they work like slaves; they cannot afford to keep a man servant,
but husband, wife, sons and daughters all turn out to work in the fields’.18
As landholders, the Lathams had a significant economic advantage over the
Eden-Davies labourers, but they did not inhabit an alien world of goods. They
bought only a very narrow selection of the small domestic luxuries that spread
among the middling sort during the first half of the eighteenth century and seem
to have become increasingly common among the labouring poor during the
108 John Styles
second half of the century. Their purchases included books, newspapers, tobacco
pipes, and knives and forks, but excluded crockery and tea wares. In terms of
access to material possessions, therefore, the Lathams lived a life which was prob-
ably no better than, and in some respects may have been inferior to, that of the
hard-pressed agricultural labourers at the end of the eighteenth century.19 Never-
theless, the Lathams were not a typical plebeian family. Their children were
disproportionately female and most of them continued to live at home until they
were relatively old. Between their marriage in 1723 and the birth of their youngest
child in 1741 Richard and Nany Latham produced seven children who survived
at least into young adulthood, of whom six were daughters.
The Latham account book covers the 43 years of their married life from 1724
until Richard Latham’s death in 1767, including a period after the children had
left home. Neither the amount nor the proportion of expenditure devoted to
clothes remained constant. Richard and Nany Latham’s married life, and their
spending on clothes, fell into three distinct periods. During the first 18 years
between 1724 and 1741, when their children were young and increasingly numer-
ous, clothes expenditure was limited. The second period between 1742 and 1754,
when the children were older and earning more, but still largely resident at home,
saw spending on clothes rise dramatically, both in absolute terms and as a pro-
portion of total expenditure. In the third period, after the children left home in
the mid-1750s, clothes spending fell back. The focus of this chapter is on the first
and second periods.
The experience of the Lathams in the first 18 years of married life was one of
intense pressure on the family’s budget that bore many similarities to the Eden-
Davies labouring families. The early years of marriage and childbearing imposed
heavy financial demands and placed considerable restrictions on family earnings.
If a money value is ascribed to the cloth the Lathams made at home and is added
to the rest of their clothes spending, their average annual expenditure on cloth-
ing in these years, at just over 50 shillings, was not very different from Davies’s
most pessimistic calculation for his Berkshire labouring families. Like several of
the Davies labourers, Richard Latham appears to have owned at least two sets of
outer garments during this period, but he can have renewed them only very inter-
mittently. Nany Latham appears more abstemious than the labourers’ wives in
doing without new gowns, but like the adults in the labouring families, both the
adult Lathams appear to have been able to acquire footwear and undergarments
annually. If anything, Richard and Nany Latham spent less on themselves and
more on their children than Davies’s labourers. The cost of most of what the adult
Lathams bought was low and they purchased virtually no petty clothing luxuries
like lace, silk hats, patterned gown fabrics or fine linen aprons.
The second period, the 13 years from 1742 to 1754, witnessed a transforma-
tion in the family’s spending on clothes. Their annual expenditure on clothing
was on average three times higher than in the first period, a leap in expenditure
that was funded principally by the Latham daughters’ earnings as outwork spin-
ners for the Lancashire cotton industry. The principal beneficiaries were those who
made it possible – the older children. We can observe the change in the family’s
circumstances by examining purchases of two different types of clothing – gowns

and accessories.
Before 1742, no adult gown lengths of cloth were purchased for Nany Latham
or any of her daughters. Thereafter, as each of the daughters reached her mid-
teens, gowns began to be bought. Between 1742, when Betty, the eldest daugh-
ter, was 16, and 1749, when she was 23 and had already been in service, she
acquired four gowns on the family account. Two of these were relatively cheap,
with fabric costing 7s 6d and 12s 4d respectively. They were probably working
gowns made from a plain worsted cloth such as camblet at less than 16 –12 d a yard.
The other two gowns were much more stylish and expensive, made from
patterned cloths. Although the word is not used in the accounts, these were almost
certainly her ‘best’ gowns. When she was 16 Betty acquired 11–12 yards of blue flow-
ered damask, costing over 20 shillings, which at 20–12 d a yard was probably a mixed
worsted-silk fabric. Her plain, workaday gowns used only 9 yards of fabric or less,
but a gown made from a flowered fabric required a longer (and more costly) length
to allow the pattern to repeat harmoniously across the surface of the garment
when cut out and assembled. Later, when she was 23, she acquired a printed gown
costing 20 shillings, the fabric for which was probably either linen or cotton.20 A
similar pattern emerges for the next daughter, Sara, who acquired four cheap,
workaday gowns, costing well under 14 shillings, and two expensive, stylish
gowns, one of flowered damask and the other of a printed cotton or linen fabric.
Gowns were likewise bought for the four younger sisters once they reached their
mid-teens.
The change in the Lathams’ clothes purchases after 1742 can also be observed
in accessories and footwear. The increase in the number of accessories bought is
easily illustrated by hats and handkerchiefs, which between 1742 and 1754 were
bought much more frequently than before. In these 13 years, handkerchiefs were
purchased in sufficient numbers to provide approximately one every 18 months
for each member of the family, compared with approximately one every two years
previously.21 With hats, the contrast is even more marked. The family bought 30
during these 13 years, whereas only eight had been acquired in the previous 18.
But it is the increase in the range and the quality of the accessories purchased that
is most striking. Neither Nany Latham nor any of her daughters acquired any
petty clothing luxuries before 1742. But thereafter, just as with gowns, when the
daughters reached their mid-teens, they each began to acquire relatively costly
and decorative accessories, such as shag hats, probably made from silk and costing
between five and eight shillings, silk handkerchiefs and expensive white aprons
made from fine fabrics like cambrick. It is only in this period, moreover, that there
are entries in the account book for borders for caps and aprons, and for costly
bone lace.
For the Lathams, clothing was a luxury in the technical sense used by econo-
mists. As the family’s income grew as a consequence of the daughters’ industri-
ousness, so did both the amount and the proportion of family spending devoted
to clothes. Appropriately, this new spending was led by the unmarried daughters
themselves, whose purchases also embraced luxury in a sense more familiar to
110 John Styles
eighteenth-century social commentators, in that they purchased stylish acces-

sories and garments in addition to practical, workaday items of clothing. Yet it is
important to stress that the increase in family spending required to make all these
new luxury purchases was small, no more than an extra 1s 8d a week, consider-
ably less than the estimated weekly earnings of just one regularly employed
outwork cotton spinner in the period. Relatively small shifts in family income
could produce dramatic transformations in material culture.
The Latham daughters were unusual in that they stayed at home into their late
teens and early twenties. Was theirs a typical pattern of expenditure and acquisi-
tion among young plebeian women? The evidence of female domestic servants’
expenditure on clothing suggests that it was. Service of one kind or another was
the experience of vast numbers, perhaps a majority, of adolescents and young
adults in early modern England. A status as much as an occupation, service could
involve a variety of different kinds of work, but for women domestic service pre-
dominated. Vast numbers of young women entered domestic service. Patrick
Colquhoun’s 1806 estimate of 910,000 domestic servants in England and Wales,
of whom 800,000 were women, in a total population of approximately nine
million, may have been exaggerated, but it is suggestive both of the enormous
numbers involved and the sex ratio.22 A large majority of these women were drawn
from the plebeian classes and were under 25 years of age; in general female domes-
tic servants were expected to be young and unmarried.
Female servants (unlike their male equivalents) were not usually provided with
clothing under the terms of their contract of employment. They received payment
in kind in the form of accommodation, food, heat, light and washing, and in
addition a small money wage. How did they spend it? The records of Robert
Heaton throw some light on this matter.23 He was a medium-sized manufacturer
of worsted cloth and small landowner who lived high in the Yorkshire Pennines
at Ponden near Howarth in the second half of the eighteenth century. For most
of the period from 1768 to 1793 he had two female servants. Turnover was high:
only three of them stayed with him for more than three years. This was normal.
Where Heaton was unusual was in keeping detailed accounts of how his servants
spent their meagre wages, probably so that he could settle with them for
purchases made on his credit from local retailers. With only one exception, all
Heaton’s female servants devoted the bulk of what they spent out of their wages
to the purchase of clothing. Moreover, a majority spent more than they earned
and they did so by borrowing from Heaton.
Like the Latham daughters, their purchases represented a combination of the
stylish and the mundane. The most extreme was Alice Hutchinson, hired by
Heaton in 1781 at an annual wage of 78 shillings. In her first year of service she
actually laid out almost 102 shillings – a 31 per cent overspend. All but 10 shillings
of this went on clothes. She made 28 separate clothing purchases in that year,
including expensive, indeed fashionable, items like a muslin neckcloth for 3s 6d,
a silk hat for 6s 10 –12 d with a paper hat box worth 2 shillings, and a new linen
gown for 20s 6d, as well as shoes, clogs, pattens, other handkerchiefs, a petticoat,
a shift, yarn for stockings and various kinds of cloth, including a length of calli-
manco for 7 shillings, which was probably used to make her a gown for everyday
use. She went on to serve for another two years, continuing in debt to Heaton
but none the less making yet more expensive clothes purchases, including another
gown for 21 shillings, lace worth 12 shillings, a cloak, neckcloths in silk and
muslin, and another hat and hatbox. Alice Hutchinson may have been extreme
in the number of clothing items she bought, but the items she bought were not
uncharacteristic, either of her fellow servants in the Heaton household, or of
servants elsewhere whose purchases are recorded in the servants’ books kept by
drapers and other shopkeepers.24
Female servants’ money wages may have been small, but like the industrial
earnings of the Latham daughters, they were sufficient to provide a range of petty
clothing luxuries. Like the Lathams, most of what they bought was new; they
appear to have made hardly any purchases on the secondhand market. Of course,
their little luxuries did not match either for price or quality the more expensive
purchases of the daughters of the local gentry and a great gulf separated them
from the clothes bought by those among the nobility who aspired to lead
metropolitan high fashion. Nevertheless, the prices these young plebeian women
paid for their more expensive gowns, for example, overlapped with the lower
end of the range of prices paid for gowns by provincial women from lesser gentry,
professional and mercantile families. In so far as the stilted descriptions of the
account books allow us to establish, the young plebeian women’s more expensive
purchases reflected, albeit in a muted, limited manner, the broad trends of
high fashion. (see Plates 10 and 11.)
It is not easy from the terse descriptions and figures of an account book to
reconstruct the terms in which Robert Heaton’s servants or the daughters of the
Latham family understood their activities as consumers of clothing, particularly
as purchasers of their more expensive and stylish items, those clothes which are
repeatedly identified in plebeian and elite sources alike by the adjective ‘best’. Yet
both daughters and servants probably shared many of the concerns of the 16-
year-old William Hutton while apprenticed to a stocking weaver at Nottingham
in 1739.
I was arriving at that age when the two sexes begin to look at each other, con-
sequently wish to please; and a powerful mode to win is that of dress. This is
a passport to the heart, a key to unlock the passions, and guide them in our
favour. My resources were cut off; my sun was eclipsed. Youth is the time to
dress; the time in which it is not only excusable, but laudable. I envied every
new coat; I had the wish to earn one, but not the power.25
It took Hutton two years, but he did manage to acquire a best suit, and also a best
wig and a best hat. ‘The girls eyed me with some attention; nay, I eyed myself as
much as any of them.’26 For young adult plebeians, then, stylish or ‘genteel’
clothes could be a sign of sexual maturity, an emblem of material self-
advancement, a means of sexual attraction, a currency in sexual competition and
a source of self-regarding pleasure. There were also economic considerations. The
112 John Styles
romantic success that Hutton believed to flow from stylish clothes could eventu-
ally lead to marriage, without which plebeian women especially found it very hard
to survive economically. A stock of clothes built up while single could see the
owner through the impoverished early years of married life. Being well dressed
was one of the criteria that might secure a privileged service in a more wealthy
household.27
It was not just in sexual encounters or when seeking employment that cloth-
ing aroused feelings of respect and shame. Plebeian men and women felt a pro-
found obligation to maintain a decent, respectable appearance before their peers
in a variety of settings. Cheshire clergy in the 1778 visitation returns attributed
low church attendance among the lower rank to their false shame or pride in not
having decent clothes.28 Significantly, parish vestries hardly ever provided paupers
with clothing in the materials or at the prices that distinguished the ‘best’ clothes
bought by the Latham daughters, Robert Heaton’s servants, or the young William
Hutton, although they might require paupers to wear ‘decent’ clothing on
Sundays, sometimes of a slightly better quality than that to be worn on ‘common
days’.29 The significance of these distinctions is confirmed by the fact that the
‘best’ clothes acquired by the young plebeian adults discussed here, particularly
the accessories, were precisely those that bore the brunt of internal discipline
among Quakers, who were required to avoid ‘the world’s customs and fashions in
apparrel’.30
Yet to locate plebeian consumption of clothing in relation to the historical
debates outlined at the start of this chapter, we need to look beyond the personal
satisfactions and rewards stylish clothing might afford to those who could acquire
it. We need to consider the circumstances in which those satisfactions and rewards
were typically enjoyed. The visual distinctions between ‘best’ clothes and ‘work’
clothes were rooted in a fashion system that was an integral component of
eighteenth-century commercial expansion. Nevertheless, the occasions when
‘best’ clothes were worn were shaped by a festive calendar that found its legiti-
macy in emphatically customary usage and sometimes had to be defended against
attack by local elites.31 It was above all on special days like Sundays, Christmas,
Easter and Whitsuntide, at fairs and at hirings, at parish feasts and at harvest home
that plebeian men and women, especially young men and women, were able to
observe and be observed in their finery.
Towards the beginning of the century, Henry Bourne noted in his Antiquitates
Vulgares (1725) that it was at wakes that the people ‘deck themselves in their gaud-
iest clothes, and have open doors and splendid entertainments, for the reception
and treating of their relations and friends, who visit them on that occasion, from
each neighbouring town’. Sixty years later, young women continued to come to
fairs like the one at Turton in Lancashire ‘deck’d in the gayest fashion of the
year’.32 Indeed, wakes and fairs were occasions for the exhibition of plebeian con-
sumer luxuries of all kinds. The radical weaver Samuel Bamford recalled that at
Middleton wake in Lancashire in the late eighteenth century, it was the custom
for the women of each household to make a display of their ‘silver watches, trays,
spoons, sugar-tongs, tea-pots, snuffers, or other fitting articles of ornament and
value . . . and in proportion as it was happily designed and fitly put together or
otherwise, was their praise or disparagement meted out by the public’.33
Fairs, moreover, were not simply events where best clothes were worn, but also
places where they could be acquired. Retailers of cloth and clothing of every kind
set up their stalls in large numbers at fairs, taking advantage of the crowds and
providing them with an unusually wide choice of merchandise. Clothing also
featured prominently among the prizes offered to the winners of the sporting
contests that proliferated at fairs and other recreations. At Boughton Green fair
in Northamptonshire in 1721, prizes included two hats worth a guinea each and
six pairs of buckskin gloves, each worth 5 shillings.34 The significance these
customary festivities held for plebeian consumers of clothing can, once again, be
registered in the attitude of the Quakers, who discouraged attachment to worldly
show and were consistently hostile to attendance at fairs. Dorothy Garbutt was
disciplined by the Thirsk Monthly Meeting in the North Riding of Yorkshire in
1797 for having two sorts of dress, one to attend meetings, the other for fairs
and markets.35
The unfortunate Dorothy Garbutt was one of a large number of young plebeian
men and women who, as this chapter has argued, enjoyed disposable incomes
sufficient to acquire petty luxuries, especially clothes. Their choices as consumers
of clothing suggest a set of material expectations profoundly influenced by the
operation of the fashion system in the commercial marketplace. Yet these mater-
ial expectations found fulfilment in modes of self-representation rooted in the
customary calendar which ordered so many of the key life decisions – courtship,
marriage, employment – of young plebeian adults. In the sphere of clothing at
least, custom and consumption were not incompatible.
Notes
1. R. Wells, Wretched Faces. Famine in Wartime England, 1793–1801 (Gloucester, 1988),
p. 13.
2. E.P. Thompson, quoted on the dust jacket of P. Linebaugh, The London Hanged (London,
1993).
3. E.P. Thompson, Customs in Common (London, 1991), pp. 12 and 14.
4. R.W. Malcolmson, Life and Labour in England, 1700–1780 (London, 1981), p. 149.
5. A. Randall and A. Charlesworth, eds, Markets, Market Culture and Popular Protest in
Eighteenth-Century Britain and Ireland (Liverpool, 1996), p. 8.
6. N. McKendrick, ‘The Commercialisation of Fashion’, in N. McKendrick, J. Brewer and
J.H. Plumb, The Birth of a Consumer Society (London, 1982), p. 60.
7. Hans Medick, ‘Plebian Culture in the Transition to Capitalism’, in R. Samuel and G.
Stedman Jones (eds.), Culture, Ideology and Politics (Routledge, London, 1982), p. 89.
8. Julian Hoppit, Risk and Failure in English Business (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 71–2 and 168–9;
also Daniel Defoe, The Complete English Tradesman, vol. 1 (London, 1745), chapters 10
and 22.
9. Iain Bain, ed., A Memoir of Thomas Bewick Written by Himself (Oxford, 1979), pp. 28–9.
114 John Styles
10. William Hutton, The Life of Willam Hutton (London, 1817), passim. A similar use of
clothing as a measure of personal advancement can be found in the autobiography of
Francis Place; see Mary Thrale (ed.), The Autobiography of Francis Place (Cambridge, 1972),
passim.
11. Walsall Local History Centre, ‘The Life and Times of James Gee of Walsall, 1746–1827’,
unpaginated typescript, chapter 4.
12. The most comprehensive statement of the pessimist position with regard to clothing is
to be found in John Rule, The Labouring Classes in Early Industrial England, 1750–1850
(London, 1986), pp. 66–71, which covers a slightly later period than that addressed here.
Based mainly on the evidence of contemporary commentators, it notes that little is
known about actual plebeian consumption patterns.
13. P. Kalm, Account of his Visit to England . . . in 1748 (London, 1892); M. Grosley, A Tour
to London (London, 1772); K.P. Moritz, Travels chiefly on foot, through several parts of
England in 1782 (London, 1795).
14. See Keith Snell, Annals of the Labouring Poor: Social Change and Agrarian England,
1660–1900 (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 358–9.
15. Snell, Annals of the Labouring Poor, p. 333.
16. E.A. Wrigley and R.S. Schofield, The Population History of England, 1541–1871
(Cambridge, 1981), p. 424.
17. The following discussion is, unless otherwise indicated, based on L. Weatherill, The
Account Book of Richard Latham (London, 1990), a transcription which does contain inac-
curacies; see the review by S. Harrop and P. Perrins in Transactions of the Historic Society
of Lancashire and Cheshire, 141 (1991), pp. 234–6. In using the accounts for this chapter,
inconsistencies within the printed text have been corrected, but it has not been pos-
sible to check the whole of the printed text against the original manuscript. As most of
the inaccuracies are minor, it is unlikely that they have a substantial effect on the con-
clusions. I would like to thank Andy Gritt of the University of Central Lancashire for
additional information on the Latham family.
18. Gentleman’s Magazine (1766), p. 582.
19. For a pessimistic assessment of the material circumstances of agricultural labourers at
the end of the eighteenth century, see I. Dyck, William Cobbett and Rural Popular Culture
(Cambridge, 1992), chapter 5, and J.M. Neeson, ‘An Eighteenth-Century Peasantry’,
in J. Rule and R. Malcolmson, eds, Protest and Survival (London, 1993), pp. 51–8. For a
more optimistic assessment of their access to material possessions, see P. King, ‘Pauper
Inventories and the Material Lives of the Poor in the Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth
Centuries’, in Tim Hitchcock, Peter King and Pamela Sharpe (eds), Chronicling Poverty.
The Voices and Strategies of the English Poor, 1640–1840 (London, 1997).
20. Shopkeepers’ inventories for the period 1720 to 1750 often include cloth described as
printed linen and printed cotton. Occasionally printed flannel and printed linsey
woolsey also occur.
21. Based on the average cost of the Lathams’ purchases of handkerchiefs where prices are
itemised between 1742 and 1754, the total sum spent on handkerchiefs, and the number
of family members alive and resident in each year.
22. P. Colquhoun, A Treatise on Indigence (London, 1806), p. 253.
23. West Yorkshire County Record Office (Bradford), B149, Heaton of Ponden Mss., account
book of Robert Heaton, 1764–92. For an extended analysis of this source, see John Styles,
‘Involuntary Consumers? Servants and their Clothes in Eighteenth-Century England’,
Textile History, 33 (2002), pp. 9–21.
24. Hampshire. R.O., 96M82 PZ25, Account book of Mary Medhurst and Thomas North,
drapers, 1762–81; University of London Library, Mss. 625/3, R. Flowers, grocer and
draper at Westoning, Bedfordshire, Servants Book. It is not possible to reconstruct
individual servant’s clothes purchases as a whole from these books, because they
must almost always have bought clothing from more than one supplier.
25. Hutton, The Life of Willam Hutton, pp. 96–7.
26. Hutton, Life of Willam Hutton, p. 101.

27. Greater London Record Office, MJ/SP, Middlesex Sessions Papers, 1699 Jan/46–7.
Margaret Edwards, confessing to the theft of table linen, a spoon and two silver buckles,
said she ‘intended to dispose of the same to buy herself clothes to put herself into a
service’.
28. J. Howard Hudson, Cheshire, 1660–1780: Restoration to Industrial Revolution (Chester,
1978), p. 47.
29. Essex R.O., D/P 30/18: Witham overseers miscellanea, /1: Agreement between the Parish
of Witham and John Darby for running the workhouse, 1790, and /7: Orders for
regulating the workhouse, 1726.
30. Brotherton Library, University of Leeds, Special Collections, Quaker Records, SE 2:
Minutes of Settle women’s monthly meeting, 1701–38, meeting of 7/3/1735.
31. For attempts to suppress fairs, see R.W. Malcolmson, Popular Recreations in English Society,
1700–1850 (Cambridge, 1973), passim.
32. Malcolmson, Popular Recreations, pp. 53 and 86.
33. Samuel Bamford, The Autobiography of Samuel Bamford, vol. 1, Early Days (London,
1967), pp. 149–50.
34. Malcolmson, Popular Recreations, p. 57.
35. Jean E. Mortimer, Quakers in Gildersome (Leeds, 1990), p. 16.
Plates
10. George Stubbs, ‘The Haymakers’, 1785.
11. H. Walton, ‘Woman Plucking a Turkey’, 1770s.
Part III
Beauty, Taste and Sensibility
The essays in this part explore the relationship between luxury and aesthetics
through the mediating concept of taste in its real and metaphorical senses. Here
the contributors reveal the close relation between a history of material improve-
ment and broader histories of education, taste and desire, tracing the profound
relationship between visual and literary culture in the development of an aes-
thetic of luxury. In Chapter 8, ‘From the Moral Mound to the Material Maze:
Hogarth’s Analysis of Beauty’, Annie Richardson provides a groundbreaking new
reading of Hogarth’s polemical incursion into the field of aesthetic theory in the
Analysis of Beauty (1753). The chapter focuses on Hogarth’s definition of beauty
as the visual pleasure produced by serpentine lines and curves, based on the mate-
rial human body. Richardson observes that the Analysis naturalises, rationalises
and validates contemporary, fashionable tastes and the practices of everyday life.
This is particularly the case with the contemporary rococo style of asymmetrical
curved ornamentation in interiors, furniture and dress. Richardson’s lively read-
ings of the conduct and dance manuals contemporary with Hogarth’s Analysis,
demonstrate that polite science is put in the service of the explanation and
practice of taste in a way that allows the human body to meet a version of itself
wherever it looks. A key function of Hogarth’s book, argues Richardson, is to
enable the culturally enfranchised reader to be ‘at home’ in the various worlds of
discourse and practice he or she is called upon to inhabit.
In Chapter 9, ‘From Luxury to Comfort and Back Again: Landscape Architec-
ture and the Cottage in Britain and America’, John Crowley explores the nature
of domestic comfort more directly. He argues that physical comfort was an inno-
vative aspect of eighteenth-century Anglo-American culture, arising from the dis-
cussion of the differences between luxury and necessity at the beginning of the
century. Adam Smith’s paean to the ‘universal opulence which extends itself to
the lowest ranks of the people’ in the first chapter of The Wealth of Nations pro-
vides the starting point for a discussion of the history and uses of comfortable
cottages, in which Crowley traces the links between sensibility and technology in
the social application of luxury.
Finally, Jenny Uglow’s essay explores the cultural history and significance of
Britain’s ‘vase mania’ of the 1760s and early 1770s. At a time of great political and
117
118 Beauty, Taste and Sensibility
social unrest the polite world became obsessed with classical vases. Uglow traces
the classical vases’ changing status, from fashionable craze to symbol of British
craftsmanship as a whole. The British were proud of the manufacturers Josiah
Wedgwood and Matthew Boulton, clear examples that modern industry could
rival the greatest achievements of the ancient world. Uglow argues that the mass
production of fine objects raised new questions about the nature of art, craft and
originality. From the perspective of production or consumption, a simple vase
could carry complex meanings. Affordable luxury lay at the heart of a new sense
of national identity.
8
From the Moral Mound to the Material
Maze: Hogarth’s Analysis of Beauty
Annie Richardson
This essay investigates the luxury debates as context for one of the most chal-
lenging treatments of aesthetics in eighteenth-century Britain: the artist William
Hogarth’s Analysis of Beauty (1753).1 Our understanding of the Analysis benefits
from contextualisation, since it is significantly different from other texts in the
field of philosophical aesthetics in eighteenth-century Britain.2 It engages with
its central concerns, but declares its opposition and superiority to the field, and
reshapes its framework. The aim here is to elaborate on the nature of this oppo-
sition and difference in which the aesthetic values associated with beauty are
grounded in the substances of the human body, and in a psychology which allows
appetite a key role, as a version of materialism which makes particular sense in
the context of the luxury debates.
To present-day readers of the Analysis, it will seem unremarkable that aesthetic
values associated with beauty should be grounded in the body and its appetites.
Yet the dominant paradigm for philosophical aesthetics in early eighteenth-
century Britain grounds its aesthetic values in the divinely ordained response to
the abstract qualities of orderliness in the universe, and to moral character in
human beings. Puzzling to the present-day reader is why Hogarth has little to say
about what a beautiful human body is like in terms of specific features, and yet
has a lot to say about how a beautiful body stands, sits, gestures, moves and
dances. In this too the Analysis’s departure from the parameters of aesthetic writ-
ings can be understood more clearly in relation to the luxury debates.
The contention here is that aspects of Hogarth’s position are shared with the
modernisers in the luxury debates. In this context, the Analysis’s materialism and
apparent ‘amorality’, in comparison with the moralising project of philosophical
aesthetics, can be seen as in line with those modernisers who sought to demora-
lise, that is undermine the purchase of moralism, in the analysis of social and eco-
nomic change. Hogarth also shares attitudes compatible with modernising
materialism with the writers of dance manuals: the celebration of the physical
and psychological basis of the human love of variety and change, and pragmatic
support for the human need for social distinction through the confident exercise
of self-presentation.
119
120 Annie Richardson
Hogarth’s position is not viewed here as a personal politics. The idea is rather
to relate the Analysis to those broader positions on modernity with which philo-
sophical aesthetics engaged, and which give the Analysis its underlying consis-
tency. In privileging the perception of variety as the most significant constituent
of beauty, Hogarth was identifying with particular notions of the modern, and
consciously reversing the definition of beauty as the perception of uniformity
amidst variety given by his implicit target Francis Hutcheson, in the latter’s
An Inquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue, 1726.3 Viewed in the
most general terms, the employment of variety and uniformity in aesthetics drew
on classical values, particularly immaterial ideal beauty, and engaged with the
modern in other fields, particularly in moral and economic philosophy and the
sciences. Debates in aesthetics on the relative value of variety can therefore be
seen as contributions to wider debates about human nature in the context of
modernity. The concept of variety had an important role in several influential
fields of knowledge associated with modern thinking: in Newtonian theories of
matter, in materialist psychology and the notion of humans as driven by appetites,
a notion deployed by modernisers in luxury discourse, and in John Locke’s
concept of the mind and the imagination as containing ‘endless variety’ because
it learns through observation and experience rather than through innate ideas.4
Several Hogarth scholars have already insightfully linked Hogarth’s serpentine
aesthetics to a sympathy with modernity as mentalité, based on engagement with
empirical philosophy and with pluralistic, horizontal models of society.5 Explor-
ing the embeddedness of the Analysis in the luxury debates enables us to gain
additional purchase on why and how variety, intricacy and serpentine curvature,
the core constituents of Hogarth’s definition of beauty, were chosen as the key
values for an aesthetic of modernity.
Viewing the Analysis, the Inquiry, and other comparator texts in their discur-
sive context and as vehicles for agendas connected to the representation of moder-
nity, begins by recognising that philosophical aesthetics can be grouped, along
with rational and natural theology, moral and economic philosophy and psy-
chology, under the umbrella of the luxury debates. They register ambivalence
about the effects of economic modernisation through debates about the legiti-
macy of hedonism and types of leisure and consumption traditionally associated
with luxury. They are unified, not by their positions, but by their deployment of
Lockeian sense-based psychology and a cogent new scientific model of man ‘as a
self-contained machine or physical organism, governed by a tendency to pursue
pleasure and avoid pain’.6
This pleasure–pain model was supported by the authority of science to provide
arguments about the pursuit of pleasure as natural, and therefore legitimate.
When writers claimed that certain pleasures were basic to human nature, operat-
ing at a relatively primary, sensory level, entailing immediate responses to the
qualities of objects, they could also claim the legitimacy and value of the plea-
sure and its objects. Representing beauty in terms of a mental match to aesthetic
qualities in objects, that is, in terms of objective correlatives, tended to homo-
genise objects in the spheres of nature, culture and fashion, and to naturalise the
Hogarth’s Analysis of Beauty 121
pleasures in them.7 These are the typical discursive moves in the legitimisation of
leisure and consumption that we find in philosophical aesthetics.
A dominant moral-sense paradigm arose in British aesthetics through its
engagement with luxury discourse and discomfort with the idea that self-interest
was the basic human motivation. One of the acknowledged ‘founding fathers’ of
aesthetics, Anthony Ashley Cooper, the third Earl of Shaftesbury, wrote on aes-
thetics only incidentally as part of his project to combat what he saw as Hobbes’
and Locke’s representation of morality as arbitrarily imposed by religion and
culture. Concerned to set man’s ethical behaviour on the sound foundations
of natural behaviour at the level of the senses, he likened the moral sense to
the sense of beauty and conflated ethical and aesthetic judgement.8 It was
Hutcheson’s Inquiry, however, which developed the moral-sense paradigm for
philosophical aesthetics as such. It was written to marshal Shaftesbury’s moral
sense against Bernard Mandeville’s Fable of the Bees (1705, 1714, 1723), a noto-
rious catalyst in the luxury debates.9 Mandeville’s provocation consisted not in
rejecting the traditional idea that luxury was a vice, but in arguing that it was the
inevitable concomitant and generator of general prosperity in a modern, com-
mercial society. Far from being against human nature, luxury was rooted in
human nature, conceived along the lines of morally pessimistic theology and
materialist psychology: ‘real pleasures’, what really motivated people, was the
gratification of material and social appetites with the pleasures of prosperity,
power, self-interest and self-improvement.10
To replace this pessimistic view of human nature, and the representation of
luxury as a necessary vice, the Inquiry separates rationality from self-interest by
reconstructing rational man at the level of the senses. When man responds with
sensory pleasure to uniformity, he is confirming his rational agency in a divinely
authored universe which he has been constituted to preserve. Sensory pleasure,
in the cause of knowing and preserving the universe, operates ‘antecedent to
prospect of advantage’, ‘antecedent to custom or interest’, and the sense of
beauty is very different from the desire for objects.11 Consumption and the con-
sumer of luxuries are rehabilitated: wealth and power are not ends in themselves,
their end or purpose is the innocent gratification of a sense of taste for which
property is ‘of little consequence’.12 Hutcheson’s view of the appreciation of
beauty in the body as reducible to the appreciation of moral qualities, reiterates
Shaftesbury’s immaterial, body-repressing ideal beauty, and rejects Mandeville’s
scepticism about politeness and the polite body as the means to disguise appetite.
It is hard to overestimate the impact of Mandeville’s views on self-interest,
appetite, consumption and politeness on aesthetics. To represent morality in the
context of modernity in a secular idiom which could claim to represent how
people really were, aesthetics resorted to the same, increasingly prestigious, sense-
based psychology which was being deployed to naturalise pleasure and con-
sumption in luxury discourse.
The agenda of the moral-sense paradigm – to represent the gratification of
a sense rather than wealth as an end of human behaviour – guides the argu-
ment of Alexander Gerard’s Essay on Taste (1759).13 This makes a further useful
comparison for the Analysis since it acknowledges the Analysis and indicates the
continued functional importance of rehabilitating luxury. While admitting that
the connection between taste and morals cannot be proved, Gerard nevertheless
acknowledges Hutcheson as the founder of the concept of taste as a ‘reflex’ sense,
that is somewhat above the most basic level, and restates his arguments in atten-
uated form. ‘Taste stamps a value upon riches, as the procuring its gratifica-
tions is the great end for which they are desired and the worthiest use to which
they can be applied, the execution of benevolent and virtuous designs alone
excepted.’14 Through taste’s ‘innocent’ pleasures, the mind is predisposed to moral
goodness, and enabled ‘to disregard the calls of appetite’. It can therefore only be
perversions of taste which give rise to luxury.15
The Analysis does not represent the sense of beauty as antecedent to wealth,
nor as part of a divine plan, of which there is only the most equivocal hint, where
Hogarth writes of the response to beauty as ‘implanted in our natures . . . for
necessary and useful purposes.’16 While operating with sense-based psychology
and the pleasure–pain model, Hogarth’s understanding of the sensory response
to beauty is very different from the moral-sense response.
In the moral-sense paradigm, the perception of uniformity provides man with
an ideal state of happiness described in terms of equilibrium and quietude. Arguing
explicitly against the excessive weight Hogarth had placed on variety, Gerard writes
that without uniformity boundless mental energy would produce ‘fatigue, pain,
no end to labour, bafflement and toil’. With uniformity, humans experience an
ideal equilibrium between mutually mellowing ‘facility and exertion’.17 The psy-
chological pleasure–pain equilibrium is thus also framed in terms which suggest
class and occupation. By comparison, Hogarth’s description of the pleasures of
intricacy, a species of variety, is of an active condition of mental stimulation. ‘The
active mind is ever bent to be employ’d. Pursuing is the business of our lives; and
even abstracted from any other view gives pleasure. Every arising difficulty, that
for a while attends and interrupts the pursuit, gives a sort of spring to the mind,
enhances the pleasure, and makes what would else be toil and labour, become sport
and recreation.’18 The hunting metaphor is likely to have come from Locke’s own
use of a hunting metaphor for the mind’s pursuit after truth.19 This pleasure in the
process of inductive thinking contrasts with Hutcheson’s rational agent at the final
stage of deductive thinking, confirming scientific laws.20
Hogarth’s concept of the pleasures of pursuit includes physical as well as mental
stimulus, as is clear in his exemplification of the pleasures of intricacy, defined as
a response to serpentine lines which lead the eye ‘a wanton kind of chace’ whether
the object observed is moving or at rest.21 The cause of the pleasure is identified
with the movement of the eye, but, when Hogarth’s examples move in rapid suc-
cession from a winding jack, to a stick and ribbon carved ornament, to the sight
of a female dancer, the pleasure is heightened by more than eye movement. The
bewitching woman is a stimulus-object in the sense in which the concept was
elaborated in physics and psychophysics a century later, both a physical object
emitting energy, and a social-emotional-libidinal event.22 ‘But the pleasure it gives
the eye is still more lively when in motion. I never can forget my frequent strong
attention to it, when I was very young, and that its beguiling movement gave me
the same kind of sensation then, which I have since felt at seeing a country-dance;
though perhaps the latter might be somewhat more engaging; particularly when
my eye eagerly pursued a favourite dancer, through all the windings of the figure,
who then was bewitching to the sight, as the imaginary ray, we were speaking
of, was dancing with her all the time.’23 For Hogarth, making beauty a sensory
response did not mean it was different from desire.
Hogarth’s dynamic mental and physical response to dancing bodies compares
with the way the dancing master John Weaver writes about the psychological and
bio-mechanical foundations of dance movement and its pleasures in his Anatom-
ical and Mechanical Lectures upon Dancing (1721).24 The bio-mechanics of ‘easy’
movement, that is, alternating tension and rest in the muscles, movement in alter-
nating limbs, and relatively moderate flexion of joints, and the psychology of
variety, ‘the desire and love of change’ make dancing as a heightened, extended
and varied form of easy walking, both pleasurable and graceful.25 Although variety
is not an explicit aesthetic value for Weaver’s concept of grace, it is implicit in his
view of human psychology and the matching bio-mechanical body with its move-
ments necessarily alternating, according to the laws of mechanism and motion.
Movement, sexual attraction and variety all appear in Addison’s ‘Pleasures of
the Imagination’.26 For Addison too eye-response is important. The eye responds
to variety since this allows the travelling eye to lose itself. Addison’s and Hogarth’s
journeying eyes are directly opposed to the moral-sense eye of Shaftesbury and
Hutcheson which should not be ‘distracted’, and sees through matter, rather than
being pulled across its surfaces. Although Addison used landscape examples rather
than the body in writing about the visual pleasures of variety and novelty, move-
ment was fundamental to the experience. His psychology of pleasure includes
physiological processes of movement in the body: the healthy flow of ‘animal
spirits’ affects mind and body, and such pleasure is heightened further when the
object is moving, such as prospects with waterfalls or rivers. Hogarth mentions
serpentine walks but has comparatively few landscape examples while most of
Addison’s are of landscape or literature. Hogarth’s concept of intricacy comes close
to Addison’s description of variety and novelty. Beauty is associated by Addison
with the physical body since he assumed that its purpose was to tempt humans
to multiply. Unlike the moral-sense paradigm thus far, what Addison shared with
it was insistence on the divine framework which made the human responses
useful, and the multiplication of categories beyond beauty (novelty and the grand
or sublime).27
Addison has a limited concept of beauty as such, as the physical response to
the physical qualities of objects, particularly symmetry and proportion, and asso-
ciates the novel and the grand with more powerful responses. Hogarth appears to
have incorporated Addison’s novel with its quality of variety and the active phys-
iological processes associated with its pleasures, into his concept of ornamental
beauty, and particularly to the body.28 Gerard restated the category of the novel,
perhaps partly in response to Hogarth’s emphasis on variety, which Gerard
acknowledged as correct but going ‘too far’. Gerard’s novel accommodated
‘moderate difficulty’, variety, intricacy and Chinese and gothic ornament.29

Hogarth refers to Chinese and gothic as part of a call for greater ‘latitude’ in the
ornamentation of buildings since the natural eye regulates the necessary amount
of variety in any style. Thus any style can be beautiful.30 It was clearly important
to Hogarth not to multiply categories of aesthetic response, and certainly not to
marginalise contemporary fashions and styles into the category of the novel asso-
ciated with consumer behaviour in the luxury debates.31 Hogarth wanted his
theory to centre on beauty alone, perhaps so that its endorsement of fashions and
the proliferation of styles beyond the Palladian would be all the more prominent,
and the common meanings beauty has in discourses other than aesthetics, would
be retained. In fictional and satirical literature the term beauty frequently referred
to physically desirable women.
Hogarth’s pleasures of intricacy and his dancing woman probably connected
the reader to a very different world of discourse around beauty to that of philo-
sophical aesthetics. He compared the response to intricacy to the stimulus of plots,
riddles and the threads of plays, as well as to social dance.32 In seventeenth- and
eighteenth-century comic dramas, the country dance, a fashionable urban pastime
which belied its name, featured commonly as spectacle and symbol. It frequently
accompanied the announcement of a marriage and was used as a metaphor for
marriage, courtship and sex. The complex floor patterns of country dances, seen
to best advantage in the theatre from above, as Hogarth mentions, also symbol-
ised the skilfully choreographed complexities and resolutions of multilayered
plots, driven by a variety of modern, competitive, aspirational types and their
sexual, love and financial intrigues. Beauty in these plays referred explicitly to
women, desirable for their physical beauty and their witty verbal dexterity and
cunning, attractive to their rakish pursuers since it mirrored their own, and the
playwrights’, most prized qualities. Their beauty was often referred to through a
display of their dancing with the idea of their footwork and wit being equally
‘nimble’.33
Philosophical aesthetics required objective correlatives. In the Analysis these
are the waving line of beauty and the three-dimensional serpentine line of grace,
more specific than qualities such as variety alone. None of the comparator texts
refers to lines. Hogarth’s insists on lines as the foundation of his definition of
beauty. It is lines ‘which serve to raise in the mind the ideas of all the variety of
forms imaginable’. Hogarth’s serpentine lines are ‘principally concern’d’ with the
human body.34 They match mind and body, object and response, and are asso-
ciated with infinity and plenitude. Projected lines constitute models for the eye
to traverse the interior as well as exterior contours of objects and envisage them
in totality. Lines are basic, classifiable units, which make up the complex surfaces
of all objects and are infinitely combinable into new ones. Represented lines are
imagined as present, but are also literally present in the body, in the forms and
substances of bones, muscles and veins. They occupy an interesting intermediary
territory being both immaterial, as the product of thought, and material, as appro-
priate to an objective correlative. Where Hogarth suggests his easy method to
produce a graceful serpentine gesture by chalking a serpentine line on an ogee
moulding, we see how closely he wants us to see beautiful objects as having an

affinity with human form.35 This insistence on concrete objective correlatives
in lines, and the body as an underlying, formative presence, is completely lacking
in the moral-sense paradigm.
Discussions of the ‘end’ of taste in the divine plan are the sine qua non of the
moral-sense paradigm, placed by both Hutcheson and Gerard at the end of their
texts. There is no evidence in the Analysis of Hogarth having a teleological concept
of an end for beauty. If we ask what more mundane sense of purpose for taste we
find in the Analysis, it is self-presentation, and the legibility of the expressive body,
which is the real subject of his final chapters. Did Hogarth view human mecha-
nisms as ends in themselves? I offer the suggestion that as a materialist, Hogarth
could well have considered body and motion as sufficient explanation, and
thought, like Hobbes, that body and motion were primary terms which could be
developed through geometry, physics and psychology, to construct the best if not
the ultimate knowledge.36
Newtonian laws of gravity and motion were amongst Hutcheson’s examples of
beauty as uniformity. While rejecting the moral-sense paradigm, Hogarth does not
reject the framework of using modern psychology and modern science to situate
beauty in the modern world. In a rejected passage Hogarth made clear why he
thought he needed to reshape the existing paradigm. His concept of beauty
was not the natural philosophers’ ‘universal beauty, as to the harmony and order
of things’ but ‘Natures more superficial beautys, of sportiveness, and Fancy’.37
Although there is no scope here to correlate Hogarth’s arguments with contem-
porary science in detail, it is likely that Hogarth’s views were as informed by
science as Hutcheson’s.38 Where Hogarth wrote about the wrong-headedness of
the natural philosophers, he uses a labyrinth metaphor in a way which suggests
that his preference for variety is based on an understanding of contemporary
concepts of matter and that his superficial beauty refers to material beauty. He
accuses the natural philosophers of getting bewildered in the ‘labyrinth of variety’
and ascending the ‘mound of moral Beauty, contiguous with the open field of
Divinity’.39 What were the relevant phenomena in the labyrinth that they left
behind? Hutcheson and Addison also referred to labyrinths. Hutcheson had
written of a labyrinth of confusion and dissimilitude which would result from the
perversity of finding irregular objects beautiful, which would work against the
divine plan.40 Addison had used a labyrinth metaphor to refer to the new worlds
opened up by science: the infinite scope of planetary and microscopic worlds and
the ‘inexhausted fund of matter’.41 Hogarth’s labyrinth of variety refers, I think,
to a modern, materialist reduction of the scope of scientific enquiry, to material-
ist concepts of matter, to the human body, in all its labyrinthine structures, and
to its sensing and thinking processes.
Two powerful Newtonian concepts of matter, first forces of attraction and
repulsion operating on indivisible particles and, increasingly after 1740, fiery or
fluid aether substances, were being used in physics, chemistry and physiology to
explain basic processes.42 For some scientists, the same matter-in-motion processes
appeared to be the basis of all organic operations, such as blood circulation and
muscular motion, and even of sensation itself, as well as being involved in heat,
fire or electricity. Since the few art theories Hogarth finds correct in defining grace
are those which refer to flame and serpent forms, it is worth recognising how
matter-in-motion was being represented in all-embracing theories of life processes
which modelled them on the elasticity or fluidity of fire and electricity.43 Body-
matter was represented as animated at the microscopic level by dynamic recipro-
cal motions conceived as similar to those in electricity and fire. It would not be
an improbably huge leap from this representation of organic processes as flame-
like, for Hogarth to be prompted to synthesise the serpent as symbol of desire,
the flame form of grace from art theory, serpentine forms of human structures,
and physiological processes also conceived as like fire in their motion.
Hogarth would have found the inspired neuropsychology of David Hartley’s
Observations on Man (1749) even more suggestive since he synthesised Newtonian
wave-form aether vibrations with Locke’s concept of the mind’s associative powers
to theorise the brain structure itself as modified over time into the wave forms
that vibrated on it from the nerves.44 Such mind–body homology would have been
suggestive to Hogarth whose materialism also requires what happens in the mind
to be closely correlated to the forms and processes of the body.
Hutcheson’s and Hogarth’s ambitions for aesthetics included producing a
definition of pleasure that was a pleasure in a sense of self as ideally defined,
and with reference to modern science. Hogarth’s equivalent to Hutcheson’s
Newtonian rational agent is a holistically viewed, active, desiring, sensing and
thinking agent, which took its cue from prestigious explanatory concepts of basic
life-processes which appeared to apply to both mind and body. Given the excite-
ment at mid-century in aether theory, and its identification with electricity in
order to explain ‘all varieties of phenomena’, a wave-form might have seemed to
Hogarth a way of representing sensation and thought diagrammatically with a
form that inhered in the substances and processes of the body.45 Criticism of
Hogarth’s serpentine line for being as formulaic as the mystical je ne sçais quoi
concept of grace he aimed to replace, should at least recognise the potentially
comprehensive explanatory power of wave vibrations.
Compared with the moral-sense paradigm, the final section of the Analysis im-
plied that the ‘end’ of taste is self-advancement through impression-management.
This is aimed at Hogarth’s socially inclusive readership, for whom he takes for
granted that it will be useful to acquire the ornamental body-language of the
genteel, and to gain that other vital ingredient for controlling how others see you:
self-confidence. The body is also legible in the moral-sense paradigm. The differ-
ence is that in Hutcheson and Gerard its legibility depends on the judgement of
the viewer and is assumed to be a relatively reliable procedure, whereas in Hogarth
it also depends on the skills of its inhabitants, who are told to marshal every
expressive resource at their disposal to appear good and genteel. The body is a
theatrical body, a cultural artefact which needs to be fashioned into semiotic
plenitude with the aid of facial expressions, deportment, words and actions. The
power of the semiotically fashioned body simply defeats the artist and reader since
the hypocrite can ‘manage his muscles’.46 While Shaftesbury himself, who found
the theatrical body of the hyper-sociable personality abhorrent, acknowledged

that the body had to be fashioned into a behavioural ideal of sociability balanced
against reserve and self-control, Hogarth appears to encourage an unashamedly
theatrical approach, with corporeal codes operating on a quantitative rather than
qualitative scale of ‘more or less noble’.47 Hogarth’s rationale for his polite body
is the same rationale of self-advancement and the same concept of picturesque
self-presentation found in the dance manuals.48 Hogarth’s concepts of the the-
atrically polite body come close to that in dance manuals: the ideal golden mean
for postures which signify a golden mean of character, summed up in the term
complaisance; a semiotically rich bending and twisting polite body neatly but
paradoxically mapped onto the bio-mechanical body conceived as naturally ‘a
little bent’ in the joints, for counter-weighted alternating motion.49
If the Analysis’s material and theatrical bodies oppose the moral-sense para-
digm, so too does his functionally beautiful body to which concepts of interest,
advantage and custom (Hutcheson’s bugbears) apply. Hutcheson had argued that
judgements of strength and proportion could not count as absolute beauty since
they were mixed with notions of interest.50 Hogarth directs himself pointedly at
Hutcheson then, at the same time as addressing his inclusive readership, when
he notes that everyone can draw on extensive experience, cultural knowledge and
‘interest’ in judging bodies as fit for tasks, as when even a butcher, familiar with
boxing, who has an ‘interest’ in the outcome, could judge which of two bodies
would win a match.51
The dancing body, which the Analysis presents as the ultimate in beauty, is
thus logically ideal in Hogarth’s framework, since it is ideal in terms of all three
of Hogarth’s categories of body: it displays the human machine in its most exquis-
ite functional capacities, offers a symbolic and ornamental spectacle of visual and
social intricacies, and is also the ideal vehicle for the display of the social self. In
the Analysis the sense of the wealth of real, competitive, social contexts in which
the body is judged, is powerfully present.
The dynamic nature of the experience of beauty, the homology or affinity of
mind and body around serpentine form, concrete objective correlatives, the lack
of embarrassment in the role of interest in judging and presenting the body, and
of course the return of the repressed material and theatrical body are all ways in
which Hogarth reshaped the moral-sense paradigm in favour of a materialist per-
spective. These key differences can all be given further meaning in terms of the
luxury debates.
The de-moralising supporters of luxury drew on contemporary philosophy.
They operated with a materialist perspective which saw wants of the body apply-
ing equally to ‘wants of the mind’, as Nicolas Barbon phrased it, so that senses
demand rarities for their gratification. The senses hunger for luxury.52 Mandeville
expresses the idea of man as materially driven very starkly: ‘man is skin, flesh
bones, etc.’, and ‘a compound of various passions that . . . govern him by turns,
whether he will or no’.53 His passions – self-love, avarice, pride and shame –
explain all of human behaviour. ‘Getting real’ in analysing human behaviour
means including the needs of the body and making a parallel between mind and
body, recognising appetite, desire, and vice, the real ‘springs more immediately
required to continue the Motion of our Machine’, which compare with the ‘tri-
fling Films and little Pipes’ responsible for the life of the body.54 Echoing Barbon,
Mandeville notes that the wants of man are innumerable so that excesses of luxury
are required, no longer to be meaningfully distinguished from necessities. But
these are not to be condemned as harming the constitution, like overindulging
the body, since they merely meet the inevitable and natural appetites for ‘refin’d
pleasures’ and reputation from the administrative, officer, and other quality sec-
tions of society.55 Set Hogarth’s variety within the discourse of luxury, and you
are referred to the de-moralised, materialist view of man’s infinite wants. ‘The rich
have a variety of dishes, several suits’, hence all the employment they give to infi-
nite trades, and the stimulus to emulation, says Barbon.56 The representation of
wants as infinite and self-generating makes luxury consumption, indeed, all con-
sumption, a matter of variety in commodities.
Hogarth too operates from this materialist perspective on the motions of the
human machine. His sense of beauty is not to be diluted with reflection, com-
pounded with morality, or subordinated to the sublime. It is simply a sense, with
no need for a qualitative or epistemological distinction between a sense delight-
ing in the visual pleasure of ornament, in the female body, and in confident self-
display. His sense is a comprehensive appetite for visual and sensory richness,
and social status, like the concept of appetite held by Mandeville. Social appetites
are natural appetites in Mandeville’s and Hogarth’s view. The moral-sense school
allowed esteem to follow from concern with art. Hogarth, however, presents
appetite for esteem as part of the desire for beauty. Unless we understand the
conflation of social aspiration with visual and sensory appetites in Hogarth’s
perspective, the sections on controlling bodily self-presentation at the end of the
book appear eccentric. One finds oneself wondering whether this is some sort
of appendix for the socially inexperienced reader, and with what distant perspec-
tive from a past era beauty could be largely a matter of deportment. When we see
how the power of all-encompassing appetite is used by luxury’s supporters to de-
moralise desire for ease, refined objects, self-esteem and self-display, and the link
between appetite and self-interest, we understand how Hogarth’s various ‘bodies’,
the theatrically polite, the functional and the ornamental, can all be understood
as beautiful objects of desire. For Mandeville appetite is largely male appetite,
‘more violent and ungovernable’ than that of women.57 Courtship rituals there-
fore offer a particular instance of the intricacies of social behaviour in which pas-
sions are hidden, crafted into form, and the goal of multiple gratification is gained.
(You get the woman and the self-esteem accompanying self-management.) If the
Fable of the Bees itself were read for an aesthetic, then the intricate rules of social
behaviour that both hide but gain gratification of the appetites would provide
it, and Hogarth’s male-centred image of intricate dancing would seem a highly
appropriate example.
The materialist perspective attributed the concept of motion with great
explanatory power, and not only in the natural sciences, since it appeared to cor-
respond with the very evident mutability associated with fashion and social emu-
lation in the modern world. Man was the creature of desire in the self-consciously
modern view put forward by Hobbes in Leviathan. For Hobbes motion or uneasi-
ness was ‘the way the world (including mankind) is’.58 Hence perhaps the dynamic
flow of ‘animal spirits’ around the body in Addison’s account, and his argument
that moving objects give heightened pleasure. Hogarth’s dynamic account of the
pleasure of intricacy is also based on a materialist concept of desire as ‘pursuit’.
Materialist dynamism makes the country-dancing woman, and the spectacle of
dance on the stage, a logical, over-determined choice for the exemplification of
beauty in this perspective. The body is a machine in motion, the appetites of the
viewer are reciprocally stimulated, and on stage the dances symbolised complex
actions resulting from the freedom of modern appetites. Like luxury, dance was
defended with a long-standing rhetoric of apology, which argued that it was
damaging only if accompanied by excessive behaviour. Appetite and imagination,
conceived in terms of the springs of motion in materialist mind–body homology,
linked modern concepts of trade, money and fashion to an ‘ineradicable fluidity’
in Berry’s memorably apt phrasing.59 Materialist perspectives in science and eco-
nomic philosophy found this a suggestive concept.
In luxury discourse the dynamic nature of pleasure was part of a modernising
agenda. We have noted the contrast between Gerard’s and Hutcheson’s ideal states
of equilibrium in which leisure appears to be contrasted with work, and Hogarth’s
and Addison’s more active states. Mandeville’s arguments for the legitimacy
of varied types of pleasure equated the pleasure in ceaseless money-making of
the capitalist ‘Laborio’, and the hard-working but profligate type ‘Urbano’, since
getting and spending were part of the same capitalist continuum, whose men-
talité needed to be established and defended. Mandeville rejected the way of life
of the gentleman landowner, whose incomprehension at Laborio’s pleasure is
expressed through a hunting metaphor: ‘but he that neglecting the Aim which
can only justify his Labours, in the Pursuit of Happiness falls in Love with the
Chase’.60 Hogarth’s ‘wanton chace’ also refers to the pleasures of pursuit gener-
alised to cover work, the ‘business of life’, which ‘even abstracted from any other
view, gives pleasure’.61 It is hard not to equate Hogarth’s presumed reader with a
Laborio who, unlike Mandeville’s, could identify with the spirit of hunting even
though he was unlikely to do it himself. For him, dancing was a more likely leisure
pursuit. Concepts of pleasure as activity versus ease or indolence were used not
only to express the legitimacy of certain types of pleasure, but also pleasure in the
image of particular groups. Defoe celebrated the achievements of tradesmen and
manufacturers, who lived from their own industry, promoted trade and were
irrelevantly accused of luxury, with the phrase ‘Employment is life, Sloth and
Indolence is Death’.62 Hume, in his argument for the moral neutrality of luxury,
and for the claim that the ages of refinement are the happiest and most virtuous,
defined happiness as having three ingredients: action, pleasure and indolence.
He quickly dismissed indolence as ‘only agreeable for a moment’. The mind is
naturally full of spirits and vigour, with ‘natural appetites’. When industry and
the arts flourish, men are kept in ‘perpetual occupation, and enjoy as their reward,
the occupation itself, as well as those pleasures which are the fruits of their labour.
The mind acquires new vigour; enlarges its powers and faculties; and, by an
assiduity in honest industry both satisfies its natural appetites, and prevents
the growth of unnatural ones . . .’ Both art and industry provide the pleasures
of action. Hume believed the spirit of such an age put the mind into ‘fermenta-
tion’. 63 Thus refined arts and industries inevitably accompany one another. As
for Hogarth, the notion of the active mind underwrites the pleasure in action,
the legitimacy of the pleasures of appetite, and the close relation between arts
and industry, leisure and work.
Modernisers in the luxury debates attempted to defeat classical notions of fixed
ends and limits. Equilibrium and the golden mean were attached to concepts of
limits, and seen as incompatible with infinite wants. Hogarth refers to the concept
of the golden mean as attaching to the ‘precise serpentine line’. On the other
hand, his description of the active mind’s pleasure in the stimulus of the waving
line, and his initial description of the three-dimensional serpentine line, suggest
something more like a continuum. The serpentine line is represented as a part of
a larger curved grid, which really exists for the imagination. As a fundamental
constituent of the body’s surfaces, and interior, it suggests endlessness or the
plenitude of thought and the life processes. Human bones and muscles are ‘a
continued waving of winding forms’ as in figure 64, plate 2 and figure 65 plate
1 (reproduced here as Plate 12).64 To apprehend fully the human body, according
to Hogarth, the mind’s eye has to imagine a wire in an uninterrupted flow across
the body’s surfaces. It can be no coincidence, surely, that before demonstrating
the presence of the serpentine line in the body, he refers to a horn and provides
an increasingly rich series of imaginary lines going round a twisted and bent horn.
He refers to this as a cornucopia. Horns were also symbols of the cuckold whom
Hogarth illustrates on the right hand side of the main illustration in Plate 2 (repro-
duced here as Plate 13).
The serpentine line then is largely thought of as a part of a series, part of an
experience of projection or gratification. The ash-tree ornament near figure 67 in
Plate 1 is given as an illustration of ornamental beauty, designed to entertain
the eye. Its placement next to the anatomical drawings reinforces Hogarth’s point
that the body itself is ornamental, inside and out. The line is both a symbol of
the idea of gratification, and a fragmentary, diagrammatic representation of the
chasing pleasure of the eye. The time-dimension is significant. Frédéric Ogée has
suggested this relates to the effects of empiricism on the development of an aes-
thetics of modernity.65 In the context of the luxury debates, the prolonged and
subjective nature of serpentine pleasure, controlled by the projections of the eye
but also invited by the richness and complexity of linear networks evoking
the human body, relates to the power of unleashed desire, envisaged as a bodily
appetite. Hogarth’s frontispiece makes his line into a serpent with a serpent’s head
and places over it an epigraph referring to Satan’s luring of Eve with a wanton
wreath in Milton’s Paradise Lost.66 The temptation of Eve was certainly connected
to Christian concepts of luxury as a cardinal sin combining carnality and desire
for worldly power which, as Sekora shows, was almost always symbolised visually
by female figures including Eve.67
The concept of natural limits was connected in traditionalist luxury thinking

to the ‘natural legislators’ whose birth and wealth gave them the independence
to judge the norms of taste. The presence of moneyed men in government sug-
gested that the natural legislators were not those in actual power and that luxury
was a contemporary threat to the nation.68 Hogarth’s vituperative attacks on the
bigotry of ‘connoisseurs’, with their dogmatic mystificatory theory of grace as the
je ne sçais quoi, false beliefs in straight lines, the canon as the norm of beauty, and
art whose prices they want to control, would appear to voice from below a call
for circuiting the natural guardians. Hogarth’s address to the reader is a warm
embrace from a practitioner, rather than the intellectual, to those open-minded
consumers of his art who already practise serpentine aesthetics when they deco-
rate their houses, accessorise asymmetrically, or incline the head, without think-
ing of these practices as principles. Hogarth presents the existing practices of the
fashionable consumer, the non-connoisseurial everyman and his and her quotid-
ian aesthetics as the basis and confirmation of his theory.
As we have seen, Hogarth differs radically from the moral-sense paradigm on
the closely connected issue of being and appearance. Appearance should not belie
rank and the appearance of those above should not be aped by those below. A
typical if late statement of the anti-luxury, natural-legislator position on being
and appearance runs: ‘appearance in the vulgar eye passes for the only criterion
of true worth; everyone is ready to assume the marks of a superior condition; in
order to be esteem’d more than what he really is’.69 In modernising luxury dis-
course self-improvement was a natural appetite, based on the love of approbation
and esteem.70 Hogarth’s assumption is that his reader has invested in acquiring
the means to genteel appearance. Interestingly, while Hogarth continually claims
it is easy to judge art since a ‘real connoisseur’ need only be capable of envisag-
ing objects in terms of his curved grid, he makes no such claim for deportment.
His book can provide the ‘confidence’ of knowledge equivalent to the confidence
of those with rank or fortune, but there is no short cut to genteel body language.
Hogarth’s ready equivalence between grace and gentility evokes the concept of
skills as opposed to inherent qualities. As Sekora says of the opposition’s abhor-
rence for Walpole and the moneyed men’s statecraft as mere administrative skill:
‘A skill might be learned by anybody, when to be anybody was to be nobody.’71
The idea of managerial skills was used by Mandeville to describe the way most
individuals control and manage appetites through the rules of polite behaviour,
and control by government. Mandeville connects the two since the rules of polite-
ness enable the controlled society, which politicians need, as well as the satisfac-
tion of the individual’s passions of pride and shame. Thus control of appetite in
politeness itself stems from appetite. There is no alternative ‘natural’ behaviour,
other than brutishness, for most people since pride and shame are such strong
passions. ‘The Rules I speak of consist in a dextrous Management of our selves,
a stifling of our Appetites, and hiding the real Sentiments of our Hearts before
others.’72 Gratification of appetites is about hiding appetites and passions, rather
than subduing them. Such pragmatism at the management of the polite body was
shared by Hogarth and is represented vividly in plate 2 where the only thing the
reader can say with certainty about the leading couple is that they are graceful
and appear genteel. This representation of social dance, commensurate with its
use in comic drama to point up the frailty and transience of the moral super-
structure, also appears to endorse Mandeville’s view of civilisation as a managed
superstructure, beautifully coherent in spite of and because of the drive-directed
behaviour of his egoists, but constantly subject to change and improvement along
the lines dictated by the quality.
Notes
1. William Hogarth, The Analysis of Beauty, 1753, edited with an introduction and notes
by Ronald Paulson (New Haven and London, 1997).
2. Philosophical aesthetics is recognised as a distinctive field of discourse which emerged
in eighteenth-century Britain though it was referred to only subsequently as aesthetics.
Its distinctiveness rests on its concern to define taste in terms of mental operations as
represented through empirical sense-based psychology, on its production by intellec-
tuals rather than by artists, in which of course Hogarth is an exception, and its agendas
of secularising ethics and legitimising, separating, or sanitising relations between art,
money and fashion. See Andrew Hemingway, Landscape Imagery and Urban Culture in
Early Nineteenth-century Britain (Cambridge, 1992), Paul Mattick, Jnr., ed., Eighteenth-
century Aesthetics and the Reconstruction of Art (New York, 1993), Walter John Hipple,
The Beautiful, the Sublime and the Picturesque in Eighteenth-century British Aesthetic Theory
(Carbondale, 1957), Preben Mortensen, Art in the Social Order: the Making of the Modern
Conception of Art (Albany, New York, 1997), and Michael McKeon, ‘Politics of Discourse
and the Rise of the Aesthetic in Seventeenth-century England’, in Kevin Sharpe and
Steven N. Zwicker, eds, Politics of Discourse: the Literature and History of Seventeenth-century
England (Berkeley, 1987).
3. Francis Hutcheson, Inquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue, 1726, fourth
edition (London, 1738).
4. John Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 1689, Peter H. Nidditch, ed. (Oxford,
1975), II.i.2.
5. Frédéric Ogée, ‘Aesthetics and Empiricism: the Ideological Context of Hogarth’s Series
of Pictures’, and Michel Baridon, ‘Hogarth: the Empiricist’ in Frédéric Ogée, ed., The
Dumb Show: Image and Society in the Works of William Hogarth (Oxford, 1997).
6. Roy Porter, ‘Enlightenment and Pleasure’ in Roy Porter and Marie Mulvey Roberts, eds,
Pleasure in the Eighteenth Century (Basingstoke, 1996), p. 4.
7. Jerome Stolnitz, ‘ “Beauty”: Some Stages in the History of an Idea’, Journal of the History
of Ideas, vol. 22 (1961), pp. 185–204.
8. See Lawrence E. Klein, Shaftesbury and the Culture of Politeness: Moral Discourse and Cul-
tural Politics in Early Eighteenth-century England (Cambridge, 1994).
9. Bernard Mandeville, Fable of the Bees, 1705, 1714, 1723, edited by F.B. Kaye (Oxford, 1924).
10. Christopher Berry, The Idea of Luxury: a Conceptual and Historical Investigation
(Cambridge, 1994), pp. 130–2.
11. Hutcheson, Inquiry, pp. 12 and 78.
12. Ibid., pp. 93–4. On Hutcheson’s Inquiry as the rehabilitation of luxury, see Preben
Mortensen, ‘Francis Hutcheson and the Problem of Conspicuous Consumption’, The
Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol. 53, n 2 (Spring 1995), pp. 155–65.
13. Alexander Gerard, An Essay on Taste, 1759 (Menston, 1971).
14. Ibid., p. 198.
15. Ibid., pp. 192 and 203.
16. Hogarth, Analysis, p. 33.
17. Gerard, Essay, pp. 35 and 36.

19. Paulson’s footnote refers to Locke’s Essay, Nidditch, p. 7; Analysis, p. 32.
20. Hutcheson, Inquiry, pp. 99–103.
22. See B.R. Hergenhahn, An Introduction to the History of Psychology, fourth edition
(Belmont, CA, 2001) on mid-nineteenth-century psychophysical parallelism, p. 223,
and late nineteenth-century Russian Objective Psychology on social and emotional
events as stimuli, pp. 342–5.
23. Hogarth, Analysis, p. 34. Italics in original.
24. John Weaver, Anatomical and Mechanical Lectures upon Dancing (London, 1721).
25. Ibid., p. 108. Throughout this text Weaver stresses the parallels between the psycho-
logical need for variety and the body’s constant alternating movement.
26. Joseph Addison, ‘Pleasures of the Imagination’, The Spectator, Nos 411–21, 1712, in The
Spectator edited by Donald F. Bond, 5 vols, vol. III (Oxford, 1965).
27. Ibid., pp. 411, 539, 412, 542, 413, 546.
28. The correspondence between Hogarth’s beauty and Addison’s novel has been noted by
Paulson. See introduction to Analysis, pp. xvi–xvii.
29. Gerard, Essay, pp. 34 and 38.
31. See, for example, David Hume, ‘Of Commerce’, in Selected Essays, ed. Stephen Copley
and Andrew Edgar (Oxford, Worlds Classics, 1993), p. 163.
33. See Act 2 scene 1 of Sir George Etherege’s She Would if She Could in The Plays of Sir George
Etherege, edited by Michael Cordner (Cambridge, 1982). Two spirited young women
about town decide to play the rakes at their own game without loss of honour by tempt-
ing them to pursuit. Stage directions have them passing ‘nimbly’ across the stage as
they lead the rakes on in a London park, p. 129. Highly excited, a rake declares the
women’s ‘tongues are as nimble as their heels’, p. 130. When finally caught the women
racily tell the men they may ‘entreat them to hear a fiddle or to mingle in a country
dance’, p. 133.
34. Hogarth, Analysis, pp. 17 and 50.
35. Ibid., p. 107, see figure 120 in the left margin of plate 2.
36. Tom Sorrell, ‘Thomas Hobbes’, in Edward Craig, general editor, Routledge Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (London, 1998), vol. 4, pp. 459–76.
38. The likely influence of Hogarth’s editors and other friends, and as far as science is con-
cerned, particularly Benjamin Hoadly physician and artist Benjamin Wilson who pub-
lished his experiments on electricity, is discussed in detail by Ronald Paulson in Hogarth,
Volume 3: Art and Politics 1750–1764 (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 59–64.
40. Hutcheson, Inquiry, p. 101.
41. Addison, ‘Pleasures of the Imagination’, pp. 420 and 575.
42. See Robert E. Schofield, Mechanism and Materialism: British Natural Philosophy in an Age
of Reason (Princeton, 1970).
43. Ibid., pp. 72–8.
44. C.U.M. Smith, ‘David Hartley’s Newtonian Neuropsychology’, Journal of the History of
the Behavioural Sciences, 23 (April 1987), pp. 123–36.
45. Schofield, Mechanism and Materialism, p. 162 on the speculators’ dream of being able to
explain a whole range of phenomena through electricity, a dream shared by Hogarth’s
friend Benjamin Wilson.
46. Hogarth, Analysis, pp. 98–9 and 96.
47. Klein, Shaftesbury, pp. 94–5; Hogarth, Analysis, p. 107.
48. John Weaver, An Essay Towards a History of Dancing (London, 1712), pp. 21–6, gives self-
presentation and exercise as the ‘Rationale of the Art’, quotes John Locke’s Thoughts on
Education on the self-confidence given by graceful motion and suggests that this makes
a man the ‘framer of his own fortune’ and aids his advances in marriage since women’s
fancy is appealed to by the lightness of dancing. Kellom Tomlinson’s The Art of Dancing
(London, 1735), p. 3, began with the injunction to readers, given the importance of
grace in company, to consider themselves as ‘so many living Pictures drawn by the most
excellent Masters’.
49. Weaver (1721), History of Dancing, suggests that no bone is actually perpendicular
because of the situation of the joints for articulated motion (p. 98), thus the most grace-
ful positions are those of moderate and medium reflection which reflected this natural
situation of the joints as ‘a little bent’ (p. 103).
50. Hutcheson, Inquiry, p. 26.
52. Nicolas Barbon, A Discourse of Trade (London, 1690), p. 14, cited by Berry, The Idea of
Luxury, p. 112.
53. ‘An Inquiry into the Origin of Moral Virtue’, Mandeville, Fable of the Bees, p. 39.
54. Preface to ‘Fable of the Bees’, ibid., p. 3.
55. ‘Remark (L)’, ibid., p. 119, and pp. 120–3.
56. Nicolas Barbon, An Apology for the Builder: or a Discourse shewing the Cause and Effects of
the Increase of Building (1685), cited in Berry, The Idea of Luxury, p. 116.
57. ‘Remark (C)’, p. 70.
58. Berry, The Idea of Luxury, p. 113.
59. Ibid., p. 112.
60. Bernard Mandeville, The Female Tatler, vol. 107 (20 March, 1710), cited in M. M.
Goldsmith, Private Vices: Public Benefits. Bernard Mandeville’s Social and Political Thought
(Cambridge, 1985), p. 139. Goldsmith argues that Mandeville’s writing is a contribu-
tion to the establishment of the mentalité of capitalism.
62. Daniel Defoe, A Plan of the English Commerce (London, 1728), p. 51, cited in John Sekora,
Luxury: the Concept in Western Thought, Eden to Smollett (Baltimore and London, 1977).
63. David Hume, ‘Of Refinement in the Arts’ entitled ‘Of Luxury’ in some editions, in
Selected Essays, pp. 168–9.
64. Hogarth, Analysis, pp. 102 and 53.
65. Ogée, ‘Aesthetics and Empiricism’.
66. Analysis, epigraph to frontispiece, ‘So vary’d he [i.e. Satan], and of his tortuous train/
Curl’d many a wanton wreath, in sight of Eve/ To lure her Eye’. (Paradise Lost, 9. 516–18).
Explicated by Paulson as linked to Milton’s prelapsarian variety in Eden. ‘all the earth
yields/Variety without End.’ (7.541–2), Analysis, pp. 144–5.
67. Sekora, Luxury, pp. 44–5.
68. Ibid., p. 69.
69. Samuel Fawconer, Essay on Modern Luxury (1765), cited in ibid., p. 99.
70. Berry, The Idea of Luxury, p. 121, and Goldsmith, Private Vices, pp. 65–70.
72. ‘Remark C, Fable of the Bees’, Mandeville, Fable of the Bees, p. 68.
Plates
12. ‘The Third State’, plate 1 of William Hogarth, The Analysis of Beauty, March 1753.
13. ‘The First State’, plate 2 of William Hogarth, The Analysis of Beauty, March 1753.
9
From Luxury to Comfort and Back
Again: Landscape Architecture and the
Cottage in Britain and America
John Crowley
In Sense and Sensibility the egregious Robert Ferrars expressed his envy for the new
cottage life of the Miss Dashwoods:
I am excessively fond of a cottage; there is always so much comfort, so much

elegance about them. And I protest, if I had any money to spare, I should buy
a little land and build one myself within a short distance of London, where I
might drive myself down at any time and collect a few friends about me and
be happy.
Jane Austen’s satire marked a recent fashion for cottages. Ferrars’ ‘cottage’ referred
to a house whose acceptability depended on its modesty and physical comfort.
This usage not only gave a new meaning to cottages; it employed a new concept
in talking about any house, namely comfort.1
Physical comfort – self-conscious satisfaction with the relationship between
one’s body and its immediate physical environment – was an innovative aspect
of eighteenth-century Anglo-American culture, one that had to be taught and
learned. During the eighteenth century Britons and Americans used the word
comfort with increasing frequency to express their satisfaction and enjoyment with
immediate physical circumstances. This usage indicated a disposition to criticise
traditional material culture and to improve it.2
Comfort drew the attention of political economists, moral philosophers, sci-
entists, humanitarian reformers, even novelists. These commentators gave the
term comfort a new physical emphasis as they reconceptualised values, redesigned
material environments, and urged the relearning of behaviours. For centuries
previously comfort had primarily meant moral, emotional, spiritual and political
support in difficult circumstances. To be ‘comfortless’ had meant being ‘without
anything to allay misfortune’, and ‘discomfort’ involved feelings of ‘sorrow’,
‘melancholy’ and ‘gloom’ rather than physical irritation.3
Language and concepts emphasising a physical meaning of comfort developed
initially in nascent political economy around 1700, as it analysed the differences
between luxury and necessity. Luxury had long been the subject of political and
social thought, but it was defined by an antonym, necessity, which had been taken
135
136 John Crowley
for granted as having a natural definition. Luxury was what people desired beyond
necessities. When eighteenth-century political economists began to analyse
necessity as well as luxury, they effectively deconstructed luxury by showing how
luxury in one context could be necessity in another.4
In The Grumbling Hive (1705) and its notorious prose commentary, The Fable of
the Bees (1714), Bernard Mandeville not only defended luxury for its unintended
social benefits, he used the distinction between necessity and luxury to show that
all supposed ‘necessities’ were social constructions and therefore ‘luxuries’. It
made no difference whether every material need was considered as a luxury or as
a necessity, because the distinction between them broke down when applied to
specific items in specific societies. Luxury simply measured the extent to which
‘Thought, Experience, and some Labour’ had made ‘Life more comfortable’ than
an animal-like ‘primitive Simplicity’.5
Mandeville had set the agenda for political economists to analyse how demand
shaped economic development. Adam Smith concluded the Wealth of Nations’
celebrated first chapter, on the division of labour, with a paean to the ‘universal
opulence which extends itself to the lowest ranks of the people’. Among the
items composing this opulence were a woollen coat, a linen shirt, shoes, a bed, a
kitchen-grate and its coals, ‘all the other utensils of his kitchen, all the furniture
of his table, the knives and forks, the earthen or pewter plates upon which he
serves up and divides his victuals, bread, beer’, and ‘the glass window which lets
in the heat and the light, and keeps out the wind and the rain . . . without which
these northern parts of the world would scarce have afforded a very comfortable
habitation’. The diversity of production possible with a high degree of division of
labor had allowed the ‘accommodation’ of ‘an industrious and frugal peasant’ to
exceed that of a ruler in savage societies.6 Smith was talking about comfortable
cottages.
Before 1750 it was unlikely that anyone would design a cottage, much less have
comfort among its architectural priorities. No British architectural publication had
the word ‘cottage’ in its title before 1780; in the next two decades at least 17 did.
Historically, cottages and cottagers were synonymous with poverty and misery. In
the middle of the eighteenth century Samuel Johnson still defined a cottage as
‘a hut; a mean habitation; a cot; a little house’. Over the next few decades, how-
ever, architecturally designed cottages became synonymous with comfort, the first
house type to have this equivalence.7
The association of the cottage with physical comfort originated after 1750 from
fashions in an archetypal domain of luxury – landscape architecture.8 Two sets of
architectural pattern books mark the new association of the cottage with comfort:
the first for garden buildings, published largely from the 1750s through the 1780s,
and a second set from the 1790s through the 1820s, when British architectural
writers produced dozens of pattern books with designs for cottages. These archi-
tectural pattern books provide crucial evidence for the invention of the cottage
as a comfortable house. For the first time, at the end of the eighteenth century,
architectural publications carried the term ‘comfort’ in their titles, and then only
in association with cottages. Humphry Repton, then Britain’s leading landscape
Landscape Architecture and the Cottage 137
architect, identified a new priority among the classical principles of ‘convenience,

duration and beauty’: ‘in architecture and gardening, the present era furnishes
more examples of attention to comfort and convenience than are to be found in
the plans of Palladio, Vitruvius or Le Nôtre, who, in the display of useless sym-
metry, often forget the requisites of habitation.’9
British landscape design allowed experimentation with garden buildings be-
cause learned architecture had largely ignored them. In the first half of the eigh-
teenth century, British landscape architects claimed to have repudiated luxurious
artificiality – as associated with the formal garden and identified with the straight
lines, topiary and parterres attributed to French and Dutch influences. But the
types and use of garden buildings actually proliferated across the eighteenth-
century British landscape. Capability Brown included numerous highly stylised
garden buildings in his supposedly natural landscapes.10
During the period of Brown’s career, from 1749 when he began to work inde-
pendently, until his death in 1783, pattern books for garden buildings flourished
as never before. Such buildings manifested the stylistic avant-garde in the eigh-
teenth century, especially in its neoclassical varieties. Their relatively small size
and low demands for durability allowed experimentation on a manageable scale
at relatively low costs, both in money and design failures. Doric, Palladian, Gothic,
rustic and grotesque styles all were revived for garden buildings. ‘Grotesque archi-
tecture’ for ‘rural amusement’ now included an extraordinary variety of types
to which the customary generic terms – ‘pavilion’ and ‘folly’ – hardly do justice
since they were specific types themselves. A far from exhaustive list, taken from
title-pages alone, would include ‘garden-seats, banqueting houses, summerhouses,
lodges, terminies, piers’, ‘huts, retreats, summer and winter hermitages, termi-
naries, Chinese, gothic, and natural grottos, cascades, rustic seats, baths, mosques,
moresque pavilions, grotesque seats, green houses’, ‘a bath, a dog-kennel, pa-
vilions, farm-yards, fishing-houses, sporting-boxes, shooting-lodges, single and
double cottages’.11
The cottage became the object of architectural design as just one type among
a plethora of garden buildings. Its deliberate rusticity mirrored that of vernacular
cottages, but the so-called cottage was not a frequent type of building in land-
scape architecture until the 1760s. Its predecessor among garden buildings was
the yet meaner hut. As garden buildings, huts were studies in rusticity, either as
hermitages or as neoclassically primitive dwellings. Hermitages made use of ele-
mentary materials to experiment with the minimal necessities for comfort: floors
‘paved with sheep marrow-bones placed upright’ but provided with a ‘couch’ and
‘seats of retirement’, walls ‘lined with wool or other warm substance intermixed
with moss’ for winter use, seats ‘composed of large irregular stones, roots of
trees’, interior lighting by a ‘gazebo, supported by trunks of trees twined about
ivy’ (Plate 14).12
Architectural primitivism focused on the design of huts and cottages as antitypes
to luxury. Robert Morris, the foremost architectural theorist in mid-
eighteenth-century Britain, epitomised this linkage in Rural Architecture. Con-
fronted with ‘the Gaiety, Magnificence, the rude Gothic, or the Chinese unmeaning
138 John Crowley
Stile’ studied by ‘our modern Architects’, Morris urged a return to ‘Grecian

and Roman Purity and Simplicity’: ‘in every Structure, in every Climate, Nature had
dictated the Architect to the Disposal of it, for Use and Convenience’. According
to such primitivism, houses were initially made with materials at hand – tree
branches, moss and turf. Reminders of such primitive houses could be seen in
the ‘thousands of Mudwall, and Thatched buildings’ in England and Wales, where
‘we see Huts and Cottages built in the same Manner, just as if the Inhabitants had
newly started into Being, and were led, by Nature and Necessity, to form a Fabric,
for their own preservation, from the Inclemencies of the Season’. Neoclassical prim-
itivism virtually required that experimental and innovative styles be brought to
bear on architecture in the countryside. Columns of tree trunks supporting over-
hangs of thatched roofs reminded viewers to consider how the luxurious excesses
of Baroque style had distorted classical architecture from the pure forms of the
Greeks.13
The hut’s exploration of the elementary necessities of comfort made sense in
the garden, where buildings were by definition for ‘pleasure and recreation’. Such
garden and park buildings as lodges, gatehouses, keepers’ houses and summer-
houses allowed experimentation with plans and designs that provided full-fledged
residential accommodation for dining, entertaining and sleeping. Many garden
buildings incorporated more sophisticated hygiene in relation to water than was
likely to be found in permanent dwellings. John Plaw designed a ‘Wood Pile
House’ to serve as a water closet ‘intended for a convenience in a park or planta-
tion where the walks or rides are extensive’. As so often with garden buildings,
rustic ornament gave a counterpoint to the basic comfort of this water closet:
‘built with the arms and boughs of oak trees, not too large, cut into regular
lengths, and bedded in tempered clay, mixed up with straw; the roof is thatched,
and the inside, above the lining, is stuck with moss.’ Similarly, fashionable people
were more likely to take a bath in the garden than in the house. Garden-
bathhouses advertised a closeness to elemental nature, but actually had far more
careful designs for the control of air and water temperature than in most luxuri-
ous houses.14
The deliberately unconventional setting of the landscape garden suited the
development and application of the new value of comfort. Dairies, in particular,
exquisitely combined fashionable naturalness with careful control over environ-
mental insults. On farms, dairies were the province of women and were separated
against contamination from the rest of the farmyard. But when located in a garden
or park as a highly decorated leisure space, their premium on cleanliness and tem-
perature control presented new standards for comfort. Genteel women designed
and supervised dairies that integrated function with ornament. Extensive tinted
glazing provided a diffuse bright light by which to gauge the stages of processing.
Dairies were tiled for coolness and cleanliness, and the emphasis on clean uten-
sils allowed for lavish display of porcelain and other ceramics. The most desirable
porcelain was Chinese, and dairies often had correspondingly exotic designs. In
the 1760s Josiah Wedgwood developed cream-coloured Queen’s Ware, which
was ideal for garden-dairies because they often had tea rooms for entertaining.
Wedgwood expected that ‘the consumption [of cream-coloured ware] will be great
for Dairys, Baths, Summer Houses, Temples’. Genteel dairies virtually cried out on
functional grounds for picturesque handling. Verandah-like sheds shielded inte-
riors from glare while complementing thatched roofs in moderating temperature
changes outside.15 With such vernacular elements, plus accommodation for a
milkmaid, the designs of dairies merged with those for cottages.
Sentimental associations with the cottage also developed in the context of
landscape design. Oliver Goldsmith’s poem The Deserted Village (1770), so often
cited as a condemnation of the social injustices of enclosure, actually dealt with
the removal of villagers to improve Lord Harcourt’s view at Nuneham Courtney.
The poem related to landscape gardening, not intensive agriculture, and con-
demned the enclosure of parkland, not fields.
Thus fares the land, by luxury betrayed,

In nature’s simplest charms at first arrayed,
But verging to decline, its splendours rise,
Its vistas strike, its palaces surprize;
While scourged by famine from the smiling land,
The mournful peasant leads his humble band;
And while he sinks without one arm to save,
The country blooms – a garden, and a grave.
In the 1770s cottages and their sentimentalised occupants began to proliferate on

the cultural landscape. They figured importantly in genre scenes, as cottagers dis-
placed livestock, pets and genteel conversations as privileged subjects in English
landscape painting.16
Sentimentality towards the cottager was simultaneous with the development
of architectural interest in cottages, first in landscape architecture, then in phil-
anthropic designs, and finally in residential architecture for the propertied. In the
last quarter of the eighteenth century, humanitarian reform for the first time gave
priority to standards of architectural comfort and applied them to model cottages.
While it might be taken for granted that humanitarian reformers would want to
enable the poor to have comfortable housing, this assumption mistakenly begs
the question that comfort was a pre-existing architectural priority.
Nathaniel Kent and John Wood established the genre for the philanthropic
model cottage, and their designs acquired a generic quality that allowed frequent
imitations and borrowings. As the King’s bailiff at Windsor and the estate sur-
veyor for Thomas William Coke, the pre-eminent agricultural improver, Kent
spoke authoritatively on cottagers’ physical conditions. Since Wood had designed
Bath’s Royal Crescent and New Assembly Rooms, his credentials were unassailable
when he called for the application of architectural expertise to ordinary buildings.
He capitalised on neoclassical awareness to assert the need for attention to cot-
tages: ‘no architect had, as yet, thought it worth his while to offer to the publick
any well constructed plans for cottages’, but they should, ‘considering the regular
gradation between the plan of the most simple hut and that of the most superb
140 John Crowley
palace; that a palace is nothing more than a cottage improved; and that the plan
of the latter is the basis as it were of plans for the former’. His book, A Series of
Plans for Cottages or Habitations of the Labourer, put the cottage in the architectural
mainstream and established the model cottage as a generic design (see Plate 15).17
The design of model cottages took place as public attention focused on cot-
tagers’ social and economic plights. Philanthropists advised enlightened landlords
to build model cottages for their own best interest as well as charity. With crush-
ing condescension, reformers argued that well-designed cottages harmonised aes-
thetic, social and economic priorities:
As a number of labourers constitutes one of the requisites of grandeur, com-

fortable habitations for its poor dependents ought to be provided. It is not more
necessary that these inhabitants should be seen immediately near the palace
than that their inhabitants should dine at the same table, but if their humble
dwelling can be made a subordinate part of the general scenery, they will, so
far from disgracing it, add to the dignity that wealth can derive from the exer-
cise of benevolence.18
The assertion of basic architectural needs for physical comfort was one of the
ways humanitarians identified a common humanity across social gulfs. In pre-
senting model cottages as tests in the efficient design of minimal comfort, housing
reformers urged magnanimous landlords to consider comfort to be a right: ‘it is
as necessary to provide plain and comfortable habitations for the poor as it is to
provide comfortable and convenient buildings for cattle. . . . we bestow consider-
able attention upon our stables and kennels, but we are apt to look upon cottages
as incumbrances, and clogs to our property.’ Kent, Wood, and other agricultural
reformers interested in housing tested their readers’ sensitivity by challenging
them to enter imaginatively into ‘the shattered hovels which half the poor of this
kingdom are obliged to put up with . . . those who condescend to visit these
miserable tenements, can testify, that neither health or decency can be preserved
in them’.19
The design of philanthropic model cottages defined comfortable housing, at
least minimally. In 1793 Parliament established the Board of Agriculture and
charged it with proposing ways of reducing rural disturbances. In 1797 the Board
published the results of its national inquiry concerning the best designs for cot-
tages. As a result of this inquiry, the design of cottages for labouring and poor
families acquired generic characteristics. Many were two-storeyed, because ‘upper
apartments are more wholesome to sleep in than ground floor’, but they seldom
had a full two storeys in elevation. The basic plan was two rooms, with floor plans
generally 12 by 16 feet. The main downstairs room was multi-purpose, with a
variety of names, such as ‘living’, ‘dwelling’ and ‘working’ room – seldom ‘kitchen’
– and usually included space for a bed. The second storey might have a fireplace,
but if there were two chambers upstairs, one would be unheated because cottages
seldom had more than one chimney. There was only one window per room, with
about 10 square feet of glazing. Roofs were thatched, and floors were sometimes
earthen. At a time when house plans for the wealthy usually failed to include sani-
tary facilities, plans for cottages often identified privies, albeit outside (Plate 16).20
As a public issue, the miserably uncomfortable housing of the mass of the rural
population was a new historical phenomenon. In the 1780s and 1790s reports on
vernacular architecture became a convention in travel literature from all locales
in Britain as well as abroad. Arthur Young, the pre-eminent authority on agricul-
tural reform in late eighteenth-century Britain, included the adequacy of peasant
housing in his inventory of questions when assessing a region. When touring
Catalonia, for example, he noted repeatedly how the houses lacked chimneys
and glazed windows. Young was perplexed to explain ‘a poverty which hurt our
feelings’, among people whom he found highly industrious in their use of agri-
cultural resources. He tentatively attributed the disparity to absentee landlords
who neglected their social responsibilities. In England, Young thought, the ap-
parent comfort of cottages contributed to the beauty of the landscape that kept
the landed class on the land:
To the taste of a man that is fond of a country in a northern climate, there

are few objects more pleasing to the eye, or more refreshing to the imagina-
tion, than the natural landscape scenes of a well-cultivated and well-peopled
country. These have, in England, features that charm and instruct. Inequalities
of country, not too abrupt, woods that present rich masses of shade, rivers that
offer the contrast of their silver bosoms, gliding gently through vales of con-
stant verdure, which are neither hurt by their rapidity, nor rendered marshy
by their sluggishness; inclosures, which mark the value and the culture of the
soil; and scattered habitations of the poor, clean and comfortable, mixed with
the houses of farmers, in a state of ease and prosperity; and with the seats of
gentlemen, who find society and liberal pleasures, without deserting the fields,
which give them their support, for the profusion and taste of a capital.21
Young was describing the English landscape as a landscape garden, with com-
fortable cottages prominent among its picturesque features.
British humanitarian concern with model cottages reinforced the potential in
landscape architecture for the design of comfortable cottages. The same architects
– Humphry Repton, John Plaw, John Soane, Charles Middleton, James Malton and
John Claudius Loudon – designed model cottages for labouring families as well as
picturesque cottages for propertied people. Some of the best known among them
were primarily landscape architects. After all, model cottages might not have
much ornament themselves, but they enhanced the appearance of the estate. In
criticising the transposition of rustic style from the garden to domestic architec-
ture in the last quarter of the eighteenth century, Richard Payne Knight, arch-
theorist of the picturesque aesthetic, deftly noted the style’s influence: ‘Rustic
lodges to parks, dressed cottages, pastoral seats, gates and gateways, made of
unhewn branches and stems of trees, have all necessarily a still stronger character
of affectation. . . . for to adapt the genuine style of a herdsman’s hut or a plough-
man’s cottage to the dwellings of opulence and luxury, is as utterly impossible, as
142 John Crowley
it is to adapt their language, dress, and manners to the refined usages of polished
society.’ Knight’s snobbish comment emphasised how garden buildings ran the
architectural liability of being victims of their own stylistic success, and indeed
there was a fashionable reaction against the proliferation of temples, rotundas,
ruins, and pagodas. But he erred about the adaptability of the cottage to polite
taste. Cottages enjoyed stylistic privilege because they were both exotic and
authentically British.22
The cottage made the transition from garden to residential architecture at the
same time that housing became an object of social reform. Architectural pattern
books of the 1790s and early 1800s identified the cottage’s irregularity with the
newly fashionable picturesque aesthetic. In his Essay on British Cottage Architec-
ture, Malton confidently presented a verbal image to guide aesthetic responses to
the cottage’s physical appearance:
When mention is made of the kind of dwelling called a Cottage, I figure in my

imagination a small house in the country; of odd, irregular form, with various,
harmonious colouring, the effect of weather, time, and accident; the whole
environed with smiling verdure, having a contented, cheerful, inviting aspect,
and the door on the latch, ready to receive the gossipy neighbour, or weary,
exhausted traveler. There are many indescribable somethings that must
necessarily combine to give a dwelling this distinguishing character. A porch
at entrance; irregular breaks in the direction of the walls; one part higher than
another; various roofing of different materials, thatch particularly, boldly pro-
jecting; fronts partly built of walls of brick, partly weather boarded, and partly
brick-noggin dashed; casement window lights are all conducive, and constitute
its features. (Plate 16)
How could genteel people imagine living in houses of a type previously iden-
tified with rural poverty? Ann Bermingham has shown how the picturesque aes-
thetic eulogised a landscape that was disappearing with agricultural development:
the aesthetic simultaneously admired a landscape and put it at a safe distance
socially and historically. Once stylised by this aesthetic, architectural irregularity
and crude materials could be used as signs that rural necessity had been tran-
scended while its traditional virtues had been maintained. Designedly picturesque
cottages for the propertied complemented the generic architecture of cottages now
intended for laboring households.23
The picturesque cottage could take shape quickly because of the preceding half-
century of rustic architecture in landscape design. By the time that Malton pub-
lished his essay, he could take for granted that the harmony of nominal cottages
with the landscape made them a housing option for virtually all social groups:
‘These [designs] are humbly presented as hints to those Noblemen and Gentle-
men of taste, who build retreats for themselves, with desire to have them appear
as cottages, or erect habitations for their peasantry or other tenants: And to the
Farmer, as a guide in the construction of his dwelling, that it may agree and cor-
respond with the surrounding scenery.’ Malton criticised the prevailing use of cot-
tages as garden buildings, and sought to make domesticity the priority in their
design: ‘With reference to its decay, or with regard to its moveables, any dwelling
may be rendered mean; but where comfort, plenty, and hospitality reign; or where
cleanliness, content, and smiles appear meanness must necessarily be excluded.’24
In comparison with philanthropic model cottages, cottages for families of
property had more privacy and specialised spaces. They had many more bedrooms
and additional types of rooms such as halls, parlours, kitchens and water closets.
A spectrum of leisure spaces – studies, dining rooms, withdrawing rooms, con-
servatories – provided both psychological and physical comforts to ‘a family with
a small independent fortune, or a retreat occasionally to relax from the bustle
of business’. Not bound by regularity, the cottage particularly lent itself to con-
venient designs. Neoclassical sensibilities encouraged an evolutionary perspective
on household amenities in the ‘graduation of buildings, from the primitive Hut,
to the superb Mansion’.25
Repton carried this evolutionary perspective on comfort forward from its neo-
classical context: ‘The present style of living in the country is so different from
that of former times, that there are few houses of ancient date which would be
habitable, without great alterations and additions’: ‘[The] Eating room . . . library
. . . drawing-room . . . music room . . . billiard room . . . conservatory . . . boudoirs,
wardrobes, hot and cold baths . . . are all modern appendages unknown in Queen
Elizabeth’s days. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to preserve the ancient
style of a mansion without considerable additions.’ If comfort had a history, then
it could still be changing in contemporary Britain. If comfort were changing, and
it was an architectural priority, then, Repton argued, the picturesque style was
peculiarly suited to the design of dwellings, not just on grounds of appearance
but because of its functional adaptability:
When we look back a few centuries, and compare the habits of former times
with those of the present, we shall be apt to wonder at the presumption of any
person who shall propose to build a house that may suit the next generation.
Who, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, would have planned a library, a music-
room, a billiard-room, or a conservatory? Yet these are now deemed essential
to comfort and magnificence: perhaps, in future days, new rooms for new pur-
poses will be deemed equally necessary. But to a house of perfect symmetry
these can never be added.26
No sooner had convenience and comfort gained priority over picturesqueness

in the design of cottages than cottages gained potential for a new virtue, elegance.
Use of the term ‘elegance’ increased dramatically in the 1790s. (It will be recalled
that Robert Ferrars admired cottages for their elegance as well as their comfort.)
Elegance had connotations of unpretentious, tasteful beauty. It implied neatness
rather than extravagance. Particularly as a standard for interior finish and plan,
elegance could complement the cottage’s exterior rusticity: ‘Elegance is a term
applied to such objects as show a degree of refinement, or smoothness of surface,
a delicacy of proportion, when compared with the general appearances of such
144 John Crowley
objects.’ By the first decade of the nineteenth century assertions of elegant design
cautioned against building only with a concern for comfort. The ‘ornamented
cottage’ – also referred to as the ‘cabâne ornée’ and ‘cottage orné’ – met this test,
but still gave priority to comfort:
[it is] a building that owes its origin to the taste of the present day, and though
humble in its appearance affords the necessary conveniences for persons of
refined manners and habits, and is, perhaps, more calculated than any other
description of building for the enjoyment of the true pleasures of domestic life,
unincumbered with the forms of state and troublesome appendages. The
leading feature of this style of building is to appear in every respect a dwelling
calculated for comfort and convenience, without minute attention to the rules
of art; every part having its uses apparent, and this appearance not in any case
sacrificed to regularity.
Ornamented cottages could be elegant if they looked manifestly comfortable.27

By 1800, villas and ornamented cottages were suburban cousins. Many pattern
books presented both types of buildings on a continuum of design along the axis
of comfort and elegance – from labourers’ cottages through ornamented cottages
to villas. Villas should have an identifiable style, but the choices were eclectic.
They could be Roman, Greek, Gothic, Italianate, neoclassical, even ‘cottage’, as
long as ‘an elegant simplicity reign[ed] throughout the whole, and the general
forms and construction be such, as plainly demonstrate at the first view, that
nothing grand and magnificent is attempted’. Cottages were intimate, whether
for entertainment or domestic life. Villas provided space for elaborate entertain-
ment, while maintaining opportunities for domestic retreat through a range of
rooms implying fine gradations between privacy and interaction with outsiders.
A specific plan for a villa would have some, though not necessarily all, of these
rooms: vestibule, ante-room, drawing room, parlour, music room, billiard room,
dining room, breakfast parlour, library, cabinet, study and dressing room. The
manifest elegance of villas set them between the rusticity of cottages and ‘the
magnificence and extensive range of the country seats of our nobility and opulent
gentry’. Their supposed lack of pretension implied their comfort, as underlined
by their frequent associations with cottages.28
The American story of the comfortable cottage provides a contrasting illustration

of how architectural comfort was a construction of eighteenth-century British
culture. In the initial phase of English colonisation, Governor William Bradford
readily employed the historical association of ‘cottage’ with substandard housing
when he referred to the early houses of Plymouth Colony as ‘small cottages’. After
all they lacked foundations, and had wooden chimneys, thatched roofs, earthen
floors, unglazed or small-paned casement windows and wattle-and-daub walls.
The plans, amenities and finish of the houses in which most Americans at the
end of the eighteenth century still lived would have signified them as cottages in
England – room and loft house plans, wood and clay chimneys, few and small
windows, and construction from local raw materials. The first American publica-
tion, in 1798, of a design for a ‘cottage’ had a 14 by 10 foot floor plan, a masonry
or brick chimney with fireplaces on both floors, one window each for the living
room and pantry on the first floor, and three beds in the two rooms in the loft
(one of the rooms was windowless). It derived from the model cottages of improv-
ing landlords.29
In contemporary Britain, cottages marked people as lacking sufficient land-
holdings to support a household, but in colonial and early national America there
were many more cottages than cottagers. Most American households held suffi-
cient land to provide livelihoods for their members, so they were not cottagers in
social status. The usual terms for American cottagers’ houses were ‘tenant house’,
‘tenement’, ‘house’ and ‘home’, not ‘cottage’. When, in 1799, John Beale Bordley,
an American agricultural reformer, advocated that American farmers follow the
English practice of providing their waged labourers with houses, he assumed that
the terminology was unfamiliar to his American readers: ‘It is deemed advanta-
geous for the farmer to have some number of labourers on his estate at a rent, in
a small very confined house called a cottage; and the labourer taking it is called a
cottager.’30
In early nineteenth-century Anglo-America, the houses of a large proportion
of the rural population looked like cottages, but belonged to propertied families.
Spending on the newly fashionable architectural comforts of heating, lighting,
privacy and hygiene still had a relatively low priority. It did not correlate so
strongly with wealth as did consumer spending on luxurious furnishings and
other durables. In the initial decades of the American republic, the pursuit of hap-
piness began to give a higher priority to housing. More spending, particularly by
merchants and artisans in towns and cities, went into permanence of construc-
tion, stylish exteriors and refined interior spaces for entertaining. This ‘transfor-
mation of living standards’ took place during a period not noted for increases in
per capita wealth, which by some estimates may even have fallen. The priority of
housing in household spending had increased, but still remained generally low:
‘most Americans were still living in small, mean, vernacular houses’. Two-room
houses were the modal plan. The size of houses need not have increased to meet
the new standards of decoration and finish, because those standards focused
largely on the front parts of the house, particularly the areas for entertaining,
while the areas for everyday domestic activity – the kitchen and chambers –
changed little in their degree of finish. In the early nineteenth century household
comfort had not yet become so popular a need as refinement and gentility.31
American architects waited more than a generation to borrow from British
developments in articulating architectural comfort, particularly as represented by
the cottage. The apparent precondition for this borrowing was a broadening of
American interest in landscape architecture, beginning in the 1830s. The writings
of the British landscape architect, John Claudius Loudon, especially his
Encyclopaedia of Cottage, Farm and Villa Architecture and Furniture (first published
146 John Crowley
in 1833), served as the acknowledged intermediary between American architects

and British authorities on the comfortable cottage. In 1838, in an effort to improve
the ‘bald and uninteresting aspect of our houses . . . to those who are familiar with
the picturesque Cottages and Villas of England’, Alexander Jackson Davis pub-
lished the first cottage in an American architectural pattern book. His design’s
bucolic landscape setting, columns of unhewn logs, and open porch signified har-
monious relations between the inhabitants of the cottage and their immediate
physical environment. With Davis’s assistance in an extraordinarily successful
series of publications over the next decade, Andrew Jackson Downing made
the cottage an American byword for comfort, and he made comfort the crucial
consideration in the design of houses (Plate 17). No American manifested the
links among improvements in horticulture, landscape architecture, and cottage
architecture more clearly than Downing, and he forthrightly acknowledged his
inspiration from British landscape architecture and theory.32
By the turn of the nineteenth century British social thought had naturalised
the desire for physical comfort. The mature work of Thomas Malthus represented
and synthesised the invention of comfort in material culture and social thought:
the impossibility of precise distinctions between necessity and luxury, the accep-
tance of popular consumption patterns, the philanthropic impulse to establish
minimal entitlements to comfort, and the demonstrability of respectable family
life by comfortable domestic environments. Between the first edition of the Essay
on the Principle of Population in 1798 and the second edition in 1803, largely as a
result of his travels comparing British living conditions with ones elsewhere in
Europe, Malthus came to the realisation that desires for comfort and convenience
were crucial to the ‘moral restraint’ that allowed sufficient control over the prin-
ciple of population to maintain happiness in a society: ‘throughout a very large
class of people [in Britain], a decided taste for the conveniences and comforts of
life, a strong desire of bettering their condition, that master-spring of public pros-
perity, and, in consequence, a most laudable spirit of industry and foresight, are
observed to prevail.’ Malthus’s image of the comforts of British life came straight
out of genre representations of happy cottagers: ‘a good meal, a warm house, and
a comfortable fireside in the evening’. What was minimally comfortable for the
propertied was needed by the poor as well, and it was reasonable and desirable
that the poor should want those ‘luxuries’ of the propertied that were really com-
fortable: ‘It is the spread of luxury therefore among the mass of the people, and
not an excess of it in a few, that seems to be most advantageous, both with regard
to national wealth and national happiness[,] . . . if it be observed that a taste for
the comforts and conveniences of life will prevent people from marrying, under
the certainty of being deprived of these advantages.’33
The design of cottages had created a single type of house with a wide social
range of acceptability, from the working poor to people who were wealthy but
not landlords. The basis for this acceptability was comfort. Three aspects of eigh-
teenth-century British culture – architectural primitivism, sympathetic humani-
tarianism, and the picturesque aesthetic – had dealt with physical comfort in ways
that could be explored in the design of cottages. Each movement addressed
markedly different architectural contexts – landscape gardens, farms and suburbs.

In landscape gardens comfort gained associations with leisure in small groups; on
improved farms comfort redressed poverty; and in the suburbs comfort expressed
elegant taste. In each of these contexts cottages represented how the realisation
of comfort tested sensibility as well as technology.
Notes
1. J. Austen, Sense and Sensibility (1811; reprint, New York, 1995) chapter 14, pp. 213–14.
‘Comfort’ has been italicised in all quotations.
2. J.E. Crowley, The Invention of Comfort: Sensibilities and Design in Early Modern Britain and
Early America (Baltimore, 2001).
3. The Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford, 1989) s.v. ‘comfort’; S. Johnson, A Dictionary of
the English Language, 2 vols. (London, 1785) s.v. ‘comfort’, ‘comfortless’, ‘discomfort’.
4. Comfort in English derived from the medieval French conforter/confort (= soutenir/encour-
agement); A.J. Greimas, Dictionnaire de l’ancien français jusqu’au milieu du XIVe siècle (2nd
edn, Paris, 1977) s.v. ‘conforter’. But in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the
usual French term to assess satisfactory physical circumstance was commodité. Only in
the early nineteenth century did French usage of the term confort take on such conno-
tations, having borrowed the term back from English with a new meaning; Le Grand
Robert de la langue française: dictionnaire alphabétique de la langue française, edited by A.
Rey, 9 vols. (2nd edn, Paris, 1985), s.v. ‘confort’; P. Perrot, Le luxe: Une richesse entre faste
et confort XVIIIe–XIXe siècle (Paris, 1995) pp. 65–90; A. Pardailhé-Galabrun, La naissance
de l’intime: 3,000 foyers parisiens XVIIème–XVIIIème siècles (Paris, 1988) p. 331; J.-P.
Goubert, Du luxe au confort (Paris, 1988) pp. 21–9; Jean Fourastié, Histoire du confort
(Paris, 1973) pp. 86–9.
5. B. Mandeville, The Fable of the Bees: Or Private Vices, Publick Benefits (6th edn, 1732),
edited by F.B. Kaye, 2 vols. (1924; reprint, Indianapolis, 1988) I: 25–6, 107–8, 169, 183.
6. A. Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), edited by
R.H. Campbell and A.S. Skinner, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1976; reprint, Indianapolis, 1981) p.
23; for Smith’s usage of ‘necessaries and conveniencies of life’, see pp. 10, 47, 51, 95,
176, 927.
7. Studies of early architecturally designed cottages include: S. Blutman, ‘Books of Designs
for Country Houses, 1780–1815’, Architectural History, XI (1968) 25–33; S. Lyall, ‘Minor
Domestic Architecture in Britain and the Pattern Books’ (PhD diss., University of
London, 1974); M. McMordie, ‘Picturesque Pattern Books and Pre-Victorian Designers’,
Architectural History, XVIII (1975) 43–59; D.P. Schuyler, ‘English and American
Cottages, 1795–1855: A Study in Architectural Theory and the Social Order’ (MA thesis,
University of Delaware, 1976); M. McMordie, ‘The Cottage Idea’, RACAR: Revue d’art
canadienne Canadian Art Review, VI (1979) 17–27; J.D. Hunt, ‘The Cult of the Cottage’,
The Lake District: A Sort of National Property (London, 1985) pp. 71–83; S. Lyall, Dream
Cottages: From Cottage Ornée to Stockbroker Tudor, Two Hundred Years of the Cult of the
Vernacular (London, 1988); J.S. Ackerman, The Villa: Form and Ideology of Country Houses
(Princeton, 1990) pp. 212–27.
8. S. Taylor-Leduc, ‘Luxury in the Garden: La Nouvelle Héloïse Reconsidered’, Studies in the
History of Gardens and Designed Landscapes, XIX (1999) 74–85.
9. H. Repton, Observations on the Theory and Practice of Landscape Gardening (London, 1803)
p. 11. Some publications including the term comfort in their titles are: J. Wood, Series of
Plans for Cottages or Habitations of the Labourer . . . Tending to the Comfort of the Poor and
Advantage of the Builder (1781; reprint, London, 1806); J. Plaw, Sketches for Country Houses,
Villas, and Rural Dwellings; Calculated for Persons of Moderate Income, and for Comfortable
Retirement (London, 1800); E. Gyfford, Designs for Elegant Cottages and Small Villas,
148 John Crowley
Calculated for the Comfort and Convenience of Persons of Moderate and of Ample Fortune
(1806; reprint, Westmead, 1972). On architectural pattern books, see J. Archer, The Lit-
erature of British Domestic Architecture 1715–1842 (Cambridge, Mass., 1985) pp. 21, 28–30,
56–71, 78–83.
10. B. Langley, New Principles of Gardening (London, 1728) pp. x–xi, 193–5; W. Chambers,
A Dissertation on Oriental Gardening (2nd edn, London, 1773) pp. 16, 21; idem, Plans,
Elevations, Sections and Perspective Views of the Gardens and Buildings at Kew (London,
1763); L. Fleming and A. Gore, The English Garden (London, 1979) pp. 18, 24, 27–9, 32,
34, 38, 60, 62, 92; H.F. Clark, ‘Eighteenth-Century Elysiums: The Role of “Association”
in the Landscape Movement’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institute, VI (1943)
165–89; M. Jourdain, The Work of William Kent, Artist, Painter, Designer, and Land-
scape Gardener (New York, 1948) p. 79; D. Stroud, Capability Brown (London, 1950) pp.
87, 161, 180, 208–9; S. Lang, ‘The Genesis of the English Landscape Garden’, in The
Picturesque Garden and its Influence outside the British Isles, ed. N. Pevsner (Washington,
D.C., 1974) pp. 22–9; R. Turner, Capability Brown and the Eighteenth-Century English Land-
scape (New York, 1985) pp. 86, 145–6, 181, 187; T. Hinde, Capability Brown: The Story of
a Master Gardener (New York, 1987) pp. 134, 139; M. Saudan, S. Saudan-Skira and F.
Crouzet, From Folly to Follies: Discovering the World of Gardens (New York, 1988) p. viii;
G. Mott, S.S. Aall and G. Jackson-Stops, Follies and Pleasure Pavilions: England, Ireland,
Scotland, Wales (New York, 1989) p. 9; T. Williamson, Polite Landscapes: Gardens and
Society in Eighteenth-Century England (Baltimore, 1995).
11. W. and J. Halfpenny, Rural Architecture in the Gothick Taste (London, 1752); W. Wrighte,
Grotesque Architecture, or, Rural Amusement (London, 1790); J. Plaw, Ferme Ornée; or Rural
Improvements (London, 1795); Ideas for Rustic Furniture Proper for Garden Seats, Summer
Houses, Hermitages, Cottages (London, ca. 1790); T.C. Overton, Original Designs of
Temples, and Other Ornamental Buildings for Parks and Gardens in the Greek, Roman, and
Gothic Taste (London, 1766), pl. 34 [misprinted as 43]. For early examples of cottages as
part of landscape architecture, see N. Temple, John Nash and the Village Picturesque
(London, 1979) pp. 5–7; M. McCarthy, ‘Eighteenth Century Amateur Architects and
Their Gardens’, in Picturesque Garden p. 51; T. Mowl, ‘The Evolution of the Park Gate
Lodge as a Building Type’, Architectural History, XXVII (1984) 468.
12. Wrighte, Grotesque Architecture pp. 3–5, pl. 1; W. and J. Halfpenny, The Country Gentle-
man’s Pocket Companion, and Builder’s Assistant, for Rural Decorative Architecture (London,
1753) p. 9; Plaw, Ferme Ornée, p. 6, pl. 12.
13. R. Morris, Rural Architecture (1750; reprint, Westmead, 1971), preface and introduction;
M.-A. Laugier, An Essay on Architecture; in which its True Principles are Explained, and Invari-
able Rules Proposed (London, 1755) pp. 11–12; idem, Essai sur l’architecture (2nd edn, Paris,
1755) p. 9.
14. T.C. Overton, The Temple Builder’s Most Useful Companion (London, 1774); W. Halfpenny
and J. Halfpenny, Rural Architecture in the Chinese Taste (3rd edn, 1755; reprint, New
York, 1968) pls. 9–13; Halfpenny and Halfpenny, Rural Architecture in the Gothick Taste
pp. 10–11, pls. 14, 15, 18; J.-F. Blondel, De la distribution des maisons de plaisance, 2 vols.
(Paris, 1737) I: 71–2, II: 129, pl. 10; Plaw, Ferme Ornée, pp. 2–3, 7; C. Over, Ornamental
Architecture in the Gothic, Chinese and Modern Taste (London, 1758) p. 4, pl. 16; J. Soan[e],
Designs in Architecture . . . for Temples, Baths, Cassines, Pavilions, Garden-Seats, Obelisks,
and other Buildings; for Decorating Pleasure-Grounds, Parks, Forests (1778; reprint,
Westmead, 1968) pls. 9–10, 34; P. de la Ruffinière du Prey, John Soane: The Making of an
Architect (Chicago, 1982) pp. 124–8; J. Colton, ‘Kent’s Hermitage for Queen Caroline at
Richmond’, Architectura, II (1974) 181–91.
15. J. Malton, A Collection of Designs for Rural Retreats (London, 1802) pp. 33–4, pls. 27–8;
J. Langner, ‘Architecture pastorale sous Louis XVI’, Art de France, III (1963) 170–86;
Wedgwood quoted in A. Kelly, Decorative Wedgwood in Architecture and Furniture (London,
1965) pp. 119–23, pls. 58–61; A. Kelly, The Story of Wedgwood (London, 1975) pp. 21–2;
J.M. Robinson, Georgian Model Farms: A Study of the Decorative and Model Farm Buildings
of the Age of Improvement, 1700–1846 (Oxford, 1983) pp. 82–96, pls. 84–96; du Prey, John
Soane, pp. 245–55, 377; M. Willes, ‘Country House Dairies’, Apollo, CIL, no. 446 (1999)
29–32.
16. O. Goldsmith, ‘The Deserted Village’, in Collected Works of Oliver Goldsmith, edited by
A. Friedman, 5 vols. (Oxford, 1966) IV: 298, lines 295–302; H.J. Bell, ‘ “The Deserted
Village” and Goldsmith’s Social Doctrines’, Proceedings of the Modern Language Associa-
tion, LIX (1944) 747–72; J. Barrell, The Dark Side of the Landscape: The Rural Poor in English
Painting, 1730–1840 (Cambridge, 1980) pp. 35–88; A. Bermingham, Landscape and
Ideology: The English Rustic Tradition, 1740–1860 (Berkeley, 1986) pp. 14–54; C. Payne,
Toil and Plenty: Images of the Agricultural Landscape in England, 1780–1890 (New Haven,
1993) pp. 23–66.
17. N. Kent, ‘Reflections on the Great Importance of Cottages’, Hints to Gentlemen of Landed
Property (London, 1775); Wood, Series of Plans for Cottages.
18. Repton, Observations, pp. 137–8.
19. N. Kent to Coke of Norfolk, 1789, as quoted in Robinson, Georgian Model Farms p. 109;
Kent, Hints to Gentlemen pp. 229, 230, 237; Wood, Series of Plans, p. 3.
20. Communications to the Board of Agriculture on Subjects Relative to the Husbandry and Inter-
nal Improvement of the Country, 7 vols. (London, 1797) I, part 2, Cottages: 89, 96–8,
103–17, pls. 34–5; J. Miller, The Country Gentleman’s Architect (London, 1791); J. Malton,
An Essay on British Cottage Architecture (London, 1798) pp. 17–18; Wood, Series of Plans,
pp. 5, 22, pls. 1–28.
21. A. Young, ‘Tour in Catalonia’, Annals of Agriculture and Other Useful Arts (Bury St. Edmunds,
1787) VIII: 202, 207, 210, 263, 273; G.E. Fussell, The English Rural Labourer: His Home,
Furniture, Clothing & Food from Tudor to Victorian Times (London, 1949) pp. 50–67.
22. Kent, Hints to Gentlemen, p. 238; R.P. Knight, An Analytical Inquiry into the Principles of
Taste (2nd edn, London, 1805) p. 222.
23. Malton, Essays on British Cottage Architecture, pp. 2, 4–5; Bermingham, Landscape and
Ideology, pp. 40–1, 69–75.
24. C.T. Middleton, Picturesque and Architectural Views for Cottages, Farm Houses, and Country
Villas (London, 1793) p. 2; idem, The Architect and Builder’s Miscellany (1795; reprint,
London, 1979) pls. 1–15; Malton, Essay on British Cottage Architecture pp. 4–5, 22, pls.
10–12, 14.
25. Middleton, Picturesque and Architectural Views p. 1, pls. 1–12; Gyfford, Designs for Elegant
Cottages and Small Villas pp. 1–3, pls. 1–6; Plaw, Sketches for Country Houses, pp. 11–12,
pls. 8, 13; Malton, Essays on British Cottage Architecture, p. 27.
26. Repton, Observations, pp. 177–9; J. Loudon, A Treatise on Forming, Improving, and
Managing Country Residences, 2 vols. (London, 1806) I: 69–71; H. Repton and J.A. Repton,
Fragments on the Theory and Practice of Landscape Gardening (London, 1816) p. 15; S.
Daniels, Humphry Repton: Landscape Gardening and the Geography of Georgian England
(New Haven and London, 1999) pp. 103–48.
27. Johnson, Dictionary, s.v. ‘elegance, elegant’; T. Dyche and W. Pardon, New General English
Dictionary (London, 1765) s.v. ‘elegance, elegant’; N. Bailey, An Universal Etymological
English Dictionary (London, 1794), s.v. ‘elegance, elegant’; W.F. Pocock, Architectural
Designs for Rustic Cottages, Picturesque Dwellings, Villas (London, 1807) pp. 1, 8–9; E.
Bartell, Hints for Picturesque Improvements in Ornamental Cottages (London, 1804).
28. J. Randall, A Collection of Architectural Designs for Mansions, Casinos, Villas, Lodges, and
Cottages (London, 1806) pp. iv–v; E. Gyfford, Designs for Small Picturesque Cottages
(London, 1807) pp. v–vii; Plaw, Sketches for Country Houses, pls. 15–17, 21; Daniels,
Humphry Repton pp. 207–54; T.R. Slater, ‘Family, Society and the Ornamental Villa on
the Fringes of English Country Towns’, Journal of Historical Geography IV (1978) 129–44;
J. Summerson, ‘The Classical Country House in 18th-Century England’, Journal of the
Royal Society of Arts, CVII (1959) 139–87.
29. W. Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation 1620–1647, ed. S.E. Morison (New York, 1952)
pp. 76, 136; C.R. Lounsbury, An Illustrated Glossary of Early Southern Architecture and
150 John Crowley
Landscape (New York, 1994) p. 97. The design was first published in J.B. Bordley, Country
Habitations (Philadelphia, 1793) and subsequently appeared in J.B. Bordley, Essays and
Notes on Husbandry and Rural Affairs (2nd edn, Philadelphia, 1801) p. 5, fig. 2.
30. Bordley, ‘Thoughts on Hired Labourers and Servants, Cottages and Cottagers’, in Essays
and Notes on Husbandry p. 389; L. Simler, ‘The Landless Worker: An Index of Economic
and Social Change in Chester County, Pennsylvania, 1750–1820’, Pennsylvania Maga-
zine of History and Biography, CXIV (1990) 168–9, 175–6, 179, 187; idem, ‘Tenancy in
Colonial Pennsylvania: The Case of Chester County, Pennsylvania’, William and Mary
Quarterly, 3rd ser., XLIII (1986) pp. 562–8.
31. T. Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (1785; reprint, Gloucester, Mass., 1976) pp.
145–8; E.A. Chappell, ‘Housing a Nation: The Transformation of Living Standards in
Early America’, in Of Consuming Interests: The Style of Life in the Eighteenth Century, edited
by C. Carson, R. Hoffman, and P.J. Albert (Charlottesville, 1994) pp. 167–233; J. Larkin,
‘From “Country Mediocrity” to “Rural Improvement”: Transforming the Slovenly Coun-
tryside in Central Massachusetts, 1775–1840’, in Everyday Life in the Early Republic, edited
by C.E. Hutchins (Winterthur, 1994) pp. 175–201; L. Soltow, Distribution of Wealth and
Income in the United States in 1798 (Pittsburgh, 1989) p. 57; B. Herman, Architecture and
Rural Life in Central Delaware, 1700–1900 (Knoxville, Tenn., 1987) pp. 14–41, 109–4;
idem, The Stolen House (Charlottesville, 1992) pp. 183–95, 206–10, 217–22; D. Upton,
‘The Traditional House and its Enemies’, Traditional Dwellings and Settlement Review,
I (1990) 71–84.
32. A.J. Davis, Rural Residences (New York, 1837–38); A.J. Downing, Treatise on the Theory
and Practice of Landscape Gardening (New York, 1841); idem, Cottage Residences (New York,
1842); idem, The Architecture of Country Houses (New York, 1850); D. Schuyler, ‘Apostle of
Taste’: Andrew Jackson Downing 1815–1852 (Baltimore, 1996).
33. T. Malthus, ‘An Essay on the Principle of Population: The Sixth Edition (1826) with
Variant Readings from the Second Edition (1803)’, in The Works of Thomas Robert
Malthus, edited by E.A. Wrigley and D. Souden, 9 vols. (London, 1986) III: 466–8, 520.
Plates
14. Plan, elevation and sections of a hermitage, in the garden of the Green Park Lodge, John
Plaw, Rural Architecture (1796), plate 1.
15. Model cottages, John Wood, A Series of Plans (1806), plate V.
16. Architecturally designed cottage, John Malton, An Essay on British Cottage Architecture
(1798), plate 9.
17. Regular bracketed cottage, Andrew Jackson Downing, Architecture of Country Houses (New
York, 1852) Design IX, facing p. 112.
10
Vase Mania
Jenny Uglow
Vase mania hit Britain in the late 1760s, peaking from 1771–2. It was a time of
great unrest – of growing tension with the American colonies after the Stamp Act
of 1765, of ‘Wilkes and Liberty’ riots after John Wilkes’s election as MP for
Middlesex in 1768; of disturbances among silkworkers, coal-heavers, farmworkers
across the country. Yet amid all these upheavals the polite world was obsessed
with classical vases. Perhaps the uncertainty of the time added to their appeal:
the image of the Greek urn already carried with it the aura of timeless serenity
that Keats would later celebrate. Such vases evoked the birth of European civili-
sation, the Golden Age, and the urns bore too an aura of dignity transcending
death, just as they had physically survived the tombs in which they were found.
Ironically, perhaps, far from being precious at the time when they were made, the
decorated pottery urns found amid the bones were themselves copies of silver
vessels – and soon eighteenth-century British manufacturers were providing their
own copies of these copies to meet the demand of the public.
Vases, of course, had been popular luxury objects for many years – they are
there among the other auction trash on the crowded mantelpieces of Hogarth’s
engravings in the 1740s satirising life à la mode – but over the past two decades
a whole set of influences had come into play to raise this particular classical
form to the height of fashion. The fashion also provided an opportunity for par-
ticular British manufacturers to capture elite markets, chief among them Josiah
Wedgwood, currently planning to expand his pottery in Staffordshire, and
Matthew Boulton, the ‘toy maker’, who with his partner John Fothergill was devel-
oping the most advanced metal-working ‘manufactory’ of the day at Soho, just
outside Birmingham. In using new materials to reproduce ancient art-works these
two men provided novel, piquant luxury goods for eager purchasers. And as they
leapt at the chance, so the white heat of the vase craze sharpened their manu-
facturing, their design and particularly their marketing, and catapulted them on
to a new stage. The rhetoric that accompanied their triumph was patriotic, heard
often in arguments about raising the national taste, but just as often in terms of
bald competition, particularly with France. At the same time, the mass produc-
tion of fine objects raised issues about the nature of art, craft and originality.
Although my narrative is one of production rather than consumption, from either
perspective a simple vase could carry complex meanings.
151
152 Jenny Uglow
From the mid-century on, knowledge of the classical world – of its buildings,
its art and its artefacts – had been deepening and broadening. Rome had always
been open to British travellers, but Athens, under Turkish rule, was inaccessible,
and Greek ornament was far less well known. In 1748, a group of English enthu-
siasts working in Rome decided that this must be remedied. They included the
Scottish artist, James Stuart, and in 1751, funded by the Society of Dilettanti, he
and his friend Nicholas Revett had set out for Greece. After two years in Athens
they travelled to Salonica, Smyrna and the Aegean islands, returning in 1755. They
eventually published their influential Antiquities of Athens in 1762, but as soon as
they returned, Stuart was in demand as an interior designer, creating vigorous,
attractive ensembles for rooms in which every detail had its place – including
vases. A drawing of 1758 for Sir Nathaniel Curzon’s Kedleston Hall in Derbyshire,
for example, shows a Gainsborough painting above a table sheltering a recently
acquired Sicilian urn, flanked by other urns, below a niche ornamented with
swagwork.1
Another leader in the introduction of the antique taste was William Chambers,
later architect to the king, but Stuart’s real rival – who adhered, like Chambers,
to the ‘Roman’ rather than ‘Greek’ style – was the young Scottish architect, Robert
Adam. In the mid-1750s Adam spent two years in Rome, perfecting his drawing
technique with Piranesi. On his return, determined to ‘blind the world’, he set
himself up in St James’ and then in Grosvenor Street, and immediately won influ-
ential clients – among them Sir Nathaniel Curzon.2 Stuart’s new interiors for
Kedleston were decried as ‘pityfulissimo’, and Adam took over as designer with
his dazzling, colourful, neoclassical designs. He too was concerned with every
detail from ceilings to candlesticks and his commissions inevitably involved other
trades: at one point, Adam Smith reckoned 3,000 people were dependent on the
Adam brothers for work. He was constantly in demand: Elizabeth Montagu,
writing to Lord Kames, said that if his wife really wanted to be in fashion, and
‘would have anything en meubles, extremely beautiful, she must employ my friend
Mr Adam here. He has made me a ceiling and a chimney-piece, and doors, which
are pretty enough to make me a thousand enemies: Envy turns livid at the first
glimpse of them.’3
The antique craze was fuelled by news of the finds at Herculaneum and
Pompeii. Although the two sites were excavated from 1738 and 1748 respectively,
it was not until the early 1760s that major work at Pompeii began. And while
some early collections of engravings from classical sites had been published, like
Bernard de Montfaucon’s Antiquitee Expliquee (1719), a host of new publications
appeared in Britain and France in the 1750s and 60s: these included Robert Wood
and James Dawkin, The Ruins of Palmyra (1753); the Comte de Caylus, Receuil
d’Antiquites Egyptiennes, Etrusques, Grecques et Romaines (1752–67); J. F. Neufforges’s
Receuil Elementaire d’Architecture (1757–68) and J. C. Delafosse’s Nouvelle Iconologie
Historique.4 Winckelmann’s immensely influential History of Ancient Art appeared
in 1764, and Robert Adam published his own Ruins of the Palace of the Emperor
Diocletian at Spalatro soon afterwards. In addition, there were specific folios of
vases, including those made by J.-F. Saly (1746), C. de Wailly (1760) and E. A.
Vase Mania 153
Petitot (1764). Some, like Joseph-Marie Vien’s Suite de Vases (1760), with engrav-
ings ‘in the taste of the antique’, were unashamedly pattern books, eagerly ran-
sacked by craftsmen and designers.
Genuine vases were much sought after by dedicated collectors. One such was
Sir William Hamilton, ambassador to Naples. As soon as he arrived, in 1764, he
collected vases unearthed in nearby tombs, buying them from dealers or other
collectors and even opening tombs himself.5 Like everyone at the time, he called
his vases ‘Etruscan’, believing them to come from the ancient pre-Roman culture,
while in fact they were Greek, many made in Athens in the fifth and sixth cen-
turies BC and imported into Italy – although Hamilton himself later worked to
correct his error, the Etruscan name stuck.6 Hamilton employed the brilliant,
eccentric Baron d’Hancarville to write a commentary on his collection, with over
450 engravings. The complete set of Antiquites, Etrusques, Grecques et Romaines was
not published until 1776, but the first volume appeared in late 1767.
Wedgwood and Boulton were keenly alert to this burgeoning classicism. In
1765 an order for gilt brass door-furniture for Kedleston Hall came to Soho, and
Lord Shelburne ordered girandoles when Adam remodelled rooms at his house at
Bowood in Wiltshire.7 Wedgwood, too, noted the taste of patrons who bought his
fashionable creamware (for which he had been given the title ‘Queen’s Potter’ in
1764). Through Lord Cathcart, who was married to Hamilton’s sister, he acquired
prints from the first volume of the Antiquites, and soon received the complete
volume from another patron, Sir Watkins William Wynn. Poring over these and
other prints, he wrote to his friend and partner Thomas Bentley:
The colours of the Earthen vases, the paintings, the substances used by the
Ancient Potters, with their method of working, burning &c . . . Who knows
what you may hit upon, or what we may strike out betwixt us. . . .8
Hamilton had wanted exactly this response. His writing had a complex note
of ‘patriotism’, a determination to raise British taste and design. In his preface he
declared:
We think also, that we make an agreeable present to our manufacturers of earth-

enware and china, and to those who make vases in silver, copper, glass, marble
etc. Having employed much more time in working than in reflexion, and being
besides in great want of models, they will be very glad to find here more than
two hundred forms, the greatest part of which are absolutely new to them;
there, as in a plentiful stream, they may draw ideas which their ability and
taste will know how to improve to their advantage, and to that of the public.9
This could hardly have been more direct, and the hint was quickly followed
by Boulton as well as Wedgwood. In 1767, an agent travelling in Italy for Boulton
subscribed to Hamilton’s Antiquites on his behalf, telling him that he thought this
would be a good source of designs for Soho.10 In the summer of 1767, Boulton
decided that for a metalworker like himself, the way to target the market for vases
154 Jenny Uglow
was to mount them in ormolu. Defined strictly, ormolu was the gilding of metal
with ground gold, ‘or moulu’, mixed with mercury: so far the French bronziers had
led the field but Boulton now decided to challenge them. Two years earlier, in
Paris, he had noted the fashion for mounting vases in gilt metal and had since
been busy finding out about gilding. He could see that the use of vases could easily
extend beyond mere ornament: with metal branches added they could become
candelabra and candle-holders; with a clock or watch fitted they were lavish time-
pieces; with perforated lids they turned into ‘cassoulets’ or perfume burners.
(Inviting Boulton to her London house in 1771, Elizabeth Montagu told him ‘&
then you will be sensible how agreeable the aromatick gales are from these
Cassolettes when they drive away the vapour of soup and all the fulsome savour
of Dinner.’11) Soon Boulton looked to other products, planning ormolu tripods
and girandoles, ice-pails and tea-urns.
Wedgwood’s vases inevitably caught his eye as suitable for mounting, and in
the spring of 1768 he broached the subject of collaboration. During a weekend at
Soho, Wedgwood told Bentley: ‘we settled many important matters & laid the
foundation for improving our manufacture, & extending the sale of it to every
corner of Europe.’12 The main idea was that Boulton would set Wedgwood’s vases
in metal but he stirred the potter’s competitive spirit by telling him that French
artists were coming over to England and picking up ‘all the whimsical ugly old
things they could meet with’, taking them back to Paris, ornamenting them and
then selling them back as great rarities to ‘Millords d’Anglise’. To Wedgwood, the
prospect of expanding in this direction was alluring: ‘This alone (the combina-
tion of Clay & Metals) is a field, to the farther end of which we shall never be
able to travel’.
Later that year, the two men met in London to go ‘curiosity-hunting’ together,
with their wives in tow. Sarah Wedgwood’s only complaint during this trip
was that,
my good man is upon the ramble continually and I am almost affraid he will
lay out the price of his estate in Vases he makes nothing of giving 5 or 6 guineas
for . . . if we do but lay out half the money in ribband or lace there is such an
uproar as you never heard.13
Wedgwood and Boulton raided Harrache’s exclusive shop, and Boulton sent for
an artist from Soho to draw the ‘pretty things’ he saw. He was aiming for the top,
as Wedgwood saw, ignoring the court of St James and ‘scheming to be sent for by
his Majesty! I wish him success. He has a fine spirit, and I think by going hand
in hand we may in many respects be useful to each other.’14
By the end of the year Boulton had ordered several Wedgwood vases, including
mottled ware, resembling ‘the green blood stone that hath a few red specks in it’,
to match a French vase sent him from London. ‘I would have some of the little
ones to be of the black Etruscan clay,’ he added, ‘some green, some blew, or any
other simple colour you think proper’.15 But the scheme petered out, with Boulton
complaining that orders had not been filled, and hinting that he was thinking of
Vase Mania 155
a deal with the Chelsea factory. In fact, china turned out to be far too fragile to
bear the heavy ornaments, especially for big pieces like candle-holders. Instead
Boulton explored the possibility of glass and gilt, lacquered and japanned metal
and turned to Derbyshire marble and ‘Blue John’, the beautiful banded purple
fluorspar found only in Treak Cliff, near Castleton. Although it had been known
since the beginning of the century, the mining of Blue John had only begun in
earnest around 1765 and it was thus an intriguing, extremely novel material. (A
local sculptor, John Brown, made a fireplace from it at nearby Kedleston.) In early
1769 Boulton bought an amazing 14 tons of this rare mineral, and although he
failed in gaining a monopoly, he always cannily pretended to have one.16
Wedgwood also had the perfect vase material. Two years earlier, in 1766, he
had perfected a richer, smoother form of the old Staffordshire ‘Egyptian Black’
ceramic body, which he called ‘black basalt’ (perhaps influenced by the contro-
versy over the volcanic origins of basalt rock, in which Hamilton was also
involved). Next, to imitate the red designs on Greek vases, he developed a matt
red ‘encaustic’ enamel, the only process for which he ever took out a patent. In
addition to his ‘Useful Works’ at Burslem, where his creamware was produced, he
also soon had a new ‘Ornamental Works’, which he called Etruria, and which was
opened with a great feast in June 1769. Wedgwood himself threw six perfect copies
of a black ‘Etruscan’ vase, which were fired and sent to London to be hand painted
with encaustic enamel in the decorating studio at Chelsea. On one side were three
figures from what was considered the most beautiful vase in Hamilton’s Antiquites,
the ‘Meidias Hydra’. Below was an inscription: Artes Etruriae Renascuntur – the
Etruscan arts reborn (Plate 18).
The previous September Bentley had inspired Wedgwood with the notion that
they could, with effort, outshine their rivals abroad as well as at home. ‘And do
you really think that we may make a complete conquest of France?’ a delighted
Wedgwood asked:
Conquer France in Burslem? My blood moves quicker, I feel my strength

increase for the contest. Assist me, my friends, and the victorie is our own. We
will make them (now I must say Potts, and how vulgar it sounds), I won’t
though, I say we will fashion our Porcelain after their own hearts, and capti-
vate them with the Elegance and simplicitie of the Ancients. But do they love
simplicitie?17
Boulton too vowed to make his ormolu simpler than the ornate French ware. He
too saw his trade as a patriotic battle and so did his patrons, like Elizabeth
Montagu, who declared she took greater pleasure in victories over the French in
arts than in arms: ‘Go on then Sir,’ she told him, ‘to triumph over the French in
taste & to embellish your country with useful inventions & elegant productions.’18
156 Jenny Uglow
Boulton made no pretence to originality. ‘Fashion hath much to do with these

things & the present age has distinguished itself by adopting the most Elegant
ornaments of the most refined Grecian artists,’ he declared: ‘I am satisfyd in con-
forming thereto, & humbly copying their style, & making new combinations of
old ornaments without presuming to invent new ones.’19 But copying was not so
easy. Once he and Wedgwood had established a demand, both quickly had to
increase the range of their designs and raise their rate of production. Sometimes
a note of panic sounds through their letters and – particularly on Boulton’s part
– a string of ingenious excuses (Mrs Montagu had to wait about three years for a
‘plaited tea-vase’) (Plate 19).
The first problem was design. The two manufacturers borrowed works of art
from rich clients and from friends and rivals, shopkeepers and sculptors. They
obtained introductions to the British Museum, and Wedgwood saw collections at
the Oxford colleges and at Blenheim. Woodcarvers like John Coward and sculp-
tors like John Bacon made models for them and they bought plastercasts from
John Flaxman in Covent Garden, father of the more famous sculptor, whose pre-
cocious talent Wedgwood was quick to spot.20 They also begged models from
architects: lion’s heads and tritons and gryffins, winged figures and sphinxes,
Caryatids and Persian Slaves. This last – used by both manufacturers – was based
on a design by the King’s architect, Chambers: when Boulton breakfasted with
him in 1770, Chambers gave him ‘a present of some valuable, usefull and accept-
able models’.21
A second problem was finding craftsmen.22 Wedgwood’s letters are full of trou-
bles with modellers and painters, and he looked for men and women from the
porcelain works in Derby, Worcester and Liverpool, from among the fan painters
with their talent for miniatures, and from the coach and fresco painters.23 Boulton
faced similar problems. For some time, on his trips to London he had been noting
down the names of both French and English ormolu workers in his diary. But
most were not to be poached, so in 1770 he told Robert Adam proudly that he
was training up ‘plain Country Lads, all of which that betray any genius are taught
to draw, from whom I derive many advantages that are not to be found in any
manufacture that is or can be established in a great & Debauch’d Capital’.24
Once the designs were obtained and models made, Wedgwood and Boulton
reduced costs by having an interchangeable range of ornaments and designs,
varying them to provide customised articles. They sent drawings to clients who
could supposedly choose what they wanted, but if a commission meant new
designs or special tools Boulton often managed to ‘delay’ to the point of non-
delivery, while Wedgwood told Bentley to avoid orders for ‘any particular kind of
Vases . . . at least till we are got into a more methodicall way of making the same
sorts over again’.25 Sighing over one such order, he added, ‘It is this sort of time
loseing with Uniques which keeps ingenious Artists who are connected with Great
men of taste poor’.26 Good business worked against originality.
Far from downplaying their modern industrial processes, both Wedgwood and
Boulton made much of them. They were certainly copying the antique – Soho,
they joked, could be the new Corinth, the classical city of metal, just as Burslem
Vase Mania 157
was the new Etruria – but their machines were part of their cachet. ‘It was always
in Mr Boulton’s mind,’ noted Boulton’s friend James Keir, ‘to convert such trades
as were usually carried on by individuals into great manufactures by the help of
machinery, which might enable the articles to be made with greater precision and
cheaper than those commonly sold.’27 Etruria had a waterwheel and a windmill
for grinding flint and enamels; Soho was powered by water and, increasingly,
steam. Boulton was the first to use a watermill to turn laps for grinding and pol-
ishing, while Wedgwood developed an improved engine-turning lathe (first seen
at Soho), which cut patterns on a fired clay vase, and he later acquired a rosette
lathe to cut curving shapes.
Although ultimately it was skilled hands, not new technology, that made the
difference in their vase-making, the machines made their factories into show-
places. ‘I must again thank you for the most agreeable day I pass’d at the Soho
Manufactory,’ wrote Mrs Montagu:
The pleasure I received there, was not of the idle & transient kind which arises
from merely seeing beautiful objects. Nobler Tastes are gratified in seeing Mr
Bolton & all his admirable inventions. To behold the secrets of Chymistry, &
the mechanick powers, so employ’d, & exerted, is very delightful. I consider
the Machines you have at work as so many useful subjects to great Britain of
your own Creation: the exquisite Taste in the forms which you give them to
work upon, is another national advantage.28
Mechanisation, Boulton told Lord Warwick in 1773, made it possible to defeat

continental competitors. The other key factor, he insisted, was the separation of
processes. Foreign visitors always remarked on the division of labour, although
specialisation had been applied in different British trades for some time and in
fact at Soho each workshop still operated independently: the only rough move
towards a ‘production-line’ was in trying (not always successfully) to orchestrate
the making so that it proceeded stage by stage. Similarly, although Wedgwood,
notoriously, wanted perfection and saw it in mechanical terms (‘I have been
turning models,’ he told Bentley in October 1769, ‘& preparing to make such
Machines of the Men as cannot err’), it would be quite wrong to talk of ‘assembly-
lines’ or ‘mass production’ at Etruria.29 Wedgwood had, however, looked carefully
at the Soho organisation and had learnt from the Worcester factory, where the
workroom spaces were laid out in an order that reflected the steps in the manu-
facturing process.30 Under the pressure of producing vases to meet an expanding
market, Wedgwood also undertook a pioneering analysis of the costs of his
methods of production.31 In negotiations with his workers he explained that if
overheads could be spread over more products by ‘making the greatest quantity pos-
sible in a given time’, the cost of each individual article, and consequently the
selling price, could be reduced.32 So although the pay per piece might be lower,
theoretically the higher productivity meant that overall wages would rise. It was
a pivotal moment: from now on accounting and ‘calculating’ were applied to
industry with increasing care.
158 Jenny Uglow
The combination of machines, cost-accounting and paternalist discipline was

a pattern Boulton and Wedgwood shared with other leading manufacturers, a
model for the century ahead.33 But if the vase craze accelerated the drive towards
sharper work practices, the key issue was still command of the market. Here
patronage remained vital and Boulton’s letters to his wife in 1770 show how
hard he worked to get it. Hearing that Lady Shelburne had a ‘putrid sore throat’
and ‘wished that she could have a few of my pretty things to amuse her’, he
dashed off and brought back a load, ‘and sat with her Ladyship two hours explain-
ing and hearing her criticisms’.34 He breakfasted with William Chambers, had an
audience with the Duke and Duchess of Northumberland, visited the Earl of
Dartmouth and the Dowager Princess of Wales. Then came the visit to the palace.
The Queen, he decided, was ‘extremely sensible, very affable, and a great patroness
of English manufactorys’. After she and the King talked to him for nearly three
hours, ‘the Queen sent for me into her bedchamber, shewed me her chymney
piece and asked my opinion how many vases it would take to furnish it, for says
she all that china shall be taken away.’ His manager, John Scale, must send a set
of Blue John vases within the fortnight. (There is still a Boulton perfume burner
at Windsor.)
The Midlands manufacturers also organised exclusive public sales in the capital.
Wedgwood had always been concerned to find a showroom that would suit his
smart customers, ‘for you well know they will not mix with the rest of the World
any farther than their amusements, or conveniencys make it necessary to do’, he
told Bentley in 1767. It had to be chic and private but also ‘Large’, as vases would
decorate the walls and a full display of at least six or eight complete dinner ser-
vices was essential ‘in order to do the needful with the ladys in the neatest, gen-
teelest & best method’.35 In August 1768 his showroom moved from Charles Street
to Great Newport Street, and six years later would move again, to the grand
Portland House in Greek Street, Soho. The display changed constantly so that
visitors always had something new to see: the black basalts were shown off by
yellow backgrounds, the Queensware by blue or green, the rarest vases kept entic-
ingly in a locked room for private view.36
The sales of vases and ormolu were deliberately planned as spectacles, rivalling
the shows at the Royal Academy or the Society of Artists (Plate 20). Writing in
May 1770, in between news of Wilkes’s stint as Lord Mayor, and parliamentary
factions and ominous reports from Boston, Horace Walpole gossiped about
sales of the day, like an auction of expensive stuffed birds and three simultaneous
exhibitions of pictures, ‘it is incredible what sums are raised by mere exhibi-
tions of anything; a new fashion’. Another rage, he noted, was for English
portraits:
Then we have Etruscan vases, made of earthen ware in Staffordshire, from two
to five guineas; and or moulu, never made here before, which succeeds so well,
that a tea-kettle which the inventor offered for 100 guineas, sold by auction
for 130. In short we are at the height of extravagance and improvements, for
we do improve rapidly in taste as well as in the former.37
Vase Mania 159
In 1770, 1771 and 1772, Boulton held grand week-long sales at Christie’s and
Ansell’s showrooms in Pall Mall. In 1771 there were three days of viewing, the
first for the nobility alone, so that they could place orders in comfort. Christie’s
room glittered with 265 lots, with over 400 pieces, ranging from candlesticks at
four guineas to a Persian candelabra at £200, a staggering price. His show was the
talk of the town, but in this world of spectacle, just as in manufacture, there was
competition. This year Duesbury was displaying his Derby china, and James Cox,
maker of fabulously expensive bejewelled automata, was opening what he called
his ‘Museum’. Wedgwood rightly foresaw that Boulton might be outshone, or
even eclipsed:
for what with the fine things in Gold, Silver & Steel from Soho, the almost
miraculous magnificence of Mr Coxes Exhibition, & the Glare of the Derby &
other China shews – What heads or Eyes could stand all this dazzling profu-
sion of riches & ornament if something was not provided for their relief.38
That much needed relief, he hoped, might just be provided by his own black,
Etruscan and Grecian vases.
By 1772, however, the ormolu craze had peaked, as had the vogue for vases
as a whole, and Boulton was left with cart-loads of beautiful, unsold stock.
(He was only saved by shipping tons of ormolu to an admiring Catherine the
Great.) Wedgwood, meanwhile, saw that the loss of elite trade could be offset by
addressing a different market.
The Great People have had these Vases in their Palaces long enough for them
to be seen and admired by the Middling Class of People, which Class we know
are vastly, I had almost said, infinitely superior, in number to the great, and
though a great price was, I believe, at first necessary to make the vases esteemed
Ornament for Palaces, that reason no longer exists. Their character is established,
and the middling People would probably buy quantitys of them at a reduced
price.39
Another response was to diversify. Increasingly, in 1772 and 1773 Wedgwood

and Bentley worked on a different line, the production of seals in cameo and
intaglio form, serving another current craze, the collecting of carved antique gems.
And soon Wedgwood was supplying an even wider taste, making portrait medal-
lions of Popes and Kings and Queens, and the ‘Heads of Illustrious Moderns from
Chaucer to the Present Time’. Among the first of his ‘Etruscan Portraits’, made
in April 1771, was one of Sir William Hamilton. Two months earlier Hamilton
had sold his collection to the British Museum for £8,400, but Wedgwood later
calculated that Etruria had made three times that sum in profits from the vases
which Hamilton had inspired.40
Boulton’s answer to slipping sales was also to try something different. In 1773,
Hamilton urged him to try to make glassware in the antique style, but Boulton
160 Jenny Uglow
was more realistic: he now intensified his attention on silverware, on the basis
that unlike ormolu silver was never out of fashion. His fine craftsmen, new tech-
niques and classical moulds could all be adapted to make expensive ornaments
for the gentry and cheaper versions in plate for the ‘middling classes’. In this con-
nection his successful fight to establish a local Assay Office in Birmingham in
1773 proved yet another provincial victory over a virtual London monopoly.
Boulton went on to make his fortune in the next decade, not from vases and
toys, ormolu or silver, but from his partnership with James Watt in developing
steam power. Wedgwood, however, always stuck to ceramics, his great passion as
well as the trade he had grown up in. Vases remained a staple of his ornamental
ware; in ‘Etruscan’ style, in plain black basalt and in the new ceramic body ‘jasper’,
which he perfected in late 1777 after 5000 experiments.41 This unglazed vitreous
fine stoneware was coloured in many ‘Adam’ shades – green, lilac, yellow, maroon
or black – as well as the famous ‘Wedgwood blue’ and provided a superb back-
ground for white bas-reliefs, with delicate undercutting. Large sets of vases were
made from 1780 until the end of the century. One of the most beautiful was dec-
orated with a relief designed by John Flaxman (used as a plaque from 1778), of
‘The Apotheosis of Homer’, adapted from one of Hamilton’s vases (Plate 21).
Wedgwood gave a Homer vase to Hamilton and in 1786 presented another to the
British Museum – an extraordinary gesture, in which the manufacturer presented
his ‘new’ product, as a work of art, to the institution which held the originals on
which his work was based.
Equally evocative was the Portland Vase, the supreme production of Wedg-
wood’s later years, perfected twenty years after the first heady vase mania. This
copy of the famous first century BC Alexandrian ‘Barberini’ vase, originally made
in deep blue glass, quickly became an icon. In 1787, when Benjamin West was
commissioned to design paintings for the ceiling of the Queen’s Lodge at Windsor,
he made ceramics the principal subject of the scene representing ‘British Manu-
factory’ (Plate 22). In West’s vaguely ‘classical’ workshop, a naked boy in the fore-
ground holds a copy of the Portland Vase, which Wedgwood was currently
creating.42 The classical vase, and all it represented, thus grew from being the
object of a fashionable craze into a symbol of British craftsmanship as a whole –
a proud boast that the nation’s modern industry and culture could rival the great-
est achievements of the ancient world.
General note
The Wedgwood-Bentley correspondence can be found in K.E. Farrer, ed., Letters of Josiah
Wedgwood (3 vols, Manchester, 1903–6) but in a highly edited form. I have therefore quoted
the originals from the Wedgwood Archives at Keele University, by kind permission of The
Wedgwood Trust; many, however, can also be found in Ann Finer and George Savage, eds,
The Selected Letters of Josiah Wedgwood (London, 1965).
References to the Matthew Boulton papers in Birmingham City Archives are given in the
form used in 2001. The whole labyrinthine archive is currently being re-catalogued, but to
assist future researchers, cross-references will be made from the old to the new system.
1. Illustrated as Plate 125 in Charles Saumarez Smith, Eighteenth-Century Decoration
(London, 1993).
Vase Mania 161
2. John Fleming, Robert Adam and his Circle (London, John Murray, 1962), pp. 246–7.
3. A.F. Tytler, Memoirs of the Life and Writings of the Hon. Henry Home of Kames (Edinburgh,
1814) II, pp. 63–4.
4. See Nicholas Goodison, Ormolu: The Work of Matthew Boulton (London, 1974: new
edition due, 2002), pp. 49 and 51.
5. See David Constantine, Field of Fire: A Life of Sir William Hamilton (London, 2001),
p. 32.
6. Ian Jenkins and Kim Sloan, Vases and Volcanoes: Sir William Hamilton and his Collection
(London, 1996), p. 51. See also Constantine, Field of Fire, pp. 32–45.
7. Ormolu, p. 26.
8. Josiah Wedgwood to Thomas Bentley, 16 February 1767, Wedgwood Archive, Keele
University: E25-18163.
9. [Sir William Hamilton], D’Hancarville, Collection of Etruscan, Greek and Roman Antiqu-
ities (1766–76) I, p. viii, quoted in Ormolu, p. 55.
10. P.J. Wendler to Matthew Boulton, 1767, Matthew Boulton Papers, Birmingham City
Archive: MBP 261.35–9.
11. Elizabeth Montagu to Matthew Boulton, 31 October 1771, MBP 330.1.
12. Josiah Wedgwood to Thomas Bentley, 15 March 1768, W.E25-18193. (Wedgwood
reminded Bentley that they had seen these at Lord Bolingbroke’s, and he had spotted
‘two or three old China bowles, for want of better things, stuct rim to rim which had
no bad effect but look whimsical and droll enough.’)
13. William Cox, Sarah Wedgwood and Catherine Willett, joint letter to Thomas Bentley,
29 November 1768, Keele University W.M2.
14. Josiah Wedgwood to Thomas Bentley, 21 November 1768, W.E25-18215.
15. Matthew Boulton to Josiah Wedgwood, 30 December 1768 (also 17 January 1769),
quoted in Ormolu, p. 28.
16. Ormolu, p. 30.
17. Josiah Wedgwood to Thomas Bentley [13 September 1769], W.E25-18252.
19. Matthew Boulton to Elizabeth Montagu, 16 January 1772, draft, MBP 330.3.
20. Josiah Wedgwood to Thomas Bentley, 7 September 1771, W. LHP. In 1770 Boulton
bought a lion, a ram’s head, a deer’s head, a sleeping Bacchus and a ‘Group of Hercules
and Atlas’, Ormolu, pp. 57–8.
21. Matthew Boulton to Anne Boulton, 6 March 1770, MBP 279.
22. For this as a general issue in ceramics, see Hilary Young, English Porcelain, 1745–95
(London, 1999), pp. 94–154.
23. See, for example, Josiah Wedgwood to Thomas Bentley, 25 June 1769, W.E25-18245,
and 17 September 1769, W.E25-18255.
24. Matthew Boulton to James Adam, 1 October 1770, MBP 136, Letter Book (1768–1830),
p. 29. For drawing and design generally, see Charles Saumarez Smith, ‘Eighteenth-
century Man’, Designer (March 1987), pp. 19–21. For Birmingham, see Young, p. 100.
25. Josiah Wedgwood to Thomas Bentley, 1 October 1769, W.E25-18264.
27. James Keir, Memorandum on Matthew Boulton, sent to Matthew Robinson Boulton, 3
December 1809, MBP 290.112.
29. Josiah Wedgwood to Thomas Bentley, 9 September 1769, W.E25-18265.
30. Young, p. 23.
31. See Neil McKendrick, ‘Josiah Wedgwood and Cost Accounting in the Industrial Revo-
lution’, English Historical Review XXIII (1970), pp. 45–67.
32. Josiah Wedgwood to Thomas Bentley, 22 July 1772, W.E25-18381.
33. For factory discipline generally in Britain and France, see Paul Mantoux, The Industrial
Revolution in the Eighteenth Century (1983 edn.), pp. 375–6. For Wedgwood, see N.
McKendrick, ‘Josiah Wedgwood and Factory Discipline’, Historical Journal, IV (1961),
pp. 30–55.
162 Jenny Uglow
34. Matthew Boulton to Anne Boulton, 6 March 1770, MBP 279.

35. Josiah Wedgwood to Thomas Bentley, 31 May 1767, W.E25-18141.
36. On Wedgwood’s showroom practice in the 1770s, see Malcolm Baker, ‘A Rage for
Exhibitions: The Display and Viewing of Wedgwood’s Frog Service’, in Hilary Young,
ed., The Genius of Wedgwood (London, 1995).
37. Horace Walpole to Sir Horace Mann, 6 May 1770, Horace Walpole’s Correspondence, ed.
W.S. Lewis, 44 vols (New Haven, 1937–83), vol. 20, pp. 211–12.
38. Josiah Wedgwood to Thomas Bentley, 11 April 1772, W.E25-18365.
39. Josiah Wedgwood to Thomas Bentley, 23 August 1772, W.E25-18392.
40. Constantine, Field of Fire, p. 65.
42. See David Irwin, Neoclassicism (London, 1997), pp. 172–3. Benjamin West, British
Manufactory, A Sketch, 1791 (Cleveland Museum of Art).
Plates
18. Wedgwood, ‘First Day Vase’, 1769.
19. Boulton and Fothergill, Pattern Book I, p. 129.
20. Boulton and Fothergill, Pair of ewers, ormolu and Blue-John, c. 1772.
21. Wedgwood, Vase with relief of ‘The Apotheosis of Homer’, designed by John Flaxman,
1786.
22. Benjamin West, preparatory design for a ceiling painting. ‘British Manufactory Giving
Support to Industry’, 1791.
Part IV
The Female Vice? Women and Luxury
Part IV addresses the gender politics of the luxury debates. From classical times,
woman functioned as a ‘sign’ of dangerous excess. Luxury was associated with
weakness, effeminacy and perilous female desire. Over the course of the eigh-
teenth century, however, women gradually became associated with a move to re-
moralise luxury as a socially progressive force. Ballaster, Jones and Eger share an
interest in considering the tension between women’s cultural power as both the
subjects and objects of representation in the luxury debates.
In Chapter 11, ‘Performing Roxane: the Oriental Woman as the Sign of Luxury
in Eighteenth-Century Fictions’, Ros Ballaster explores the recurrence of a com-
posite figure of Orientalised femininity in dramatic and prose fictions of the late
seventeenth and eighteenth century. She argues that the Oriental woman became
an overdetermined signifier of ambivalent attitudes towards luxury in England.
She emphasises the class mobility and ideological flexibility of the Oriental
woman in Enlightenment culture, contrasting Lady Mary Wortley Montagu’s
appearance in Turkish dress with the exotic fiction of Daniel Defoe’s Roxana.
Ballaster’s essay links the genre of Oriental fiction with the more overt economic
and social emphasis of debates over luxury in eighteenth-century literature.
In Chapter 12, ‘Luxury, Satire and Prostitute Narratives’, Vivien Jones addresses
a more explicit economy of desire, using the figure of the prostitute to examine
models of exchange and luxury. Throughout the eighteenth century, the prosti-
tute figures as sign of luxury and excess. Typified by Bernard Mandeville’s justifi-
cation of brothels on the grounds of their social and commercial utility, the much
older morality figure of Lady Luxury is in this period given renewed energy as the
whore of commerce. Whether urban streetwalker or expensive courtesan, Moll
Flanders or Roxana, the prostitute seduces consumers away from productive
labour into un(re)productive spending, mocking authentic exchange through the
renewable, but indivisible, capital resource of her body. Jones demonstrates how
the satirical and pornographic figure of the trickster-whore lends itself to the para-
doxes of desire and commercial expansion analysed by Mandeville. Whether real
or fictional, the prostitute memoirist is both admired and vilified; like commerce
itself, her resourceful adaptability refuses the containment of a simple moral
narrative.
163
164 The Female Vice? Women and Luxury
Finally in this part, we consider the role of luxury at the opposite end of the
contemporary moral spectrum. In Chapter 13, ‘Luxury, Industry and Charity:
Bluestocking Culture Displayed’, Elizabeth Eger explores the sexual politics of
commercial culture in the salons of Europe’s capital cities. Women took an active
part in contemporary moves to re-moralise luxury as the positive sign of social
progress, vital to the progress of civilisation, and inevitably bound to emerging
notions of national pride. Elizabeth Montagu self-consciously defined her salon
as morally superior to those of eighteenth-century Paris. Eger considers the role
of patronage, charity and the art of conversation in her argument that women
made innovative contributions to the practice and theory of taste in the
Enlightenment.
11
Performing Roxane: the Oriental
Woman as the Sign of Luxury in
Eighteenth-Century Fictions
Ros Ballaster
The figure of woman functions as a ‘sign’ of a dangerous excess in the earliest rep-
resentations of luxury. John Sekora points out that the original topos of the dis-
course on luxury is the garden of Eden, its victim being Adam lured by Eve into
a fall, noting that ‘almost all personifications of luxury are feminine’.1 The term
‘luxury’ has two classical roots: luxus meaning sensuality, splendour or pomp, and
luxuria meaning riot, excess or extravagance. This double meaning coheres in the
figure of the excessively beautiful and tempting female object of lust who also
stands as a ‘sign’ of the power and authority of the man who enjoys and/or dis-
plays her. Early modern English representations of a feminine luxury also associ-
ate her with ‘foreignness’, most often French or Ottoman, the two cultures of the
period with powerful and magnificent courts, extensive imperial powers and a
reputation for gallantry. Sekora notes a turn of meaning over the course of the
eighteenth century, toward a positive revaluation of luxury as a social and eco-
nomic benefit, propelled by imperial and commercial expansion and voiced most
powerfully by Bernard Mandeville’s Fable of the Bees (1714) and David Hume’s ‘Of
Luxury’ (1752). Did one popular figure for luxury, that of the Oriental woman,
undergo a similar re-evaluation through the century, acquiring new and positive
connotations? Like the category of ‘luxury’ itself, older and newer connotations
co-existed, sometimes openly in conflict, sometimes articulated independently in
different contexts and registers.
Not all spokespersons for the new trading and commercial institutions of early
eighteenth-century England understood ‘luxury’ in unequivocally positive terms
and many continued to personify luxury negatively in the shape of a woman, not
least Daniel Defoe. Honest trading labour had to be differentiated from personal
greed to ensure a moral high-ground and political authority. Sekora comments
that Defoe’s ‘major nonfictional works are defenses of the commercial interests
against the prevailing attack upon luxury’.2 Defoe in his novels and prose repeat-
edly contrasts aristocratic pleasure or parasitism, masquerade, feminine forms of
display and indulgence with masculine plain-dealing, frugality and self-control.
In The Complete English Tradesman he tells us:
165
166 Ros Ballaster
TRADE is not a ball, where people appear in masque, and act a part to make
sport; where they strive to seem what they really are not, and to think them-
selves best drest when they are least known; but ‘tis a plain visible scene of
honest life, shewn best in its native appearance, without disguise; supported
by prudence and frugality; and, like strong, stiff, clay land, grows fruitful only
by good husbandry, culture and manuring.3
The metaphor of the masked performance is an important one which had sur-
faced earlier in Defoe’s most sustained representation of an excessive and self-
absorbed form of trade in the figure of Roxana: or, The Fortunate Mistress (1724)
(see Plate 23). The French-born heroine acquires the sobriquet Roxana after she
becomes celebrated for the performance of a dance in Turkish dress which attract
the attention of King Charles II at a series of balls she hosts at her Pall-Mall apart-
ments; she unites in her person the twin sources of foreign luxury, France and
Turkey. Roxana tells her readers that her dancing ‘had the French Behaviour under
the Mahometan Dress’.4 The inconsistent chronology of Defoe’s novel has often
been noted: in her opening paragraph, the heroine informs us she fled to England
as a child with her Protestant parents under Catholic persecution in 1683, yet in
her mature years she is dancing for a monarch who died in 1685. If this incon-
sistency produces a rent in the realist fabric of the text, on another level, that of
ideology, it serves to bring together two periods of ostentatious luxury with very
different class associations: the expansion in trade, markets and colonial activity
embodied in the new financial institutions of the Bank of England, the City, etc.
of the early eighteenth century and the late Stuart Court of Charles II (1660–85),
repeatedly presented in fiction, poetry and drama of the period as a mirror of the
Ottoman seraglio with a decadent pleasure-loving monarch at its centre.
Taking the figure of Defoe’s Roxana as its starting point, this essay explores the
recurrence of a composite figure of Orientalised femininity in dramatic and prose
fictions of the late seventeenth and eighteenth century as an overdetermined sig-
nifier of the ambivalent attitudes toward luxury in England. This figure demon-
strates enormous class mobility (hers is a role ‘performed’ by whores, actresses and
aristocratic women alike) and ideological flexibility (she can stand for suffering
virtue, moral and political duplicity, economic agency and economic exploita-
tion). When the working-class woman, particularly the prostitute or actress,
adopts Turkish dress she does so to turn a profit from male voyeurs; when the
aristocratic woman such as Lady Mary Wortley Montagu adopts Turkish dress she
does so to express her freedom from the constraints of western marriage and gov-
ernment. Contrast Lady Mary Wortley Montagu’s description of her Turkish habit
to her sister Lady Mar from Adrianople on 1 April 1717 with the description by
a prostitute named Mary who tells her story in the second part of the popular
picaresque series entitled The English Rogue by Richard Head and Francis Kirkman
of 1668. Mary adopts Turkish dress to keep the attention of her young lover, a
country gentleman who is enamoured of the image of Roxolana, Suleyman the
Magnificent’s wife (see Plate 24) as portrayed in William Davenant’s play The Siege
of Rhodes (first performed in 1656, and extensively revised in 1661):
Performing Roxane 167
I so ordered the matter, that I got a Taylor, and other persons who were used
to make habits for the Players, to make me a habit in all things like to that of
Roxolana; this being done, I acquainted my young Gentleman, and told him
that for his better satisfaction, he should see the famed Princess at our quar-
ters, where he might have more freedom then at any other place; he was here-
with very well contented; he habiting himself in the richest garbs he had, and
a Colation was provided to treat his expected Mistris; all things being thus fitted
on his part, I put on the provided habit; and instead of the expected Roxolana,
I entred the Room where he was, attending by two or three, who bore up my
train, and had set my self out with so many Jewels, both good, and counter-
feit; and was indeed in all things so like the Roxolana he had seen, that he
doubted not but I was the very same, and was much surprised at the matter:
and although my face was as lovely as hers, yet I had added somewhat thereto
to appear more beautiful.5
Lady Mary has also obtained a tailor and she too stresses the luxury of the garb;
the jewels she describes are, however, all genuine and she provides a minute
account of materials used and their treatment. She calls particular attention to the
‘modesty’ of her clothing, as well as its comfort, strangeness and value:
The first piece of my dress is a pair of drawers, very full, that reach to my shoes,
and conceal the legs more modestly than your petticoats. They are of a thin
rose colour damask, brocaded with silver flowers, my shoes of white kid leather
embroidered with gold. Over this hangs my smock of a fine white silk gauze,
edged with embroidery. This smock has wide sleeves hanging half way down
the arm and is closed at the neck with a diamond button; but the shape and
colour of the bosom is very well to be distinguished through it. The entari is
a waistcoat made close to the shape, of white and gold damask with very long
sleeves falling back and fringed with deep gold fringe, and should have
diamond or pearl buttons. My caftan of the same stuff with my drawers, is a
robe exactly fitted to my shape and reaching to my feet, with very long straight-
falling sleeves. Over this is the girdle of about four fingers broad which all that
can afford have entirely of diamonds and of other precious stones; those that
will not be at that expense have it of exquisite embroidery on satin, but it must
be fastened before with a clasp of diamonds. The cüppe is a loose robe they
throw off, or put on, according to the weather, being of a rich brocade (mine
is green and gold) either lined with ermine or sables. The sleeves reach very
little below the shoulders. The headdress is composed of a cap, called kalpak
which is in winter of fine velvet embroidered with pearls or diamonds and in
summer of a light shining silver stuff. This is fixed on one side of the head,
hanging a little way down with a gold tassel, and bound on either with a circle
of diamonds (as I have seen several) or a rich embroidered handkerchief. On
the other side of the head the hair is laid flat and here the ladies are at liberty
to show their fancies, some putting flowers, others a plume of heron’s feath-
ers and, in short, what they please; but the most general fashion is a large
168 Ros Ballaster
bouquet of jewels made like natural flowers; that is, the buds of pearl, the
roses of different coloured rubies, the jessamines of diamonds, the jonquils of
topazes, etc, so well set and enamelled ’tis hard to imagine anything of that
kind so beautiful.6 (See Plate 25.)
The contrast is not between the natural and the artificial so much as different
kinds of performance on the part of the two Marys. The working-class Mary puts
together a show that successfully passes in the dim evening light for an authen-
tic imitation of an imitation (she is copying an English actress playing the part
of a Turkish sultana). Lady Mary, by contrast, is concerned with calling attention
to a sophisticated performance of beauty and ornamentation, finishing on the
image of jewels carved into the shape of flowers, thus making the connection
between her own aristocratic status and the luxury indulged in by Ottoman
women of an equivalent class.
The performance of Defoe’s Roxana, the representation of which was no doubt
influenced by Kirkman’s earlier fiction although Montagu’s letters would not have
been available to Defoe (they were not published until 1763), is ambiguously
placed between these two class-determined positions. Defoe’s appears to be per-
forming one role, that of the aristocratic lady flirting with Oriental dress and prac-
tice as a sign of her wealth and intellect, where the readers are aware of the
economic imperatives which drive the heroine’s performances of a host of iden-
tities and the history of selling sexual services prior to the adoption of this role.
So too her performance is poised between the authentic and the inauthentic.
Defoe’s heroine has learnt Turkish and Moorish dances and smatterings of lan-
guage and song from a female Turkish slave acquired for her at Leghorn by her
lover the Prince whom she has joined on his Grand Tour. Her Turkish dress was
obtained from the same Maltese man of war which had seized a Turkish vessel
going from Constantinople to Alesandria with a cargo of ladies bound for Grand
Cairo in Egypt:
and with this Turkish Slave, I brought the rich Cloaths too. The Dress was extra-
ordinary fine indeed, I had bought it as a Curiosity, having never seen the like;
the Robe was a fine Persian, or India Damask; the Ground white, and the
Flowers blue and gold, and the Train held five Yards; the Dress under it, was a
Vest of the same, embroider’d with Gold, and set with some Pearl in the Work,
and some Turquois Stones; to the Vest, was a Girdle five or six Inches wide,
after the Turkish Mode; and on both ends where it join’d, or hook’d, was set
with Diamonds for eight Inches either way, only they were not true Diamonds;
but no-body knew that but myself. The Turban, or Head-Dress, had a Pinacle
on the top, but not about five Inches, with a piece of loose Sarcanet hanging
from it; and on the Front, just over the Forehead, was a good Jewel, which I
had added to it.7
On her second appearance at the king’s request as Roxana at a ball at her lodg-
ings, Defoe’s heroine faces competition in the shape of two bare-headed,
unmasked, richly attired ‘authentic’ Turkish ladies, one from Georgia the other
from Armenia. Significantly, they wear no jewels and the heroine informs us com-
placently that their dancing pleased with its novelty ‘yet there was something
wild and Bizarre in it, because they really acted to the Life the barbarous Country
whence they came; but as mine had the French Behaviour under the Mahometan
Dress, it was every way as new, and pleas’d much better, indeed’.8 The authentic
‘barbarous’ (derived, of course, from the ‘barbary’ coast of West Africa) Turkish
femaleness is understood to be beyond western comprehension. More familiar
is the image of the aristocratic slaves of the Grand Sultan’s seraglio at Constan-
tinople, a role made familiar by the drama and art of the period. The inauthentic
performance of the Roxana role is closer to the Western construction of the
luxurious East than those ‘real’ representatives conjured up in the novel to rival
the western European woman’s dominance.
Class ambivalence was recognised as a characteristic associated with the his-
torical figure of Roxolana who is the primary ‘source’ for early eighteenth-century
English Roxanes. Roxolana or Hurrem (‘the laughing one’) Sultana, was a slave of
Russian, probably Ukrainian (‘Russelana’), extraction who became the favourite
of Suleyman the Magnificent in the mid-sixteenth century. She confined herself
in her apartments and refused Suleyman sexual access until he had legally married
her, making her the first legal ‘wife’ of an Ottoman Sultan. In 1541 when the Old
Palace, in which the courtesans and children of the Sultan were housed, burnt
down, Roxolana moved to the Grand Seraglio with her entourage of odalisques
and eunuchs marking the beginning of what was referred to as ‘The Reign of
Women’, a long period in Ottoman history when the Sultans were ostensibly
under the sway of their mothers, mistresses and daughters, more interested in
sexual and luxurious pleasures than military glory and imperial expansion. In the
late 1540s Roxolana plotted to turn Suleyman against his eldest male child by
another courtesan, Mustafa, resulting in Mustafa’s death by his father’s hand. She
died in 1557 two years after she had given her support to an attempt on the part
of her younger son, Bajazet, to displace his older brother, Selymus, as Suleyman’s
heir. Richard Knolles stresses the class contradictions in his 1603 description
of Roxolana at the height of her power as ‘of late a Slave, but now become the
greatest empresse of the East’; Knolles provides a handsome engraved image of
Roxolana and also a poem which warns ‘Too fairest lookes trust not too farre, nor
yet to beautie brave: / For hateful thoughts so finely maskt, their deadly poisons
have.’9
This same Roxolana also appears in a French romance by the influential
Madeleine de Scudéry entitled Ibrahim, or the Illustrious Bassa (first translated in
1652 from the 1641 original). Scudéry’s Ibrahim is presented as a secret history in
which the famous Grand Vizier of the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent, Ibrahim,
is revealed to be a Genoan hero. The real Ibrahim’s death by strangling in March
1536 probably at the instigation of Roxolana is, in Scudéry’s fiction, explained as
a device which enabled Ibrahim (really Justiniano) to leave Turkey with his Genoan
beloved, Isabella, for whom Soliman had developed an unfortunate passion. The
narrative’s apparently simple opposition between Occident (Isabella and Justini-
170 Ros Ballaster
ano share an elevated and courteous love) and Orient (Soliman and Roxelana are
driven by powerful passions of desire and ambition) is complicated by class hier-
archies. Roxelana is the daughter of a low-born Grand Vizier and a slave girl who
has been educated to use her sexual attraction as a lever in the attainment of politi-
cal power. Soliman’s refined aristocratic sensibilities about loyalty to his friend,
Ibrahim, mean that he struggles to overcome his feelings for Isabella. However,
rationalism, the tempering and deferral of desire, remain firmly on the side of the
European races. When Soliman determines to declare his love to Isabella, he opens
by asking her whether ‘an error, which is not voluntary, merits as much chastise-
ment, as a premeditated malice?’10 Isabella responds that ‘all persons that have
great Souls like thy Highness can never commit faults but voluntarily. There is
nothing that can force Reason when one will make use of it; and the most violent
passions without doubt are but the pretext of weak ones . . .’11
However, although the Oriental woman is imagined in the examples above as
the source of violent and excessive passions, these are not on her part simply
sexual; the performance of Roxolana’s role is also understood as an important
model for women who wish to secure political and marital power. In the story of
Charlot in Delarivier Manley’s scandal fiction, The New Atalantis (1709), the unfor-
tunate Charlot is seduced (largely through the introduction of erotic classical
material to her reading) and then neglected by her guardian, the Duke. She is
befriended by an older Countess who ‘advised her to bestow no more favours, till
he paid her price; made her read the history of Roxelana who, by her wise address
brought an imperious sultan, contrary to the established rules of the seraglio, to
divide with her the royal throne.’12 Charlot’s resolution wavers and she is cast off
in favour of the Countess who wisely refuses the Duke sexual gratification until
after marriage.
The Roxolana of Davenant’s popular tragi-comedy The Siege of Rhodes also
serves as a role-model for European court women. Like Scudéry, Davenant
concerns himself with the contrast between an Occidental couple, Alphonso
and Ianthe (Neapolitans who are in Rhodes when Suleiman lays siege to it) and
Suleiman and Roxolana. However, the Oriental couple, after appearing at first to
conform to the stereotype of bloody, vengeful and passion-driven Eastern auto-
crats, are revealed at the play’s close to be truly courtly and gallant. Suleiman has
put Ianthe in Roxolana’s power to test his wife’s restraint while Roxolana threat-
ens to kill Alphonso to test the strength of Ianthe’s love. The play closes on
reconciliation and a celebration of the mutual chastity and devotion of the two
couples. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it is female dress that becomes a key metaphor
for a luxurious departure from state business, but it is also, Roxolana reveals, only
a performance, a dress adopted to conceal her aspiration to political agency.
Roxolana after an exchange with the court favourite Bassa Rustan comments that
mistakenly he thinks her simply an ornament without political power:
These are Court-Monsters, Corm’rants of the Crown:

They feed on Favour till th’are over-grown;
Then sawcily believe, we Monarchs Wives
Were made but to be Dress’t
For a continu’d Feast;

To hear soft Sounds, and play away our Lives.
They think our Fulness is to wane so soon
As if our Sexes Governess, the Moon,
Had plac’d us, but for Sport on Fortunes lap;
They with bold Pencils, by the changing shape
Of our frail Beauty, have our Fortune drawn;
And judge our Breasts transparent as our Lawn;
Our hearts as loose, and soft, and slight
As are our Summer Vests of Silk;
Our brains, like to our Feathers light;
Our blood, as sweet as is our Milk:
And think, when Fav’rites rise, we are to fall
Meekly as Doves, whose Livers have no Gall.
But they shall find, I’m no European Queen,
Who in a Throne does sit but to be seen;
And lives in Peace with such State-Thieves as these
Who rob us of our business for our ease.13
Roxolana both invokes and revokes the parallel between Occident and Orient,
recalling the expected role of vengeful queen associated with her name only ulti-
mately to play a different part in the drama, that of facilitator of harmony and
reconciliation.
Behind these versions of Roxolana, lie other Roxanes and Roxanas associated
with the Orient. Perhaps most famous is the Roxana of Nathaniel Lee’s The Rival
Queens (1677), first wife of Alexander the Great who murders her rival, the vir-
tuous Persian princess and newly made second wife, Statira.14 An over-blown cari-
cature of Oriental excess, Lee’s Roxana practises her art in order to hold the most
powerful ruler of the globe. When the feeble Cassander offers her his affections
in place of Alexander who has returned to Statira’s arms, she mocks:
You thought, perhaps, because I practis’d charms

To gain the King, that I had loose desires:
No, ‘tis my pride that gives me height of pleasure,
To see the man by all the world admir’d,
Bow’d to my bosom, and my Captive there:
Then my veins swell, and my arms grasp the Poles,
My breasts grow bigger with the vast delight,
‘Tis length of Rapture, and an age of Fury.
No, if I were a wanton I wou’d make
Princes the Victims of my raging fires:
I, like the changing Moon, wou’d have the Stars
My followers, and mantled Kings by night
Shou’d wait my call; fine Slaves to quench my flame,
Who lest in Dreams they should reveal the deed,
Still as they came, successively shou’d bleed.15
172 Ros Ballaster
Lee’s Roxana deploys the same range of allusion as Roxolana (moon, milk, blood),
but fulfils the role of the vengeful queen rather than revoking it. However, for
both Oriental queens it is ambition rather than lust, social, economic and politi-
cal influence rather than excessive sexual desire, that drives their behaviour and
leads them to exercise their arts and charms. The rivalry between Statira and
Roxana is also the key narrative in Gauthier de Costes de la Calprenède’s romance,
Cassandra (1652), although here it is their mutual passion for the Scythian Oroon-
dates that leads them into conflict. Here, too, duplicity and splendid dress are the
twin characteristics of Roxana; at her first meeting with Oroondates she is ‘exceed-
ing handsome, and very sumptuous apparelled’; when she realises his devotion
to Statira she uses ‘a thousand malitious tricks’ and ‘little inventions’ to cause a
breach between the lovers, yet later in the story all her ‘beauty and subtilty’ are
not enough to prevent Alexander returning to his first passion for Statira and
taking her as his second wife.16 Two other influential French Roxanes act from
frustrated sexual desire rather than political ambition, throwing away their
political power and finally losing their lives in the pursuit of romantic or sexual
fulfilment. The Roxane of Racine’s Bajazet (1672) and the Roxane of Charles
Montesquieu’s Lettres Persanes (1721). Racine’s Bajazet again deploys the contrast
between the virtuous and the violent Oriental woman; Roxane, violent and
sensual chief courtesan of Sultan Morad IV (1623–40) lusts after his brother,
Bajazet, and tries to persuade him to marry her and usurp his brother’s Sultanate
in Amurat’s absence. Bajazet, however, loves the intelligent and virtuous Ottoman
aristocrat, Atalide, who persuades him to go along with Roxane in order to save
his own life. The play concludes with the deaths of all three protagonists.17
Montesquieu’s Roxana is the most virtuous courtesan in the seraglio of Usbek, the
Turkish traveller whose ironic observations on the French court make up the bulk
of the novel. Roxana, we are told, like her namesake Roxolana, refused her sexual
favours for some time, refusing to give up her chastity for two months. However,
the novel concludes with the discovery by Usbek’s chief eunuch that ‘her stern
virtue was all a cheat; it was only a Veil to her perfidiousness.’18 The novel closes
on a letter from Roxana to Usbek which she writes as the poison she has taken
works through her body after she has been discovered with her young lover:
How could’st thou think me so credulous, as to fancy my self sent into the
world for no other purpose than to adore your Caprices? that at the same time
thou allowed’st thy self all manner of liberties, thou hadst a right to confine
all my desires? No: I lived indeed in servitude, but still I was free. . . . [T]hou
hast had a long time the advantage of believing a heart like mine was a slave
to thee: we were both of us happy: you fancy’d you cheated me, and I all the
while actually cheated you.19
There can be little doubt of the importance of this Roxana as a model for Defoe’s
heroine, who discusses the relative merits of concubinage over marriage in the
retention of women’s freedom and contemplates suicide toward the close of her
own narrative.
However, the links between these versions of Roxane/Roxana/Roxelana lie in

the association of the Oriental woman with a kind of verbal agility which wins
her political influence, the performance of luxury (the indulgence of sexual
passion, the display of a voluptuous body to the desiring male) which conceals
political ambition, astuteness and in some cases moral agency. Katie Trumpener
concludes that by the early eighteenth century Roxane ‘the literary character,
[was] an oriental queen who always, no matter what the plot in which she
appeared, embodied ambition, sexuality, revenge, exoticism; in fact, in the
eighteenth century she came to personify womanhood itself: mysterious, sensual,
resentful.’20 The figure of the Oriental woman in European narrative is, above all
else as the examples discussed above indicate, associated with the practice of
plotting, whether for positive or negative ends. Bacon cites Roxolana as a ‘cruel’
example along with Livia and Isabella, queen to Edward II, of the kind of danger
to empire posed ‘when the Wives have Plots, for the Raising of their owne
Children; Or else that they be Advoutresses [i.e. adulteresses]’.21 Roxolana manages
male sexual passion in order to gratify her own (for political sway). The Oriental
woman as an expert manipulator of fictions is not always however presented
in this negative light, as the exploiter of a masculine weakness for luxurious
pleasure in order to advance her own interests at the expense of the state. She can
also exercise a profitable indulgence of luxury in her use of stories to curtail and
control masculine excess. The figure of Roxana, or the violent and transgressive
Oriental queen, is often contrasted with a figure of virtuous but equally articulate
and performative Oriental femininity: Atalide in Racine’s play, Statira in Lee’s and
in Cassandra. The best-known female Oriental figure of the period is the fictional
Scheherazade who can also be classed in this tradition. Translations into French
from Arabic by the Orientalist Antoine Galland appeared in his native country in
twelve volumes under the title Mille et Une Nuit from 1704 to 1717 and as each
volume appeared it was almost immediately translated into English. Turkish Tales,
translated into English from his fellow Orientalist François Pétis de la Croix’s
French text based on a pre-Islamic Persian cycle of tales known as the Sindibad-
nama, appeared in England in 1708. The frame narratives of Galland’s and Petis
de la Croix’s collections present a power struggle between male autocrats and
female speakers and usefully stage the contrast between positive and negative uses
of plotting by women. Galland’s frame is the best known: the vizier’s daughter,
Scheherazade volunteers to marry the Sultan Schahriar, who has vowed to execute
each new wife the day after the wedding night to ensure he can never be cuck-
olded. She persuades her younger sister Dinarzade to prompt her each morning
to begin a new tale which she then leaves in suspense so that her husband delays
her execution to hear its conclusion. Many of the tales, particularly those told
at the start of the collection when the frame is still in place, are tales about the
withholding of arbitrary and tyrannical punishment in exchange for further
storytelling, so that narrative content parallels narrative frame. Pétis de la Croix’s
Turkish Tales also involve a female story-teller, but in this case the tales ‘which
the Turks call in Derision The Malice of Women’ are tales told by a sultana about
tyrannous sons to counter stories of deceitful women told by his visiers to a sultan
174 Ros Ballaster
who has to decide whether to execute his son, the latter sworn to a vow of silence,
for an alleged sexual assault on the sultaness.22
The contrast between these two models of dangerous and virtuous Oriental
female story-tellers might be paralleled with that between the older idea of luxury
as a wasteful entropic decadence and new formulations of it as a productive source
of power, indeed vehicle for the advancement of civic virtue. These popular nar-
ratives also connect in a different way to the luxury debates as themselves prod-
ucts of an expanding market in foreign imports. The narrative content of fiction,
particularly French versions of the Oriental tales, can be viewed as one among
other exotic foreign imports such as tea and chocolate that provided pleasurable,
sometimes cast as dangerous, stimulation to an expanding English consumer
culture. Like Roxana’s dance, these tales are all the more attractive because they
have been tailored by their translators French and English to Occidental tastes
and preconceptions of the Orient; their inauthenticity/performativity is the guar-
antor of their affect. The performance of Oriental womanhood continues through-
out the century to be associated with luxuriant pleasures and empty display.
Ottoman courtesans in the Grand Seraglio stand as the signs of the wasteful
pursuit of empire for the adornment of the female body and the empty display
of power. Imitation of this kind of folly by the expanding English empire can only
lead to similar degeneracy and eventual decline (the indulgence of luxury is seen
as the cause of the fall of both the Roman and the Ottoman empires). A late
example of the association of feminine luxury with the degeneracy of a ruling
power, can be seen in Mary Robinson’s 1797 novel Walsingham in which the
narrator gives a scathing description of Lady Emily Devlin entering a gathering
in Turkish dress:
The music had long been interrupted by the trifling gabble of the company,
when a new object of attraction entered the room: it was a fashionable female,
dressed like the high-priestess of a Turkish haram. the perfumes of Arabia
scented the air as she fluttered through the room, and the general display of
complaisance which she manifested to all, excluded every one present from
the vanity of individual attention. She walked in a mincing step; prattled in a
small and affected tone; smiled without meaning, and was grave without being
thoughtful.23
However, if the image of the aristocratic European woman donning Oriental dress
and manners is now a source for mockery, the image of the bourgeois English girl
indulging a taste for the marvellous in reading the Oriental tale retains through
the century a certain moral currency. The Oriental woman can stand for both
political absolutism (Roxolana) and for resistance to it (Scheherazade) and women
writers of the late eighteenth century advocate the positive benefits to the growing
imagination of girls of reading oriental stories. Hannah More, a writer rarely asso-
ciated with female rebellion, provides an instructional cameo in her Coelebs in
Search of a Wife (1809). Mr Stanley’s children organise a fairy party for the eight-
year-old Kate, who is to give up her ‘little story books’ for grown-up books. Her
father comments that the story books are an incentive to reading, but must be
abandoned or she will not move on to full-length novels and histories.
even story books should not be founded on a principle totally contradictory

to [serious doctrines], nay totally subversive of them. The Arabian Nights,
and other oriental books of fable, though loose and faulty in many respects,
yet have always a reference to the religion of the country. Nothing is intro-
duced against the law of Mahomet; nothing subversive of the opinions of a
Mussulman. I do not quarrel with books for having no religion, but for having
a false religion. A book which in nothing opposes the principles of the Bible
I would be far from calling a bad book, though the Bible was never named
in it.24
Mary Hays’ passionate heroine, Emma Courtney, is a young aficionado of the tales,
significantly here too presented as a form of early education. They are told to her
at the age of four or five by her aunt who has adopted the young Emma in place
of a girl who died in infancy:
When myself and my little cousins had wearied ourselves with play, their
mother, to keep us quiet in an evening, while her husband wrote letters in an
adjoining apartment, was accustomed to relate (for our entertainment) stories
from the Arabian Nights, Turkish Tales, and other works of like marvellous
import. She recited them circumstantially, and these I listened to with ever new
delight: the more they excited vivid emotions, the more wonderful they were,
the greater was my transport: they became my favourite amusement, and pro-
duced, in my young mind, a strong desire of learning to read the books which
contained such enchanting stores of entertainment.25
Charlotte Smith, perhaps the most ardent of the women advocates of the French
Revolution of the period, makes a reference to the mutual pleasure of reading such
tales in young people as a means of resisting the stultifying seraglio-like incar-
ceration of her young hero and heroine in the home of a tyrannical spinster aunt
in The Old Manor House (1794). When Orlando is sent away to school he says to
Monimia, the fourteen-year-old orphan who has been his playmate: ‘promise me
then, Monimia . . . that when I come home from school entirely, which I shall do
at Christmas, we shall contrive to meet sometimes, and to read together, as we
used to do, the Fairy Tales and the Arabian Nights last year, and the year before.
– Will you promise me, Monimia?’26
Performing Roxane, then, serves multiple purposes in the early eighteenth
century, and works on many different registers, not confined simply or solely to
the representation of woman as the vicious source of an incitement to luxury that
wastes the manly powers of a nation. The idea of the female speaker of moral tales
which curb the absolutist luxurious tendencies of male authorities is also associ-
ated with the figure of the Oriental woman and especially with the moral agency
of the eighteenth-century novel. Both images, like the doubled discourse of luxury
176 Ros Ballaster
as both beneficial and wasteful, co-exist; the former however acquired increasing
authority, as did the vehicle for its representation, the novel, through the course
of the eighteenth century.
Notes
1. John Sekora, Luxury: The Concept in Western Thought, Eden to Smollett (Baltimore and
London, 1977), p. 44.
2. Ibid., p. 117.
3. Daniel Defoe, The Complete English Tradesman (Dublin, 1726) volume 1, p. 93.
4. Daniel Defoe, Roxana The Fortunate Mistress, or, a History of the Life and Vast Variety of
Fortunes of Mademoiselle de Beleau, afterwards called the Countess de Wintselsheim in
Germany, Being the Person known by the Name of the Lady Roxana in the time of Charles II,
ed. Jane Jack (Oxford, 1964), p. 179.
5. Francis Kirkman, The English Rogue Continued in the Life of Meriton Latroon and Other
Extravagants Comprehending the Most Eminent Cheats of Most Trades and Professions. The
Second Part (London, 1680), p. 321.
6. Mary Wortley Montagu, The Turkish Embassy Letters, ed. Malcolm Jack (London, 1993),
pp. 69–70.
7. Roxana, p. 174.
8. Ibid., p. 179.
9. Richard Knolles, The Generall Historie of the Turkes (London, 1603), pp. 758 and 759. The
story of Roxolana was a popular one in the seventeenth century, told also in Painter’s
Palace of Pleasure (no. 10) and Fulke Greville’s neo-Senecan drama Mustapha (1609,
1633).
10. Madeleine de Scudéry, Ibrahim, or the Illustrious Brassa, an excellent new romance . . .
Englished by H. Logan (London, 1652), p. 177.
11. Ibid.
12. Delarivier Manley, New Atalantis, ed. Ros Ballaster (London, 1991), p. 41.
13. William Davenant, The Siege of Rhodes (London, 1670), The Second part, Act 2, p. 63.
14. Roxane, the daughter of the Bactrian chief Oxyartes, was captured and married by
Alexander in 327 BC during his conquest of Asia. After Alexander’s death (323), she had
his second wife, Stateria, killed, and gave birth at Babylon to a son (Alexander IV) who
was accepted by the Macedonian generals as joint king with Alexander’s half-brother,
Philip III Arrhidaeus. Roxane was captured in 316 in Macedonia by Cassander, who
later took the title of king of Macedonia; he imprisoned her at Amphipolis and then
executed her and her son.
15. Nathaniel Lee, The Rival Queens, or the Death of Alexander the Great (London, 1677), Act
4, p. 44.
16. Gauthier de Costes de la Calprenède, Cassandra: the fam’d Romance, trans. Charles
Cotterell (London, 1676), Part 1, book 2, p. 24; part 1, book 4, p. 61 and part 1, book
5, p. 91.
17. Jean Racine, Bajazet: tragédie (Paris, 1672). Racine’s play was first translated into English
in 1717 by Charles Jordan as The Sultaness: a tragedy, translated with alterations, from the
Bajazet of Racine (London, 1717).
18. Charles Montesquieu, Persian Letters, trans. Mr. Ozell (London, 1722), Vol. 2, Letter 149,
p. 305.
19. Ibid., pp. 307–9.
20. Katie Trumpener, ‘Rewriting Roxane: Orientalism and Intertextuality in Montesquieu’s
Lettres Persanes and Defoe’s The Fortunate Mistress’, Stanford French Review 11:2 (Summer
1987), pp. 177–91.
21. Francis Bacon, ‘Of Empire’, The Essayes or Counsels, Civill and Morall, ed. Michael Kiernan
(Oxford, 1985), p. 61.
22. Turkish Tales, Consisting of sevearal Extraordinary Adventures: With the History of the
Sultaness of Persia, and the Visiers (London, 1708). See Preface, p. 2.
23. Mary Robinson, Walsingham (London, 1797), Volume 1, p. 187.
24. Hannah More, Coelebs in Search of a Wife, 2 vols, second edition (London, 1809), I,
p. 383.
25. Mary Hays, Memoirs of Emma Courtney, ed. Marilyn L. Brooks (Peterborough, Ontario,
2000), p. 48.
26. Charlotte Smith, The Old Manor House (London, 1987), p. 19.
Plates
23. ‘The Famous Roxana’, frontispiece from Daniel Defoe, Roxana: or, The Fortunate Mistress,
1742 edition.
24. ‘Roxolana’, from Richard Knolles, General Historie of the Turkes, 1603.
25. Portrait of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu in Turkish dress, attributed to Jean Baptiste
Vanmour.
12
Luxury, Satire and Prostitute Narratives
Vivien Jones
In The Authentick Memoirs of the Life Intrigues and Adventures of the Celebrated Sally
Salisbury by one ‘Captain Charles Walker’, published in 1723, we find what must
be one of the most startlingly graphic representations of sensual, economic and
political excess in eighteenth-century writing. Having been rejected by the cour-
tesan Sally Salisbury for two-timing her, the ‘Gentleman well known by the Name
of Gambolini’, a holder of high office in Queen Anne’s government and ‘ “A most
profligate Debauchee” ’, is invited to join a group of courtiers ‘at a Tavern near
the Royal Palace of St. James’s’. Inside, he discovers Sally ‘standing upright upon
a Bed, but revers’d, her Head being in the Place where her Heels should be, she
was honoured with having two PEERS for her Supporters, each holding and extend-
ing a well-shap’d Leg; thus every Admirer pleas’d with the Sight, pull’d out his
Gold, and with the greatest Alacrity pursued the agreeable Diversion’.1 The ‘gold’
pulled out and tossed by Sally’s admirers is to be understood, at least partly, lit-
erally: as the bawdy rhyme which follows explains, the courtiers throw golden
guineas between Sally’s legs, and every coin lodged there ‘was all her own’.2 Sup-
ported by peers of the realm, this iconic woman turns the world upside down to
become the sole beneficiary of the courtiers’ readiness to throw away their wealth.
Anticipating by some 260 years the performance art of postmodern sexual
satirists like Annie Sprinkle, Sally’s posture tellingly enacts the precarious mutual
dependency engendered in the commerce between prostitute and client. In spite
of, or indeed because of, its deceptive passivity, her body both exemplifies and
speaks back to the use of the figure of the prostitute as sign of luxury and excess.
This identification is pervasive in post-Mandevillian eighteenth-century culture,
where the traditional morality figure of Lady Luxury takes on renewed energy as
the whore of commerce, both the object and the scourge of new consumerist
desires.3 Whether urban streetwalker or expensive courtesan, Moll Flanders or
Roxana, the prostitute seduces consumers away from productive labour into
un(re)productive spending, mocking authentic exchange through the renewable,
but indivisible, capital resource of her body. For conservative moralists, she rep-
resents the most conspicuous case of feminising, debilitating consumption; but
178
Luxury, Satire and Prostitute Narratives 179
as the motivating force of commercial expansion and thus of national ascendancy,

her resourceful opportunism is not easily dismissed. (See Plate 26.)
In the Sally Salisbury anecdote, these satirical meanings are put to specific
political use. Sally Salisbury – or Sarah Prydden (her real name) – certainly existed.
The immediate occasion for Walker’s text was Prydden’s trial and imprisonment
for stabbing the son of the Earl of Nottingham, and the Authentick Memoirs was
just one of a flurry of life-narratives, broadsheets, and ballads recording her trial
and recounting her career as a well-known courtesan for a popular audience.4 But
there is a further opportunistic aspect to the text. The second edition of the
Authentick Memoirs provides a ‘key to the whole’, which identifies the figure of
‘Gambolini’, the ‘profligate Debauchee’ and former minister of Queen Anne, as
‘Lord B-k-e’. Henry St John, Viscount Bolingbroke, leader of the Tory government
during Anne’s reign, was suspected of Jacobite sympathies and exiled at the acces-
sion of George I for his alleged role in secret pro-French negotiations at the time
of the Treaty of Utrecht. In 1723, Bolingbroke had just returned to England, having
secured a royal pardon by bribing the King’s mistress, the Duchess of Kendal.5
From at least the late seventeenth century, it is impossible to separate any example
of prostitution literature from political satire, or to assume that even the most
dedicated or apparently inconsequential account of bawds and whores lies outside
religious and party faction. The provision of the ‘key’ makes absolutely explicit
the generic relation of the Authentick Memoirs to the sexual intrigues and secret
histories most famously exemplified by Delarivier Manley’s New Atalantis.
One way of reading ‘Gambolini’s’ encounter with Sally Salisbury, with its
crudely pornographic re-enactment of Zeus’s encounter with Danaë in classical
myth, would be as a pro-Walpole representation of Tory corruption: as an image
of Bolingbroke’s bribe to the Duchess or, more generally, his ‘profligate’ involve-
ment with the whore of Rome, allegedly so beloved by Jacobite sympathisers. Yet
‘debauchee’ though he is, the Bolingbroke figure watches but does not participate
in the performance with Sally, and the text might equally well support an anti-
Walpole interpretation which makes Sally the whore not of Rome, but of com-
merce. In this reading, Bolingbroke arrives back in Britain in the aftermath of the
South Sea Bubble to witness – or collude with – the excesses of Whig corruption.
The Duchess of Kendal was the recipient, after all, not only of Bolingbroke’s
money, but of £36,000 of unpaid-for South Sea stock.6 The ambiguity is perhaps
the point, with Sally Salisbury as the clear beneficiary of a general culture of per-
sonal excess and political corruption.
Throughout the Authentick Memoirs, as these readings suggest, the historical
figure of Prydden/Salisbury is inseparable from the conventionalised prostitutes
of satirical and scatological discourse. The ‘golden shower’ scene, representing the
slippages of desire which connect sex with money, commerce with prostitution,
has its source in classical writings in which the myth of Zeus’s appearance to the
nymph Danaë in the form of a shower of gold was put to satirical use.7 But the
most interesting effect of the text’s conventionality is its celebration of the tan-
talising, mythic power of Sally Salisbury herself. Walker employs the familiar trope
of an edited collection of letters, solicited, it is claimed, from contributors who
180 Vivien Jones
knew Sally at the height of her success as a courtesan and who therefore guaran-
tee the authenticity of the ‘intrigues and adventures’ they report. Predictably
enough, these ‘authentic’ anecdotes are made up of more or less formulaic
encounters between the prostitute and her clients in which, through her illicit
knowledge, social liminality or sheer inventiveness, the prostitute maintains a
position of (satirical) dominance. In several of these, their satirical point depends
on a vengeful reversal of sexual double standards. On one occasion, for example,
Sally is accused of ingratitude when she refuses to reimburse a client who saved
her from arrest by lending her money, even though he is now similarly threat-
ened with imprisonment for debt. In her defence, she claims that ‘if she once gave
Ear to the Cries of her undone Fellows, as she call’d them, there would be no end;
for, says she, There is Scarce a Jayl in Town, but what I have made a Present of a
Member or two, nor a quarter of the World, but where I have sent some Stripp’d Lover
a Grazing’.8 Sally’s retorts have the gloss of a particularised wit: she neatly trans-
fers ‘undone’ from herself to her male clients (‘her undone Fellows, as she call’d
them’); and she denies personal responsibility by universalising men’s lustful sus-
ceptibilities (her ‘Stripp’d Lover[s]’ are all over the globe).
The historical Sally Salisbury here becomes inseparable from the traditional
figure of the prostitute as irrepressible trickster, familiar from such texts as The
Whore’s Rhetorick (trans. 1683), or Tom Brown’s Letters from the Dead to the Living
(1702), or The London-Bawd (various editions, 1705–58), and clearly influential on
Defoe’s shape-changing protagonist in Moll Flanders, published just the year before
the Authentick Memoirs. The identification is clear from the ‘Epistle Dedicatory’,
addressed to Sally herself, where she is celebrated as standing ‘without a Rival in
Great Britain amongst the Professors of Love’s Mysteries’ and as therefore ‘ordained
for the Comfort and Refreshment of Multitudes’.9 It is Sally Salisbury who comes
out on top here. Again as in Moll Flanders, obvious satiric points against her
promiscuity, or against a world united in its readiness to pour money away on
her charms and tricks, are delivered as an affirmatory fantasy, a celebration of the
whore’s capacity for adaptability and endless renewal.
A similarly knowing ambivalence structures Bernard Mandeville’s analysis of
the relationship between private vices and public benefits, pleasure and profit, in
The Fable of the Bees: ‘Luxury / Employ’d a Million of the Poor’. More specifically,
Mandeville argues, ‘the worst of Women and most profligate of the Sex did con-
tribute to the Consumption of Superfluities, as well as the Necessaries of Life, and
consequently were Beneficial to many peaceable Drudges, that work hard to main-
tain their Families’.10 And in his pamphlet A Modest Defence of Public Stews, written
in the persona of a cynical libertine, Sir Harry Mordaunt, Mandeville develops
more fully this inscrutably ironic defence of prostitutes and brothels on the
grounds of their social and commercial utility.11 Mandeville’s difficult questions
about the beneficial status of commerce and luxury become, by extension, ques-
tions about the status of prostitution itself.
The ambiguous effects of these paradoxes are evident even in such a sche-
matically anti-Mandevillian satire as the Tryal of the Lady Allurea Luxury. Published
anonymously in 1757, this is a typical product of the conservative anxiety about
a national fighting force debilitated and feminised by the excessive consumption

of, usually dangerously foreign, luxury goods, which was prompted by the Seven
Years War. In the Tryal, Lady Allurea’s alleged crime is ‘a Conspiracy against the
Lives, the Liberties, the Properties, the Virtue, Honour, Peace and Security of all
his M[ajesty]’s Subjects’ and she is accused, for example, of ‘persuading the Sailors
to stay at Home, and live at their Ease, and not lie in hard Hammocks, or eat salt
Provisions’, and of using ‘every Stratagem to corrupt, and render effeminate and
cowardly, the B[ritish] Soldiery’. Her defenders, in response, offer evidence of her
civilising influence: ‘She has refined our Taste, enlarged our Commerce, and per-
fected our Politics and Religion’; without her, they claim, ‘Life would be a Burthen
– a Scene of Sorrow and Anxiety!’. After a summing-up by the Attorney General
which offers a vision of a luxury-free future in which ‘Vice will not presume to
associate with Opulence – nor Prostitution with Dignity’, the prisoner is inevitably
found guilty.12 The figure of Lady Allurea in this text remains comparatively
shadowy and largely silent, more passively symbolic and more the fine lady than
the resourceful whore, but even here, the attractions of pleasure (not lying in ‘hard
Hammocks’ or eating ‘salt Provisions’, for example) inform against the text’s jin-
goistic moralism, and satiric meaning demands that the representative of luxury
and pleasure survive: ‘The Prisoner, on her Return from her Tryal, was rescued by
a Mob of Nobility and Gentry, who now entertain and caress her, in Defiance of
all Law and Justice.’13
Both the Authentick Memoirs of . . . Sally Salisbury and the Tryal of the Lady Allurea
Luxury draw heavily on established generic and conceptual structures, putting the
satiric resources of whore narratives and the cultural meanings of the prostitute
figure to specific use. In spite of obvious differences – the playing with ‘secret his-
tories’ in the Memoirs, the allegorical trial of luxury by an institution of state –
those shared structures remain evident in both texts, in which ambivalent desires
ensure the survival of the prostitute. What I want to explore now is the generic
survival through the eighteenth century of the satirical prostitute narrative, the
resources of which were so readily appropriated for use within the luxury debates,
and to focus particularly on ways in which the traditional figure of the trickster-
whore informs the popular genre of the ‘authentic’, so-called, prostitute memoir.
II
In studying eighteenth-century representations of the prostitute, I find myself

constantly struggling with the question of how to read, and how to represent, the
huge number of highly formulaic prostitution narratives produced by the newly
deregulated print culture. As I have argued elsewhere, the feminist imperative in
analysing this literature must be to resist and supplement, as well as simply to
document, processes of marginalisation and silencing; to be wary of repeating nar-
ratives of repression; and to effect some kind of mediation between prostitute as
sign – of luxury, for example – and prostitutes as working women in conditions
often very far from luxurious.14 In his recent study, Sex and the Gender Revolution,
Randolph Trumbach provides exhaustive and invaluable documentation of sexual
182 Vivien Jones
practices and preferences in eighteenth-century London, including a long chapter

on the working conditions of (mainly working-class) prostitutes. Using court
records, occasionally diaries and letters, but almost no ‘literary’ texts, Trumbach
reaches the provocative conclusion that: ‘Women . . . did not in the eighteenth
century have heterosexual identities’.15 My generic approach to prostitute
memoirs is in part a response to this claim, an attempt to make the literary
historian’s case for the relevance of cultural narratives and the mediated nature
of all texts (including court records). My aim is to sketch a descriptive taxonomy
of this comparatively popular sub-genre, and to begin to speculate on what, if
any, model of subjectivity and (hetero)sexuality it might yield.
The Authentick Memoirs of . . . Sally Salisbury is a usefully paradigmatic text with
which to start since it immediately poses the central question of authenticity. The
Memoirs are in the third person. They make no attempt to provide any internalised
representation of Sally herself. But their blurring mediation of historical figures
and events through formulaic devices is characteristic of all prostitute narratives
– including those which purport to be, and in some cases undoubtedly are,
authored by the women themselves. The representation of the whore as shape-
changer, as by definition ‘inauthentic’, attaches itself to even the most senti-
mental of prostitute narratives. In John Gay’s ballad opera Polly of 1729, for
example, one of the characters voices just such an assumption: ‘There’s not one
of these common creatures, but, like common beggars, hath a moving story at
her finger’s ends, which they tell over, when they are maudlin, to their lovers.’16
These ‘moving stories’ of seduction and betrayal which follow the pattern of con-
version narratives and spiritual autobiography, are a staple topos in the literature
of sensibility and reform later in the century. They constitute a significant sub-
genre of prostitute literature and pose different, but related, questions about their
strategic and contingent status. According to some accounts, their representation
of the prostitute as deserving and redeemable victim takes over around the mid-
century from the satirical and theatrical tradition represented by the Sally
Salisbury texts – and, of course, by Gay’s ballad opera.17
But the satirical trickster tradition persists, and its transmutations can be traced
in a series of texts spanning the period from the 1720s to at least the 1780s, texts
which cast this binary developmental narrative into doubt and in which ‘moving
stories’ of victimised seduction are often simply one item in a picaresque reper-
toire of narratives or scenes which are loosely held together by the protagonist
whose ‘memoirs’ they claim to constitute. And these generic characteristics, I
suggest, might be seen to construct a female sexual identity defined not in terms
of the closed, mutually exclusive categories of domesticity or prostitution, but
through strategic responses to change and contingency.
In emphasising generic continuities rather than authenticity, my analysis
builds on but qualifies Felicity Nussbaum’s discussion of the ‘scandalous memoirs’
in The Autobiographical Subject. Focusing on the memoirs by Teresia Constantia
Phillips, Laetitia Pilkington and Anne, Lady Vane, all of which were published
between 1748 and 1754, Nussbaum documents the discourses of class and gender
which shape their contradictory functions: on the one hand ‘to maintain the
gender division, confining women to categories of good or bad’; but, on the other,
also to ‘contradict authorized versions of “woman” ’.18 Implicitly central to her
celebration of these texts as ‘devis[ing] new tropes for women’s lives’, however, is
the importance of their status as female-authored, as authentic narratives by a
verifiable figure, and therefore as demonstrably transgressive.19 I am less convinced
that these are really ‘new tropes’ and more interested in seeing what happens
when we return these texts to what I am defining as their generic tradition.
In the brief but representative survey which follows, then, I have deliberately,
but I hope not too violently, yoked together texts which on the face of it might
appear heterogeneous – third with first-person narratives; texts which have been
categorised as ‘scandalous memoirs’ with more overtly fictional accounts – pre-
cisely because they share significant narrative features. As well as the memoirs dis-
cussed by Nussbaum, a (by no means exhaustive) list would include, for example,
the (presumably) male-authored Authentick Memoirs . . . of Sally Salisbury, and
Memoirs of the Celebrated Miss Fanny M[urray] (1759), both of which are third-
person narratives; the first-person Genuine Memoirs of the Celebrated Miss Maria
Brown (1766), sometimes attributed to John Cleland; first-person, apparently
female-authored, texts such as Clio, or, a Secret History of the Life and Amours of the
Late Celebrated Mrs. S[a]n[so]m (1752), The Memoirs of Mrs. Catherine Jemmat (1765),
and The Authentic and Interesting Memoirs of Miss Ann Sheldon (1787–8); third-
person, apparently female-authored, texts such as The Genuine Memoirs of Miss
Faulkner (1770); and certainly Eliza Haywood’s Anti-Pamela, published in 1741, in
which the heroine’s name is Syrena Tricksy.20
III
Prostitute memoirs follow a very similar basic pattern in which an initial, forma-
tive seduction releases the protagonist into a series of picaresque ‘adventures’.
These arbitrary, heterogeneous scenes achieve satiric status through their con-
nection with the prostitute’s role as the trickster who exposes and castigates
excess. They are characteristics already familiar from the Authentick Memoirs of
. . . Sally Salisbury, and they take their initial justification from the reading public’s
assumed interest in the notoriety, real or imagined, of their protagonists. From
time to time, these texts comment on their own generic identity – most often in
more or less anxious attempts to distinguish their appeal from that of novels,
claiming interest for ‘real adventures’ over those of ‘nobody’.21 Thus Catherine
Jemmat asks in 1765,
But why may not the true story of Catherine Yeo, who absolutely does exist,
divert as much, allowing for the different abilities of the authors, as those of
Miss Pamela, Andrews, [sic] or Miss Clarissa Harlowe, who never had any local
habitation except in the happy fancy of their admirable author, whose char-
acters of virtue and constancy are the narrative children of his truly benevo-
lent soul?22
184 Vivien Jones
Her claim is echoed the following year at the beginning of The Genuine Memoirs
of the Celebrated Miss Maria Brown:
As the reader is not to consider this performance in the light of a novel or a

romance, but the real adventures of a person who has made some noise in the
gay world; so he must not be surprised if he meets with nothing in these sheets
bordering upon the marvellous or surprising. The incidents of my life are not
much out of the common road of female seduction, forwarded by the errors
of a mistaken genteel education . . .23
The apologias are conventional enough – though Brown’s disingenuous willing-

ness to be boring or predictable is more knowing than Jemmat’s concern to ‘divert’
her reader. But the juxtaposition suggests a more complicated and extended rela-
tionship between satire, scandal, and the novel than the one which Catherine
Gallagher posits in Nobody’s Story, and invites attention to these texts’ shared con-
ception of heroinism. In spite of Maria Brown’s moralising nod in the direction
of the ‘common road of female seduction’, and in spite of Jemmat’s genuflection
to Richardson’s ‘truly benevolent soul’, both protagonists are recognisably the off-
spring of Sally Salisbury.
Jemmat’s account of her career includes a good deal of abuse from her unpre-
dictable father (a former Admiral) and a drunken husband, but its interest also
depends on tantalisingly unexplained references to possible assignations with
other ‘lovers’, in which she presents herself as mysteriously escaping censure, as
well as on anecdotes which demonstrate her wit and spirit. In one near-slapstick
scene, for example, she successfully fools an ageing admirer who, she hints, threat-
ened her with violence. Her Memoirs stop abruptly at the death of her husband
and before she moves to London. They refuse to gratify the curiosity of an audi-
ence presumably familiar with a later notoriety; instead, they draw on character-
istics of the satirical prostitute-heroine to maintain interest in the little we are
given.24
Towards the end of the Memoirs of . . . Maria Brown, as she is about to return to
London from Paris, the protagonist again comments on the genre of prostitute
narratives, this time in order to claim an exclusivity and originality which, she
suggests, is above the kinds of gulling scenarios occasionally imitated even by
Jemmat:
It may be thought that there can be nothing very entertaining or amusing,

much less novel, in the adventures of a girl of the town in London, as the
histories of so many have already been published, and as they are little more
than copies one from the other; the old round of Bob Derry’s, Weatherby’s, the
Shakespeare’s-head . . . are now to be sure, think some, to come into play. . . .
We are to be informed how a citizen got drunk and was beat at one, was fleeced
at another, and p[ox]’d at another; how Lucy C. drank burnt champaign, and
danced till five in the morning, if she don’t fall asleep before she gets home.
All this dull beaten track I shall most cautiously avoid, as I am convinced that
such trite narrations must be unentertaining, if not nauseating: I shall take the
reader into politer scenes of action, where his curiosity, added to five guineas,
could not gain him admittance.25
The ‘politer scenes of action’ described in Maria Brown include the Paris opera and
the kinds of high-class brothels in which Fanny Hill works in Cleland’s Memoirs
of a Woman of Pleasure, rather than the ‘dull beaten track’ of the notorious
Shakespeare’s-head Tavern in the Covent Garden area, haunt of streetwalkers and,
of course, James Boswell.26 Nevertheless, the pattern of clients getting drunk and
being ‘beat at one [venue] . . . fleeced at another, and p[ox]’d at another’ is not
so dissimilar from that in the repetitive lower-class whore narratives she derides
in this passage – it is simply that the proceeds are more impressive, and the pos-
sibility of a lasting settlement from a particularly rich and besotted client, less
completely remote. The resourceful, resilient, and ruthless figure of the whore, the
scourge of male susceptibilities, is common to both.
The prostitute in these mid-century memoirs often appears to play a more gen-
eralised satiric role than in the texts engendered by the factionalism of the early
century. There is always a certain amount of actual name-dropping or hinting at
known public figures, but the verbal texture of the narratives tends to target the
excesses of sensual indulgence, of luxury and sexual incontinence, rather than of
political rivalries or national policies. Thus in the Memoirs of the Celebrated Miss
Fanny M[urray] (1759), for example, Fanny, newly established in a ‘waiting-job’
close to the Haymarket, has great hopes of success in this ‘emporium of com-
merce’, and plays on her ‘credit’ with a ‘merchant’s son’, turning the ‘trinkets and
baubles, which he was charmed to see her accept of . . . into ready money’.27 And
Maria Brown boasts of the employment she creates for milliners and hairdressers
when she leads the fashion in Paris.28 One of several interpolated narratives
(another feature of the genre), in Memoirs of . . . Fanny M[urray] allegorises this shift
of satiric mode. One of the features of this text is a documentary attention to the
commercial practices of the London sex trade. Fanny at one point works for Harris,
of Harris’s List of Covent Garden Ladies fame, and Harris gets to tell his story, in
which he establishes a connection with the Tory satirical journalism of the 1710s
and 1720s. His father, who was one of the ‘anti-ministerial writers of those days’
and ‘a long while a potent antagonist of Sir R[obert] W[alpole]’, disgusted by his
party’s refusal to help him when he is imprisoned for sedition, develops an ‘utter
detestation’ of both parties and advises his son to abandon integrity and learn-
ing and pursue corrupt self-interest. The result is Harris’s success in the ‘insinuat-
ing, dissembling, flattering’ and ‘elegant art’ of pimping. And Harris is represented
as congratulating himself in terms which explicitly recall Mandeville’s commer-
cial approval of the utility of prostitution in The Fable of the Bees and A Modest
Defence of Public Stews: ‘I look upon myself to be as useful a member of society
. . . as any factor or contractor whatever.’29 The ironies in this are legion, but here
I want simply to point out the way in which this story about the triumph of
commerce and corruption over party interest can also be read as a self-conscious
acknowledgement of the continuities within the whore narrative: Harris Senior’s
186 Vivien Jones
satiric mantle is taken over by the writers, sometimes also by the protagonists, of
these memoirs.
In terms of narrative form, this continuity is in some ways most evident in the
latest of the texts I am discussing here: the four-volume Authentic and Interesting
Memoirs of Miss Ann Sheldon, published in 1787–8. Sheldon’s text records a bewil-
dering number of liaisons with peers and / or statesmen, most of whom are explic-
itly named. Throughout, however, the heroine maintains a sentimental attachment
to ‘Mr Walsingham’, who acts as the voice of restraint to her indulgence in luxuri-
ous excess. This gives the text some narrative shape, but the overwhelming experi-
ence in reading this memoir is of its relentlessly episodic quality, its adherence to
the heterogeneous satirical mode I have been describing. A typical incident involves
Ann’s concern to keep the use of a carriage lent to her by her lover Sir Peter Lester
when he goes into the country: ‘This little alarm was very soon communicated
to my Privy Counsellors in ordinary . . . who kindly consoled me, by treating it
with utmost contempt’. Inevitably, with a brash ease worthy of Sally Salisbury, Ann
and her ‘counsellors’ (her mantua-maker and a fellow prostitute) trick her lover
into giving them what they want.30 The underplayed reference to Ann’s ‘Privy
Counsellors’ is a reminder of the satiric political potential which still lurks in such
apparently inconsequential, ‘private’ encounters between prostitute and client.
Ann herself refers to ‘the miscellany of my life’ and, slightly later, ‘the pan-
tomime of my life’.31 The ‘miscellany’ includes endlessly repeated incidents of the
kind just described, as well as episodes in which she is less successful (narrowly
escaping imprisonment for debt, for example), together with examples of her
sentimental benevolence, usually involving younger, more vulnerable, and more
redeemable prostitutes. ‘Pantomime’ suggests the theatrical imperative constantly
to move on to ‘other scenes’, and connects her story with the forms of popular
culture. Together, they encapsulate the characterising heterogeneity of what I have
been claiming is a continuous sub-genre. ‘Miscellany’ and ‘pantomime’ might as
readily be used to describe the narratives which accumulate around the overtly
satirical figure of Sally Salisbury, and ‘pantomime’ is an accurate term for the
iconic dumbshow played out in the scene with which I began. It also, of course,
recalls such popular texts as Theophilus Cibber’s ‘grotesque pantomime enter-
tainment’ based on Hogarth’s A Harlot’s Progress.32 Throughout the century, the
narration of female notoriety immediately invokes this popular tradition of
heterogeneity, of adaptation and survival, even of comparative inconsequentiality,
whether first or third-person, authentic or otherwise.
IV
At one point in the Genuine Memoirs of . . . Maria Brown, the protagonist reflects
on ‘the modest part of the sex’: ‘I was convinced . . . that every modest woman
strove who should most resemble a prostitute. We are upon every occasion the
objects of their attention and study. . . . they are only amiable in proportion as
they know how to copy us, to tincture their chastity with coquetry’.33 The mem-
oirist here clearly reveals her identity as Lady Luxury, voicing a version of the
satirical commonplace represented in The Tryal of the Lady Allurea Luxury, where
prosecution witnesses are called to describe what happened when Lady Allurea
struck up ‘An Acquaintance, or rather Intimacy’ with their wives: ‘from that Time,
I may date the Overthrow of my whole domestic Satisfaction’.34 The orthodox
moral response invited by such claims is shock that ‘modest’ women should
imitate the prostitute’s coquettish tactics, performing rather than enacting
chastity or allowing a taste for luxury to distort their domestic identity: ‘My Wife
. . . lolled on a Couch most of the Time that she was not in Bed, at Cards, or at
her Toilet’.35 Such a response assumes an absolute difference between the prosti-
tute and the modest woman, a distinction which Bernard Mandeville knowingly
points up in A Modest Defence of Public Stews, ‘Young Girls are taught to hate a
Whore, before they know what the Word means’.36 But Maria’s reflections here,
as well as her later boasting about the trade she brings to Parisian milliners and
hairdressers, make the more difficult Mandevillian point: about the respectable
woman’s dependency on the whore and the dependency of a successful economy
on the excessive desires which the prostitute is used to represent. As Mandeville
puts it in The Fable of the Bees: ‘Chastity may be supported by Incontinence, and
the best of Virtues want the Assistance of the worst of Vices.’37
At the beginning of this essay, I forged an anachronistic connection between
Sally Salisbury and the satirical performance art of Annie Sprinkle.38 Such a com-
parison can be only a hopeful, strategic suggestion rather than a firm analogy.
Sally Salisbury’s performance of excess may or may not have any basis in actual-
ity, and may or may not, therefore, bear the attribution of a self-conscious criti-
cal identity. It would be inappropriate to expect to find individualised resistant
voices within the formulaic and overdetermined texts which I have been dis-
cussing. But at the level of form at least, the analogy retains some suggestive
validity. During the eighteenth century, the satirical and pornographic figure of
the trickster-whore is given new impetus: her irrepressible, uncomfortable power
readily lends itself to the paradoxes of desire and commercial expansion atomised
by Mandeville. Whether real or fictional, the prostitute memoirist is both admired
and vilified. Like commerce itself, her resourceful adaptability refuses the con-
tainment of a simple moral narrative. It is probable that such texts were more
widely read by women than we might assume: we know, for example, that one
of them was available in a circulating library.39 In these memoirs, women’s sexual
lives are shaped by the pressures of contingency and the will to survive. Unlike
redemption narratives about penitent Magdalens, this satirical form releases the
female subject – as reader, at least – into the right to describe an episodic, shape-
less life: into the possibility of variety, rather than choice between predetermined
categories of female identity.
Notes
1. Captain Charles Walker, The Authentick Memoirs of the Life Intrigues and Adventures of the
Celebrated Sally Salisbury. With True Characters of her most Considerable Gallants, 2nd edn
(London, 1723), pp. 63, 67, 67–8.
188 Vivien Jones
2. Ibid., p. 68.
3. The classic study of the rise of consumerism is Neil McKendrick, John Brewer and
J.H. Plumb, The Birth of a Consumer Society: The Commercialization of Eighteenth-Century
England (London, 1982). See also Ann Bermingham and John Brewer, eds, The Con-
sumption of Culture 1600–1800: Image, Object, Text (London and New York, 1995).
4. See, for example, The Effigies, Parentage, Education, Life, Merry-pranks and Conversation of
the Celebrated Mrs. Sally Salisbury ([London], 1722/3); An Account of the Tryal of Sally
Salisbury, At the Sessions-House in the Old Bailey . . . ([London?], 1723); The Genuine History
of Mrs. Sarah Prydden, Usually Called Sally Salisbury, and her Gallants (London, 1723); Sally
Salisbury’s Letter to Frank Rig (Dublin, 1723); A Compleat History of the Life, Intrigues and
Death of that Celebrated Lady of Pleasure, Sally Salisbury. Setting forth her Birth, Parentage
and Education; also how she came to be debauch’d (London, 1734).
5. See Julian Hoppit, A Land of Liberty? England, 1689–1727 (Oxford, 2000), pp. 391–2,
411–12; Murray G.H. Pittock, Jacobitism (Basingstoke, 1998). The key to the second
edition of the Authentick Memoirs refers to Bolingbroke as the ‘late Lord B-k-e’ (fol. A1v).
Bolingbroke lived until 1751, but the ‘late’ here refers not to his actual but to his
political death and exile. My thanks to John Chartres for pointing me in the right
direction on the satirical meanings of this text.
6. Pittock, Jacobitism, p. 52.
7. See James N. Davidson, Courtesans and Fishcakes: The Consuming Passions of Classical
Athens (London, 1997), pp. 119–20. My thanks to Helen Berry for the reference to
Davidson’s book.
8. Authentick Memoirs, p. 90.
9. ‘Epistle Dedicatory’, Authentick Memoirs, fols. B[1]v, [A3]r.
10. [Bernard Mandeville], ‘The Grumbling Hive’ and ‘Remark (T.)’, The Fable of the Bees: or,
Private Vices, Publick Benefits, ed. F.B. Kaye, 2 vols (Oxford, 1924), I, pp. 25, 225.
11. See A Modest Defence of Public Stews: or, an Essay upon Whoring. As it is now practis’d in
these kingdoms. Written by a layman. (London, 1724; rpt. 1740). The 1740 reprint attrib-
utes the text to ‘the late Colonel Harry Mordaunt’.
12. The Tryal of the Lady Allurea Luxury, before the Lord Chief-Justice Upright, on an Informa-
tion for a Conspiracy (London, 1757), pp. 6, 18, 22, 36, 49, 89. On anxieties about the
effects of consumption on masculinity see: Philip Carter, Men and the Emergence of Polite
Society, Britain 1660–1800 (Harlow, London, New York, 2001), pp. 128–32.
13. Lady Allurea Luxury, p. 92.
14. See my ‘Eighteenth-century Prostitution: Feminist Debates and the Writing of Histories’,
in Avril Horner and Angela Keane, eds, Body Matters: Feminism, Textuality, Corporeality
(Manchester, 2000), pp. 127–42.
15. Randolph Trumbach, Sex and the Gender Revolution, Vol. I, Heterosexuality and the Third
Gender in Enlightenment London (Chicago and London, 1998), p. 49.
16. John Gay, Polly (1729) Act I, scene xiv, Dramatic Works, ed. John Fuller, 2 vols (Oxford,
1983), II, p. 97.
17. See particularly W.A. Speck, ‘The Harlot’s Progress in Eighteenth-Century England’,
BJECS, 3 (1980), pp. 127–39.
18. Felicity Nussbaum, The Autobiographical Subject: Gender and Ideology in Eighteenth-Century
England (Baltimore and London, 1989), p. 181.
19. Ibid., p. 189.
20. My inclusion of Haywood’s Anti-Pamela makes explicit the interaction between such
texts and the novel: most obviously Daniel Defoe’s Moll Flanders (1722) and Roxana
(1724), and John Cleland’s Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure (1748–9). This important
generic relationship is too complex to examine here, but for related discussions, see:
William Warner, Licensing Entertainment: The Elevation of Novel Reading in Britain, 1684–
1750 (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, 1998); Bradford K. Mudge, The Whore’s Story:
Women, Pornography, and the British Novel, 1684–1830 (Oxford, 2000).
21. The Genuine Memoirs of . . . Maria Brown claims to describe ‘real adventures’, as compared
with Catherine Gallagher’s characterisation of the novel as the story of ‘nobody’. See:
The Genuine Memoirs of the Celebrated Miss Maria Brown. Establishing the Life of a Courtezan
in the most Fashionable Scenes of Dissipation, 2 vols (London, 1766), I, p. 1; Catherine
Gallagher, Nobody’s Story: The Vanishing Acts of Women Writers in the Marketplace 1670–
1820 (Oxford, 1994).
22. The Memoirs of Mrs. Catherine Jemmat, Daughter of The late Admiral Yeo, of Plymouth,
written by Herself, 2 vols (London, 1765), I, p. 115.
23. Maria Brown, I, pp. 1–2.
24. Jemmat’s Memoirs, like her Miscellanies in Prose and Verse (London, 1766), boasts a huge
collection of peers’ names in its subscription list, as well as a few blanks indicating
subscribers who preferred to remain anonymous. Miscellanies includes an ‘Essay in
Vindication of the Female Sex’ which is a defence of prostitutes.
25. Maria Brown, II, pp. 115–16.
26. See Tony Henderson, Disorderly Women in Eighteenth-Century London: Prostitution and
Control in the Metropolis, 1730–1830 (London and New York, 1999), p. 33. See also
Memoirs of the Celebrated Miss Fanny M[urray], 2nd edn (London, 1759), p. 103.
27. Fanny M[urray], pp. 67–8.
29. Fanny M[urray], pp. 127–37.
30. Authentic and Interesting Memoirs of Miss Ann Sheldon (Now Mrs. Archer:) a lady who figured,
during several years, in the highest line of public life. Written by Herself, 4 vols (London,
1787–8), I (1787), 209–10.
31. Ann Sheldon, II (1788), 100, 101. On miscellaneity and women’s writing more generally,
see Clare Brant, ‘Varieties of Women’s Writing’ in Vivien Jones, ed., Women and Litera-
ture in Britain 1700–1800 (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 285–305.
32. Theophilus Cibber, The Harlot’s Progress; or, the Ridotto Al’Fresco: A Grotesque Pantomime
Entertainment (London, 1733), ARS, 181 (1977).
34. Lady Allurea Luxury, p. 13.
35. Ibid.
36. A Modest Defence of Public Stews (London, 1740), p. 30; rpt. in Vivien Jones, ed., Women
in the Eighteenth Century: Constructions of Femininity (London and New York, 1990),
p. 65.
37. Remark (H.), Fable of the Bees, I, p. 100.
38. See, for example, Linda Williams, ‘A Provoking Agent: The Pornography and Perfor-
mance Art of Annie Sprinkle’ in Pamela Church Gibson and Roma Gibson, eds, Dirty
Looks: Women, Pornography, Power (London, 1993), pp. 176–91; Shannon Bell, Reading,
Writing and Rewriting the Prostitute Body (Bloomington and Indianapolis, 1994), particu-
larly ch. 6, ‘Prostitute Performances: Sacred Carnival Theorists of the Female Body’,
pp. 137–84.
39. There is a bookplate from Humphry’s Circulating Library, Chichester, in the British
Library’s copy of The Genuine Memoirs of Miss Faulkner; otherwise Mrs. D[one]l[la]n; or
Countess of H[alifa]x, in expectancy. Containing, the amours and intrigues of several persons
of high distinction, and remarkable characters: with some curious political anecdotes, never
before published (London, 1770).
Plate
26. ‘An Evening View on Ludgate Hill’, 1749.
13
Luxury, Industry and Charity:
Bluestocking Culture Displayed
Elizabeth Eger
Introduction
In 1757 a pamphlet was published, entitled The Tryal of Lady Allurea Luxury before
the Lord Chief-Justice Upright, on an Information for a Conspiracy.1 Lady Allurea is
depicted as a voluptuous woman in chains, and a foreigner, accused of all manner
of evils. The Attorney-General charges his prisoner for having ‘maliciously plotted
and conspired the Destruction of this Land, by corrupting the Morals of our
People, and endeavouring, to the utmost of her Power, to eraze out of their Hearts
every Sentiment of Humanity and Religion’.2 She has encouraged the people to
be ‘in Love with Sloth and Idleness – to be base, venal, indolent, and cowardly –
to give themselves up entirely to empty Amusements – false Pleasures, and the
lowest and most unworthy Sensualities’.3 Lady Allurea is accused of having
‘perverted the whole Order of Nature’.4 She has lured society into believing ‘That
a short Life is the most eligible, and Self-Murder the best Privilege of a great Soul;
and that Gaming, fine Cloaths, Equipage, high and poignant Sauces, Infidelity,
soft Beds, Dalliance, midnight Debaucheries, and the letting loose of all our Pas-
sions, are the true Springs from whence we are to draw every earthly Felicity.’5
The Attorney-General concludes that ‘Rome fell by the Devices of the Prisoner –
so did Greece – and so must every Free State where she is suffered to take up her
Residence – She can assume all Shapes – and, by her Blandishments, soften and
effeminate the bravest, roughest, and honestest of Mankind – even the British
Sailors!’6 As Captain Goodmind declares, Lady Allurea Luxury is ‘the Devil in the
Form of the Angel’.7 In the high-blown rhetoric of this satire we can recognise the
ancient and negative association of luxury with woman, a tradition in which
female desire is a threat and her potential to corrupt and disrupt is without limit.
The comfortable furnishings and racey transport devices of a highly advanced
society are depicted as effeminating evils that lead swiftly to moral degeneration.
London fashions are seen to court disaster and precipitate the fall of civilisation.
However, luxury’s disruptive power is not always presented in purely negative
terms. From classical times, diatribes against luxury have frequently been ambiva-
lent in tone. Luxury attracts and repels. It has been figured as both plague and
medicine, friend and foe of social progress. Mr Bergamot’s speech for the defence
190
Bluestocking Culture Displayed 191
of Lady Allurea Luxury begins by asking ‘Whether the Lady ALLUREA LUXURY
is not the Support of all valuable society – or, rather, whether any Society can be
rich and flourishing without her immediate Influence and Assistance?’8 He then
lists her achievements, pointing out that her ‘daily improvements, as well as Dis-
coveries, in all the great Arcana of Nature, are what give Spirits to all manner of
Commerce – . . . she finds Markets for all Sorts of Manufactures – encourages the
Arts, and every Branch of ingenious Science – and maintains the Poor and Indus-
trious of every Nation that she takes under her Protection.’ For Sergeant Bergamot,
Lady Allurea is ‘the Life of Every State’ who makes the ‘Blood’ of money ‘flow into
every Vein of the Body Politic, so as to preserve all the Members in a due State of
Salubrity’.9 If Lady Allurea Luxury is rightfully acknowledged as a necessary
support of the national economy, ‘the Life of Every State’, she must be seen in a
very different light.
The eighteenth century witnessed a general movement to remoralise luxury, to
defend the role of comfort and pleasure as the source and sign of social progress.
Women played a vital role in this movement, as consumers and leaders of fashion
and as the manipulators of a new culture of regulated pleasure and opulence.10
While scholars have focused on aspects of female consumption in the eighteenth
century, few have revealed women’s more active role in the contemporary
economy.11 Women were aware of their capacity to control and redefine their rela-
tion to luxury and morality, and carve a new space in which debates about wealth
and virtue could take place. They participated in the remoralisation of luxury
through their public involvement in the definition of contemporary culture and
the polite arts.
Women were both the subject and object of representation in debates about
the relation between commerce and the arts. Like many moral debates of the eigh-
teenth century, discussions about commerce, liberty and luxury both used women
as a yardstick for the relative health or degeneracy of the nation and required the
idealisation of the female subject as a means of representing the model state.
Representations of women as ‘liberty’, ‘justice’ or ‘virtue’, or conversely ‘vice’
abound in eighteenth-century visual and literary culture.12 Both the real and sym-
bolic figures of women occupied a visible and active role in the development of
a national culture. In contrast to the political realm described by civic human-
ism, the notion of the public sphere described by writers on taste, such as Addison,
Hogarth, Hume and Kames, was constituted by public spaces, locations of polite
assembly, commerce and leisure. Women played a formative role in establishing
the codes of sociability practised within these spaces, none more so than
Elizabeth Montagu.
Elizabeth Montagu’s salon: luxurious lyceum
Born Elizabeth Robinson in 1720, Montagu lived until 1800. As the author of an
important Essay on Shakespeare13 and as the patron of several well-known writers
of the period, she both created and embodied a notion of female taste that con-
tributed to the foundation of contemporary moral virtue and literary criticism.
192 Elizabeth Eger
She also created an opulent yet highly regulated literary salon to rival the most
famous salons of Europe’s capital cities, self-consciously defining her influence as
morally superior to that of her contemporary Parisian hostesses. She represented
the epitome of female intellect and taste in her own lifetime, and was heralded
in an obituary as ‘an ornament to her sex and country’. Her talent for display was
frequently praised in such positive terms and while her enthusiasm for exuberant
interior decoration appears now to border on unreasonable excess, she seems to
have escaped the disdain reserved for the fashionable folly of several of her female
contemporaries. She maintained a reputation for moral virtue, despite her
conspicuous talent for spending money. While the notion of female display had
previously held negative connotations in the context of the luxury debates,
Montagu’s acts of cultural display were calculated to justify her wealth, to promote
what she termed ‘the right use of luxury’. Her salon was famous among the men
and women of her day for its seemingly perfect balance between culture and com-
merce, intellect and pleasure.
For Montagu, these spheres were to a certain extent physically demarcated by
the contrasting nature and functions of her properties. She divided her time
between winters in her London home, the setting for her London assemblies;
spring and autumn at Denton near Newcastle, where she managed her collieries;
and summers at her country estate at Sandleford in Berkshire, where she retreated
from the glare of society and the arduous work of running her mines. She also
travelled to Bath, Tunbridge Wells and the country seats of her noble friends.
Known as ‘Fidget’ in her youth, she had unstinting energy for entertaining,
whether as a matter of intellectual delight or social duty. Even at Sandleford, she
described herself as ‘an ambitious farmer’ and became minutely involved in the
vagaries of the potato trade. As she wrote to her sister on 26 December 1767,
Montagu considered herself ‘a Critick, a Coal Owner, a Land Steward, a sociable
creature’.14 Her behaviour in all these spheres of activity was integral to her defi-
nition of what she termed ‘bluestocking philosophy’.
By the time of Montagu’s death in 1800, the term ‘bluestocking’ had become
synonymous with women writers and intellectuals, having been used in a gender-
specific sense only since the early 1770s. The phrase was originally used to abuse
the Puritans of Cromwell’s ‘Little Parliament’ in 1653. It was revived in 1756 when
Benjamin Stillingfleet appeared at one of Montagu’s assemblies wearing blue
worsted stockings, normally the garb of working men.15 The term came to be
applied more generally to all Montagu’s visitors, who included Dr Johnson, Eliz-
abeth Carter, James Boswell, Edmund Burke, David Garrick, Sir Joshua and Frances
Reynolds, Horace Walpole, Lord Lyttleton, the Earl of Bath and later Frances
Burney, Anna Barbauld and Hannah More. Social historians have long remarked
on the explosion of societies and clubs at the beginning of the century, which has
been interpreted as a sign of cultural optimism and scientific, professional and
moral confidence. Women’s participation in urban club-life was generally
limited.16 However, the bluestockings did not define themselves as a formal club,
but rather promoted a new attitude to manners and intellect, a greater equality
between men and women in the realm of conversation, politics and letters. Their
assemblies should be seen in the context of the emerging ‘cult of sensibility’,

which critics have defined in terms of a gendered transformation of manners in
which feminine attributes, such as softness, sympathy and charity, were adopted
by both men and women.17 While originally aristocratic in formation, the blue-
stockings admitted members into their circle on merit alone; and although
Montagu was not radical in her plans for educational improvement, at her London
assemblies she did encourage a new sense of openness, a resituation of knowledge
which made participation in literary life more accessible to a greater number
of individuals. In 1758, Edward Wilson described Montagu as a ‘highly instruc-
tive accomplished Woman possessed of great affluence, who indulges herself
in a chaste display of fashionable as well as literary Elegance, makes her Drawing
Room the Lyceum of the day, maintains a luxurious hospitality for the Votaries
of that science which she loves, and patronises learning which she has herself
adorned.’18
Montagu’s guests originally met at her Hill Street home, famous for its ‘Chinese
room’. It was against the backdrop of pagodas, nodding mandarins, cushions of
Japan satin and curtains decorated by Chinese painting on gauze that Montagu’s
guests were to concentrate on improving their minds. The aspiring author Natha-
nial Wraxall, who visited the bluestocking assemblies regularly during the 1760s,
complained of the brilliance of Montagu’s diamonds:
I used to think these glittering appendages of opulence, sometimes helped to

dazzle the disputants, whom her arguments might not always convince, or her
literary reputation intimidate. Notwithstanding the defects and weaknesses I
have mentioned, she possessed a masculine understanding, enlightened, culti-
vated, and expanded by the acquaintance of men, as well as of books. . . . She
was constantly surrounded by all that was distinguished for attainments or
talents, male or female, English or foreign; and it would be almost ungrateful
in me not to acknowledge the gratification, derived from the conversation and
intercourse of such society.19
The gaudiness of Montagu’s earrings is seemingly redeemed by her ‘masculine

understanding’. Wraxall is reluctantly impressed by the conjunction of material
and intellectual brilliance that forms the unique quality of Montagu’s salon.
Hannah More’s initial reaction to Montagu is similar in tone. Having arrived in
London from the West country, she wrote in a letter of 1775 to her sister of her
excitement at meeting Sir Joshua Reynolds and Dr Johnson, Mrs Barbauld and
Mrs Carter at Montagu’s salon,
a party that would not have disgraced the table of Laelius, or of Atticus. Mrs
Montagu received me with the most encouraging kindness; she is not only the
finest genius, but the finest lady I ever saw: she lives in the highest style of
magnificence; her apartments and table are in the most splendid taste; but what
baubles are these when speaking of a Montagu! her form (for she has no body)
is delicate even to fragility; her countenance the most animated in the world;
194 Elizabeth Eger
the sprightly vivacity of fifteen, with the judgement and experience of a

Nestor.20
After this initial, rather breathless description, More goes on to praise Montagu’s
assembly, with its ‘diversity of opinions’ and ‘argument and reasoning’. She
enjoyed meeting her fellow female writers, and was attracted to those admitted,
like herself, for talent rather than rank.21 Richard Cumberland, who graced
Montagu’s drawing room on frequent occasions, described her influence thus: ‘She
can make a mathematician quote Pindar, a master in Chancery write novels, or a
Birmingham hardware-man stamp rhimes as fast as buttons’.22 Cumberland pokes
fun at her efficient and mechanical attitude to literary talent, implying that she
lacks the true connoisseurship of the gentleman. He also conveys a certain disdain
(and perhaps even anxiety) regarding the varied social status of those Montagu
attracted to her salon, from young ladies to Birmingham hardware-men. The
fashionable attire of Montagu’s guests was matched by a self-conscious display of
wit and intellect.
Hume, in his essay ‘Of the Refinement of the Arts’, originally entitled ‘Of
Luxury’, argued that the taste for refinement in the arts creates a community of
cultural consumers, of both sexes, who ‘flock into cities, love to receive and com-
municate knowledge; to show their wit or their breeding; their taste in conversa-
tion or living, in clothes or furniture’. He emphasised that ‘Particular clubs and
societies are everywhere formed, . . . where both sexes meet in an easy and socia-
ble manner.’23 Like Hume, Montagu fostered communication between the sexes,
writing that ‘no society is completely agreeable if entirely male or female. The
masculinisms of men, and the feminalistics of the women, if the first prevail they
make conversation too rough, and austere, if the latter, too soft and weak. Dis-
course led entirely by men is generally pedantick or political.’24 She was particu-
lary impressed by the level of conversation between the sexes in Paris, where she
visited the leading salons in 1776, revelling in the controversy caused by her
denunciation of Voltaire in her Essay on Shakespeare: ‘I am much pleased with the
Conversation one finds here, it is equally free from pedantry and ignorance. All
the hours I have pass’d in mix’d company I have spent agreeably. The men of
letters are well bred and easy, and by their vivacity and politeness shew they have
been used to converse with women. The ladies by being well inform’d, and full
of those graces we neglect when with each other, shew they have been used
to converse with Men.’25 As Hume observes in his description of mixed urban
sociability, there is an inevitably self-confirming pleasure that arises from shared
conversation in a suitably tasteful setting, in which people consciously receive
pleasure from the process of self-improvement they are enacting: ‘besides the
improvements which they receive from knowledge and the liberal arts, it is impos-
sible but they must feel an encrease of humanity, and from the very habit of con-
versing together, and contributing to each other’s pleasure and entertainment.
Thus industry, knowledge, and humanity, are linked together in an indissoluable
chain, and are found, from experience as well as reason, to be peculiar to the more
polished, and what are commonly denominated, the more luxurious ages.’26
Industry and charity
Montagu practised Hume’s categories of industry, knowledge and humanity with

equal zeal. She was profoundly self-conscious of the relationship between her
material wealth and her interest in the fine arts, especially as she was closely
involved in managing and increasing her sizeable income. Montagu’s experience
of industry was perhaps more practical than Hume’s intended meaning here. Her
public reputation was made possible by her shrewd head for business. She assumed
sole responsibility for the management of her husband’s coal mines in Newcastle
from 1766, inheriting them on his death in 1775. By the end of her life Montagu
had raised her income to £10,000, becoming one of the wealthiest individuals in
London. Unusually for a woman, especially an untitled woman, she controlled a
personal account at C. Hoare & Co. in a category reserved for the largest property
owners, such as Eton College. Bluestocking activity was funded by ‘Montagu
Main’, the second most expensive coal on the market.
Montagu’s interest in her coal mines was consistently energetic and ambitious.
She matched her attention to technological innovation with a concern for the
welfare of her workers, holding regular feasts for her ‘black workers’. She reformed
the living conditions of her miners at Denton Colliery, taking an active and con-
sistent interest in their children’s health and education, and providing a school
for the young boys until they were of an age to go down the mines. As the income
from her colliery increased she planned to establish a school for girls on her estate,
where they would be taught ‘spinning, knitting and sewing’, qualifications that
would be suitable to their rank and might improve their situation.27 In 1775 she
wrote to her brother, from Denton, ‘to impart good is enlarging the sphere of
enjoyment & I love to think many through my means & on my possessions are
made happy. I looked on my happy Tennants with as much pleasure as on the
lands they cultivate.’28 Montagu was similarly concerned for the welfare of her
neighbours at Sandleford, as she communicates to her sister in a letter of 1772,
‘If rich people do not check their wanton extravagance to enable them to assist
the poor I know not what must become of ye labouring people.’29
It is apparent from these remarks that Montagu perceived her acts of charity
and assistance to the lower classes as a social duty, and perhaps also, more prag-
matically, as a matter of good management. Moreover, there is a sense in which
her charitable ambitions were inextricably linked to her act of self-fashioning as
a woman of society, a bluestocking hostess with cultural and financial capital. Her
benevolence was often extremely public, as can be seen in Fanny Burney’s descrip-
tion of her gift of an ‘annual breakfast in front of her new mansion, of roast beef
and plum pudding, to all the chimney sweepers of the Metropolis’:
Not all the lyrics of all the rhymsters, nor all the spring-feathered choristers,
could hail the opening smiles of May, like the fragrance of that roasted beef,
and the pulpy softness of those puddings of plums, with which Mrs Montagu
yearly renovated those sooty little agents to the safety of our most blessing
luxury.
196 Elizabeth Eger
Taken for all in all, Mrs Montagu was rare in her attainments; splendid in
her conduct; open to the calls of charity; forward to precede those of indigent
genius; and unchangeably just and firm in the application of her interest, her
principles, and her fortune, to the encouragement of loyalty, and the support
of virtue.30
Montagu’s annual feasts for chimney sweeps were held on the front lawn of
her mansion in Portman Square, clearly visible to passers-by. This ostentatious
celebration of charity, as Burney suggests, was intended to encourage loyalty from
her social inferiors as well as to advertise her own virtue.
The thread of self-interest running through altruism had been laid bare by Man-
deville, of course, earlier in the century in his notorious Essay on Charity and
Charity Schools. By the mid-century however, this link was embraced more posi-
tively and often recognised as a vital element of the national economy. As Adam
Smith wrote in his chapter ‘Of Liscentious Systems’,
It is the great fallacy of Dr. Mandeville’s book to represent every passion as

wholly vicious, which is so in any degree and in any direction. It is thus that
he treats every thing as vanity which has any reference, either to what are, or
to what ought to be the sentiments of others: and it is by means of this
sophistry, that he establishes his favorite conclusion, that private vices are
public benefits. If the love of magnificence, a taste for the elegant arts and
improvements of human life, for whatever is agreeable in dress, furniture, or
equipage, for architecture, statuary and painting, and music, is to be regarded
as luxury, sensuality, and ostentation, even in those whose situation allows,
without any inconveniency, the indulgence of those passions, it is certain
that luxury, sensuality, and ostentation are public benefits: since without the
qualities upon which he thinks proper to bestow such opprobrious names, that
arts of refinement could never find encouragement, and must languish for want
of employment.31
One of the most popular and cogent defences of luxury came to lie in the
increasing refinement and flourishing vitality of British culture. Adam Smith’s
work on rhetoric and belles lettres emphasises the civilising effect of culture on
the individual, linking intellectual and moral sympathy in his definition of good
taste. These virtues were to be cultivated in both sexes, and relied on the inter-
action between men and women in cementing the civilising process. It is precisely
Smith’s vocabulary of encouragement, refinement and employment that Elizabeth
Montagu made use of throughout her life. She managed to maintain a reputation
for virtue and economy while indulging her talent for lavish display.
Women writers of the bluestocking circle frequently acknowledged the explicit
link between wealth, charity and the arts. Montagu’s friend, Catherine Talbot,
exhorted the wealthy to realise their responsibility towards society in her Essay
on the Importance of Riches:
Thus might the rich, the great, the powerful, consider in like manner: ‘This
part of my fortune will be nobly employed in relieving the miserable: that, in
works of public generosity: so much in procuring the agreeable ornaments of
life: in this manner I may encourage the elegant arts: by this way I may set off
my own character to the best advantage: and by making myself beloved and
respected, I shall consequently gain an honest influence over such as may be
bettered by my good example: my advice, my approbation will be useful in
such a case: in this I may do honour to my country: in that’ – Up and employ
yourselves, you who are lolling in easy chairs, amusing away your lives over
French novels, wasting your time in fruitless theory, or your fortunes in riotous
excesses. Remember, you have an important part to act.32
The part that Montagu preferred to act above all others was that of patron of
literature and the fine arts. Her correspondence suggests that she was constantly
keeping an eye on the progress of her coal on the stock markets in order to gauge
how much money she could spend on her cultural projects in London. As she
wrote to the poet James Beattie:
Consider me always in the best light in which you can put me, as the banker
of the distressed; and at any time call upon me for such objects; and in all
senses of the word, I will honour your bill. Vulgar wretchedness one relieves,
because it is one’s duty to do so; and one has a certain degree of pleasure in it;
but to assist merit in distress is an Epicurean feast; and indulge this luxury of
taste in me, when any remarkable object offers itself to your acquaintance.33
Here Montagu contrasts the different types of charity she exercised, expressing
the greater pleasure she receives in helping a particular kind of ‘merit’, based on
talent rather than need. After her husband’s death in 1775, she granted annuities
to fellow female authors, including Elizabeth Carter, Hester Chapone, Sarah Field-
ing and her sister, Sarah Scott. While she took a particular interest in helping
writers, ‘forward to precede those of indigent genius’, she was also a keen patron
of architecture, landscape design and interior decoration. Perhaps her most
cherished act of patronage was her building of Montagu House. Here the virtues
of luxury, industry and charity appeared to come together in the form of a resplen-
dent monument to bluestocking culture.
Montagu House
Montagu referred to Montagu House in Portman Square, which took some 20

years to complete, as a ‘Temple of virtue and friendship’ and a ‘a palace of chaste
elegance’. (See Plates 27–31)34 Soon after her husband’s death, Montagu purchased
from the Portman family a 99-year lease of the land at the north-west corner of
Portman Square on which her great house was to be built. She had intended
Robert Adam to be her architect, but decided later to employ James Stuart, whose
work on the antiquities at Athens has gained him the title ‘Athenian Stuart’. She
198 Elizabeth Eger
reports, with particular pride, that she paid its costs week by week out of her
income:
between Janry. 1777 and Dec 1777 I paid for my service of plate, and my house
[Portman Square] together £4,321: 10s. out of my income and had not then a
bill of £20 on my tradesmen’s books.
Unlike several of the leading aristocrats of her day, Montagu never went into debt.
Her self-justification was bolstered by the pride she took in remaining in credit
throughout her life.
The construction of Montagu House became a public event. By 1780 the build-
ing supervisor had to issue tickets to limit the number of visitors to a size that
would not hamper the workmen or mar the paint. Among the several artists and
craftsmen she employed were Angelica Kaufman, Cipriani, Rebecca and Bartoli.
While generally using the best solid materials, she also experimented with new
decorative techniques that were designed to imitate the most expensive metals,
such as ormolu, an alloy that had the appearance of gold. Montagu’s network of
patronage extended further than ever, as she sought out the best workers in
bronze, marble, glass, wood-carving and gilding. James Harris, one of the many
writers that Montagu was patron to at this time, wrote to her in 1780, ‘I am to
inform you I have seen an Edifice, which for the time made me imagine I was at
Athens, in a House of Pericles, built by Phidias. Where my reverie ended, I felt a
more solid satisfaction of reflecting, that, in my own Country, the Genius of
Phidias, could still produce an Architect, and the Genius of Pericles still produce
a Patroness.’
Montagu’s creation of such an opulent stage for her social gatherings can be
seen in the context of Werner Sombart’s study of luxury and capitalism, in which
he sees the eighteenth century as a significant turning point in the history of
luxury, a moment of objectification: ‘It was woman who was the guiding spirit in
the movement towards objectification, as I wish to term this process. She could
derive only scant satisfaction from the display of a resplendent retinue. Rich
dresses, comfortable houses, precious jewels were more tangible. This change is
exceedingly significant economically.’35 He characterises the sensualisation and
refinement of this period as signalling the triumph of the female who deliberately
uses her gender to secure a dominant role. Women’s tendency to sensualise luxury
is linked to the greater refinement of individual objects, which implies a greater
expenditure of human labour on a specific object. The result is a widening of the
scope of capitalist industry and, because of the necessity of securing rare materi-
als from foreign countries, also of capitalist commerce. Montagu was aware of her
power as a consumer of foreign luxury. In July 1790 she wrote to her sister Sarah
Scott,
I am going to the city end of the town this morning to bespeak 280 yards of
white Sattin for the window curtains of my great house, and about 200 for the
hangings. I think this order will make me very popular in Spittal Fields.36
From the correspondence surrounding the Montagu House, it appears that she
kept several hundred people in work over a period of about 15 years.
Among the most impressive sights in her new mansion were her ambitious
feather screens, built over a period of ten years (1781–91). Montagu’s friends were
asked for contributions of feathers to apply to large canvas mounted frames to
form decorative collages of landscapes that included flowers, birds and beasts of
every variety and shade.37 Betty Tull, Montagu’s forewoman at Sandleford, her
country estate, was in charge of creating the screens, which attracted enormous
interest and admiration while they were being made. Montagu wrote to Elizabeth
Carter in 1781, ‘From ye gaudy peocock to ye solemn Raven, we collect whatever
we can.’38 She described Betty Tull’s talent in glowing terms: ‘Maccoas she has
transformed into Tulips, Kings fishers into blue bells by her so potent art.’39
William Cowper’s poem for the Gentleman’s Magazine conveys the exuberance of
the feather-screens, their joyful ostentation:
The Birds put off their ev’ry hue

To dress a room for Montagu,
The Peacock sends his heav’nly dyes,
His rainbows and his starry eyes;
The Pheasant, plumes which now infold
His mantling neck with downy gold;
The Cock his arch’d tail’s azure show,
And, river blanch’d, the Swan, his snow.
All tribes beside of Indian name,
That glossy shine, or vivid flame
Where rises and where sets the day,
Whate’er they boast of rich and gay,
Contribute to the gorgeous plan,
Proud to advance it all it they can.40
James Barrington wrote to Montagu in a similar spirit of gallantry, ‘I will collect

all the Peacocks feathers, as well as others for Mrs Montagu; it is the only comfort
I have at the death of a beautiful bird, to think that their plumage will have the
honour of shining as a Constellation in the exalted situation of Mrs Montagu’s
Palace at Portman Square.’41 Montagu received the ultimate accolade in June 1791,
when Queen Charlotte and the royal princesses came to do honour to the
featherwork.42
There is no remaining evidence of the grandeur of Montagu House beyond
literary descriptions.43 The surviving correspondence between Montagu and her
guests reveals that Montagu House was a landmark in Britain’s capital city, a space
in which political and social worlds crossed. Her assemblies were neither strictly
private nor public but mediated between the two spheres. Hannah More’s poem
Bas Bleu captures the social world of the bluestocking circle for posterity. In her
comparison of material and intellectual brilliance, More asserts the predominance
and superiority of the latter over the former. She praises the art of conversation,
200 Elizabeth Eger
implying that taste and feeling are nothing to a woman if she cannot discuss them
fully and understand their implications. The most impressive sort of display is
that of intellect, not dress or jewels. Here she makes clear the high ideals which
she and her contemporaries attached to conversation:
If none behold, ah! wherefore fair?

Ah! wherefore wise, if none must hear?
Our intellectual ore must shine,
Not slumber, idly in the mine.
Let Education’s moral mint
The noblest images imprint;
Let taste her curious touchstone hold,
To try if standard be the gold;
But ’tis thy commerce, Conversation,
Must give it use by circulation;
That noblest commerce of mankind,
Whose precious merchandise is MIND!44
More describes a literary community in which the highest value is placed on the
exchange of thoughts between equals. Mental and moral profit was central to the
bluestocking model of literary community, as can be seen in the correspondence
between Elizabeth Carter and Montagu, whose relationship incorporated learning
and charity in equal measure. More contrasts the bas bleu meetings with the
‘tainted affectation and false taste’ of the Hotel de Rambouillet, the seventeenth-
century Parisian salon, and also with her contemporary society, where ‘Cosmetic
powers’ and ‘polish, ton and graces’ rule the day. While the bluestocking ideals
of conversation and education for women were embedded in the rhetoric of
commerce and luxury, they were solidly implanted on a bedrock of morality and
concerned to promote learning above luxury.
Montagu House was a material monument to the ephemeral culture of blue-
stocking philosophy that took the form of letters, wit and conversation, con-
stantly circulating but never caught. Montagu’s contemporaries recognised her
achievement in solidifying her virtue. Sir William Pepys wrote to Montagu in
1781, after visiting her mansion, ‘while I was surveying the grandeur of the Apart-
ments, & the Exquisite Workmanship of the Ornaments my Mind cou’d not help
dwelling upon the whole as a Monument of that judicious Charity for which you
have always been so distinguished.’45 Montagu wrote to her close friend and fellow
bluestocking Mrs Vesey:
We have lived with the wisest, the best, and the most celebrated men of our
Times, and with some of the best, most accomplished, most learned Women
of any times. These things I consider not merely as pleasures transient, but as
permanent blessings; by such Guides and Companions we are set above the
low temptations of Vice and folly, and while they were the instructors of our
minds they were the Guardians of our Virtue.46
Montagu House provides a pertinent example of the way in which one woman
could moralise the relationship between wealth and the arts, securing herself a
position at the heart of her cultural world.
In this essay I hope to have shown how self-conscious and complex was this
process of self-positioning, and it is worth noting, finally, that Montagu’s inter-
ventions in the luxury debates took place on a theoretical as well as a practical
level. As a highly intellectual woman, as well as a symbol of learning, she was
courted by contemporary philosophers of the Scottish Enlightenment, who
believed that the condition of women in society could be taken as an index of
the level of civilisation attained.47 In 1766, Henry Home, Lord Kames, sought out
Montagu’s opinion on the theory of ornament, asking her to help him in writing
his Elements of Criticism. She wrote to her close friend George Lyttleton,
I had a letter the other day from Lord Kames, who tells me he is going to
publish a new edition of the Elements of Criticism, & ask’d me about some
things in regard to taste in furniture &c., and I assure your Lordship, he told
me, he should be glad to have my name join’d with his in his work. See what
I have got by going to Scotland! When will you offer to put my name to any
of your works? You will imagine I did not avail myself of his proposal.
Montagu did reply to Kames, including a twelve-page epistle on the history, use
and theory of ornament from the time of ancient Greece to the present. Kames
was evidently impressed by her observations, as he included them in his work,
almost verbatim but without acknowledgement.
In his Elements of Criticism, Kames associated rationality and good sense with
taste:
We stand therefore engaged in honour, as well as in interest, to second the pur-

poses of nature, by cultivating the pleasures of the eye and ear, those especially
that require extraordinary culture, such as are inspired by poetry, painting,
sculpture, music, gardening and architecture. This chiefly is the duty of the
opulent, who have the leisure to improve their minds and their feelings.48
Kames advocates the shared pleasures which good taste encourages, perceiving
social intercourse as the antidote to luxuriance. He wrote to Montagu: ‘Of the
animal Man Some are made for themselves who have no priniciple of sociality
because such principle in them would be of no use to others. Such beings of the
insect kind, crawling upon the face of the Earth do certainly exist; but my Cor-
respondent is none of these: nay she is the reverse in every respect. Her social
connections extend so wide, that it is not easy for her to perform any action or
almost to move a step, without affecting others.’ Montagu was seen by many of
her contemporaries as the ruling planet around which her satellites revolved.
202 Elizabeth Eger
The connections between wealth and virtue, industry and leisure, instruction
and pleasure, luxury and charity, were made and lived by Montagu, whom
Hannah More described as ‘The female Maecenas of Hill Street’.49 She was widely
respected as an arbiter of literary and artistic taste and an icon of moral virtue. Her
concern for economic success was propelled by an ambition to celebrate aesthetic
excellence in a public fashion. One might say that she was a mistress of conspicu-
ous consumption by the end of her life. How did she manage and manipulate
her displays of luxury towards specific, moral ends? How did her identity as a
woman affect her role as a patron? Can we talk about a ‘right use’ of luxury? Is the
presence of luxury an expression of social progress or a mechanism of social
progress? Can one ‘deserve’ luxury in life? These broader questions about
eighteenth-century culture can be illuminated through a close study of the exact
mechanisms of Montagu’s economic management of her aesthetic ideals. Kames
sensed that she might possess the key to similar questions, asking her in 1772:
My present work is a general history of the human race in its gradual progress
toward maturity; distributed into many articles, Religion, Morality, Manners,
arts, commerce with many others. I have in particular one curious chapter viz.
Progress of the female Sex from their lowest Savage state to their highest State
among refined nations. I want to levy contributions from my friends, such of
them as are distinguished by superior taste, that my name may defend to pos-
terity in the same group with theirs. There is variety in plenty for Mrs
Montagu’s pen; and I would rather her name join’d with mine in such a work,
than to have a monument erected for me in Westminster Abbey.
It is, of course, an irony that Kames never did join Montagu’s work to his in the
publication of either his Elements of Criticism or his later Sketches of the History of
Man. By reinstating her role as a leader and critic of Enlightenment sociability we
might come closer to understanding the complex relationship between luxury and
taste, industry and charity, a dynamic in which the role of women was crucial.
Notes
1. The Tryal of Lady Allurea Luxury before the Lord Chief-Justice Upright, on an Information for
a Conspiracy (London, 1757).
2. Ibid., p. 6.
3. Ibid., pp. 6–7.
4. Ibid., p. 7.
5. Ibid., pp. 7–8.
6. Ibid., p. 75.
7. Ibid., p. 25.
8. Ibid., pp. 66–7.
9. Ibid., pp. 67–8.
10. Anna Larpent made the following New Year’s Resolution in her diary entry of 1 January
1776, ‘I must acquire thought in spending money. An elegant Oeconomy, a proper
frugality do nothing from mere spirit of imitation. Every thing with order, nothing
giddily – there are: absolute necessities; necessary luxuries.’ Anna Larpent, ‘A Method-
ized Journal, 1773–1786’ (Huntington Library manuscript, HM 31201), p. 60.
11. See Elizabeth Kowaleski-Wallace, Consuming Subjects: Women, Shopping, and Business in
the Eighteenth Century (New York, 1997), and Harriet Guest, Small Change: Woman, Learn-
ing and Patriotism (Chicago, 2000), ‘A-Shopping We Will Go’.
12. My previous research has concentrated on the women writers and artists represented in
Richard Samuel’s painting of The Nine Living Muses of Great Britain, exhibited at the Royal
Academy in 1779. This impressive act of embodiment conveys the importance of
women’s contribution to an evolving national culture. The muses are attired as virtu-
ous Roman matrons, both guardians and advertisements of national achievement in the
arts. See Eger, Grant, O’Gallchoir & Warburton, eds., Women, Writing and the Public
Sphere, 1700–1830 (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 104–33.
13. Elizabeth Montagu, An Essay on the writings and Genius of Shakespear, compared with the
Greek and French Dramatic Poets. With Some Remarks Upon the Misrepresentations of Mons.
de Voltaire (London, 1769).
14. Elizabeth Montagu to Sarah Scott. 26 December 1767 (MO 5871, Huntington Library
Collection).
15. White silk hose was the mark of the gentry, or of a successful London tradesman; blue
knitted wool was the dress of the working man. See: Anne Buck, Dress in Eighteenth-
Century England (New York, 1979), p. 31. For a study of the bluestocking circle, see Sylvia
Harcstack Myers, The Bluestocking Circle (Oxford, 1990).
16. See Marie Mulvey Roberts, ‘Pleasures Engendered by Gender: Homosociality and the
Club’, Pleasure in the Eighteenth Century, eds. Roy Porter and Marie Mulvey Roberts
(London, 1996).
17. See G.J. Barker-Benfield, The Culture of Sensibility: Sex and Society in Eighteenth-Century
Britain (Chicago and London, 1992).
18. Dr Edward Wilson to John Pitt, 2nd Earl of Chatham, 1758 (Huntington Library
Manuscript, MO 6780). This manuscript is copied in Elizabeth Montagu’s hand and
marked ‘Extract of a Letter from Doctor Wilson to Mr Pitt when 11 years old.’
19. Sir N. Wraxall, Historical Memoirs of My Own Time, 2 vols (London, 1815), vol. I, p. 140.
20. Hannah More, Selected Writings, ed. Robert Hole (London: Pickering & Chatto, 1996),
pp. 5–6.
21. More, Selected Writings, ed. Robert Hole, 8–9.
22. Richard Cumberland, The Observer: Being a Collection of Moral, Literary and Familiar
Essays. Volume One. London: Printed for C. Dilly in the Poultry, 1786. Essay no. 25.
233–4.
23. Hume, Essays Moral, Political and Literary. Edinburgh: Adam Black and Charles Tait,
1826.305.
24. Quoted in Reginald Blunt, ed., Mrs Montagu, ‘Queen of the Blues’: Her Letters and Friend-
ships from 1762 to 1800, 2 vols (London: Constable, 1973), vol. 2, p. 358.
25. MO 671 8 September 1776, Chaillot, Elizabeth Montagu to John Burrow (her nephew’s
tutor). For printed text see Alice C.C. Gaussen, A Later Pepys (London, 1904).
26. Hume, ‘Of Refinement in the Arts’, Essays (Liberty edition), p. 271.
27. John Doran, A Lady of the Last Century (Mrs Elizabeth Montagu): Illustrated in her unpub-
lished Letters; collected and arranged with a chapter on Blue Stockings (London, 1873).
28. Elizabeth Montagu to Morris Robinson, 3 July 1775, Denton Hall (Huntington Library
Collection, MO 4801).
29. MO 5930 Montagu, Elizabeth (Robinson) to Sarah (Robinson) Scott, 28 July 1772. See
Edith Sedgewick Larson, ‘A Measure of Power: The Personal Charity of Elizabeth
Montagu’, Studies in Eighteenth-Century Culture. 16 (1986) pp. 197–210.
30. Burney, Memoirs of Dr. Burney (1832), p. 273.
31. Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (Liberty Press edition), p. 313.
32. Catherine Talbot, ‘Essay on the Importance of Riches’, The Works of the Late Miss Cather-
ine Talbot, ed. Montagu Pennington (London, 1809), pp. 116–17.
33. Sir William Forbes, An Account of the Life and Writings of James Beattie, LL.D., 2 vols
(Edinburgh, 1806), II: 159–60.
204 Elizabeth Eger
34. Elizabeth Montagu to Leonard Smelt, 22 July 1778 (MO 5019, Huntington Library
Collection).
35. Werner Sombart, Luxury and Capitalism, trans. Philip Siegelman (Ann Arbor, 1967), p.
94.
36. Elizabeth Montagu to her sister, Sarah Scott, 5 July 1790, Huntington Library Manu-
script MO6199.
37. See Reginald Blunt, ed., Mrs Montagu, vol. 2, p. 202.
38. Elizabeth Montagu to Elizabeth Carter, 25 September 1781. Huntington Library Manu-
script, MO 3517.
39. Elizabeth Montagu to Elizabeth Charlton Montagu, 17 December 1788. Huntington
Library Manuscript, MO 2975.
40. Cowper wrote his poem ‘On Mrs Montagu’s Feather Hangings’ in the hope of attract-
ing ‘Minerva’s’ attention. She later supported the publication of his translation of the
Iliad, adding her name to the list of subscribers and sending the poet a warm letter of
encouragement.
41. James Barrington to Elizabeth Montagu, 16 December 1790. Huntington Library
Manuscript, MO 156.
42. See Montagu’s letter to Elizabeth Carter, June 1791 (Huntington Library Collection, MO
3686).
43. Montagu House was bombed in the Second World War.
44. More, Selected Writings, ed. Robert Hole, p. 32.
45. 4 August 1781, Sir William Weller Pepys to Elizabeth Montagu (Huntington Library
Collection).
46. MO 6566, 21 September 1781, EM to Vesey.
47. See Sylvana Tomaselli, ‘The Enlightenment Debate on Women’, History Workshop
Journal, vol. 20 (1993), pp. 101–23.
48. Henry Home, Lord Kames, Elements of Criticism, 3 vols. (London and Edinburgh: A.
Millar, and A. Kincaid & J. Hell, 1762), vol. I, p. 6.
49. More, Selected Writings, from a letter to her sister, pp. 8–9.
Plates
27. ‘Exterior of Montagu House’, watercolour.
28. Joseph Bonomi, ‘Mrs Montagu’s Great Room, Montagu House’.
29. Joseph Bonomi, ‘Design for the Great Drawing Room, Montagu House’.
30. Joseph Bonomi, ‘Design for a Lampstand for the Staircase, Montagu House’.
31. Joseph Bonomi, ‘Design for a Carpet’.
Part V
Luxury and the Exotic
The eighteenth-century discourse on luxury cannot be separated out from

responses to the expansion of global trade and the still relatively recent wide-
spread contact of European populations with luxury consumer goods from Asia
and the New World. In part luxury was perceived as foreign, and especially exotic,
goods.
Was the export ware the East India Companies brought to Europe from China
a luxury or a part of everyday life? Just what did the silk and porcelain so sought
after in Europe mean to Chinese consumers? Shelagh Vainker, in Chapter 14,
‘Luxuries or Not? Consumption of Silk and Porcelain in Eighteenth-Century
China’, contrasts and compares Chinese markets for ceramics and silk. She con-
trasts exclusive imperial ware and the inferior export ware, but seeks out an impor-
tant middle domestic market for individual, high quality and studio-marked
ceramics. The consumption of porcelain was otherwise an inconspicuous aspect
of everyday life. The consumption of silk, however, increased in eighteenth-
century China, reflecting higher incomes and a new reluctance to wear cotton in
wider parts of the population. More clothing was purchased ready-made and from
shops, and the state attempted to renew sumptuary law on types of garment and
colour, though not on the material it was made from.
Rebecca Earle, in Chapter 15, ‘Luxury, Clothing and Race in Spanish America’,
shows that sumptuary legislation on clothing also continued to play a part in the
consumption of European luxuries in eighteenth-century South America. The
cities of Mexico and Peru, grown rich on the trade in silver and gold to Europe
and China, contained diverse populations of Europeans, slaves and free blacks,
Indians and mulattoes. There luxury was debated not over consumption of indig-
enous commodities, but over European imports. Excess expenditure on fashion-
able clothing and jewellery was perceived to extend across class and race. Clothing
in the eighteenth century was a part of racial definition, and sumptuary legisla-
tion was resurrected in an attempt to control unsanctioned personal transforma-
tions. By the early nineteenth century, ‘gaudy’ was the epithet to describe
luxurious Ibero-American dress.
How goods, especially textiles and ceramics, were produced and consumed in
their countries of origin, affected their reception in Europe and inspired new
205
206 Luxury and the Exotic
production systems in Europe. Maxine Berg, in Chapter 16, ‘Asian Luxuries and
the Making of the European Consumer Revolution’ shows the enormous impact
on European consumption of Indian cottons, especially printed calicoes and
Chinese porcelain brought to Europe by the East India Companies. The discovery
of sophisticated consumer cultures and technologically advanced production
systems in Asia inspired Europe’s consumer revolutions. The attempts to imitate,
and thus to displace, imports of Indian cotton goods and Chinese porcelain
resulted in new consumer goods for a broad middling class market, and generated
the industrial revolution which made their large-scale production possible.
14
Luxuries or Not? Consumption of Silk
and Porcelain in Eighteenth-Century
China
Shelagh Vainker
Silk, porcelain and tea are the three things for which, over the last 300 years,
China has been best known in Europe. The fine quality of those goods, and the
remoteness of the country that produced them, contributed to a notion of China
as exotic and, in the absence of widespread or indeed any profound understand-
ing of China’s history, thought or literature, helped define it in the minds of most
Europeans.1 It was never likely, in these circumstances, that these goods should
have been similarly regarded in the culture that produced them, and an exami-
nation of the consumption of silk and porcelain within China sheds some light
on the shift in their values induced by trade.
A sinological view of an eighteenth-century porcelain would define it as a mul-
tiple, produced according to manufacturing methods established in the eleventh
century AD but relying in some aspects on practices evident in the fourteenth
century BC in the production of ritual bronzes, specifically division of processes
between separate workshop units.2 The body and glaze material is essentially the
same as the eleventh-century wares, and the techniques of decoration were essen-
tially all current by the twelfth century, though admittedly in the case of over-
glaze enamels, in the north rather than in the porcelain-producing south.3 As
such, ceramics reinforce the identification of the Song period in general as the
premodern peak after which no significant development took place.4 This situa-
tion contributes to the preference among many art historians of China for the
rich variety of the early ceramic industry over the monolithic porcelain tradition,
that replaced it. In addition, the richly varied kiln complexes of Song dynasty
China also anticipated the eighteenth-century production of market-specific
wares.5 If we are to study consumption within the context of ideas current at
the time of production, then it is this difference in the intended market, or point
of consumption, that informs later as well as contemporary attitudes to the
porcelain product. If we take as examples two pieces of commissioned ware, we
can say that a piece of eighteenth-century imperial ware, of which there were
many thousands, is likely to have been appreciated by its owner in approximately
the same measure (or possibly less) as a piece of armorial porcelain (see Plate 32).6
The imperial piece is of fine body and glaze quality and excellent craftsmanship,
is innovative in its technical refinements and is likely even now to be displayed
207
208 Shelagh Vainker
and admired, published and promoted as an object of wonder.7 The armorial piece
is of inferior material, was never ingenious, has lost its novelty and is only likely
to be enjoyed with anything approaching its original potency by a few descend-
ants of the person who ordered it, and as a symbol of a moment in trade or inter-
national exchange by a somewhat wider audience. All this decreases the interest
it might hold for art historians, and explains why it counts for little in the sino-
logical view. Export porcelain is thus as good an example as any commodity, of
value gained through physical distance from the place of production, and lost
through temporal distance from the point of consumption, and thus represents
a fleeting or fickle aspect of the exotic.
None the less, eighteenth-century Chinese porcelain in general continues to
be highly regarded by those large numbers of people who are casually interested
in the European past, in the exotic invoked by porcelain in that past and particu-
larly in elegant living associated with it. However, the purpose of this essay is
not so much to chart the subsequent life of eighteenth-century porcelain, as to
identify a third category of porcelain along with its equivalent in silk, neither
exclusively imperial nor specifically for export, but produced for the middling
domestic market, and to explore how, where and by whom those objects might
have been acquired and used, and whether within China, where they could not
be exotic, they might yet have been luxuries.
The political, intellectual and economic context of eighteenth-century China in

which silk and porcelain were produced and circulated in such quantities coin-
cides with the most illustrious period of the Qing dynasty founded by the
Manchus in 1644 (and which collapsed in 1911). The period is covered by the
reigns of only three emperors: Kangxi (1662–1722), Yongzheng (1723–35) and
Qianlong (1736–95) and for the purposes of this essay will comprise a slightly
extended eighteenth-century beginning in 1683/4, the 22nd year of Kangxi, in
which the ban on maritime trade was lifted and the imperial kilns at Jingdezhen
were re-established. It was a time of expansion, notably in the population, which
tripled, in the bureaucracy and in the economy, and thus in consumption as well.
As a non-Chinese dynasty, the Manchu ruling house depended initially on del-
egating power to its princelings; however by the mid-eighteenth-century the rela-
tionship between conquerors and conquered had deepened sufficiently for the
imperial princelings, bondservants and bannermen also to be less necessary: the
Chinese intellectual and social elite of the lower Yangzi valley had regained some
of their traditional power. They were constrained somewhat, however, by the
tightening of imperial control on Manchu aristocrats and on bureaucrats and local
elites in general, in a bureaucracy that was patterned on Ming models but with
more structures, more layers and more paperwork.8
The agricultural basis was extended, and the subsequent growth in the
economy saw the beginnings of intraregional trade for bulk goods, including silk.
Luxuries too were traded across long distances, providing the trendsetting elites
Consumption of Silk and Porcelain in Eighteenth-Century China 209
of Beijing, Nanjing, Yangzhou, Hangzhou and Suzhou as well as the urban and
mercantile elites of other cities throughout the empire with silk from Nanjing,
porcelain from Jingdezhen, ink cakes from Anhui and other fine local products
that had acquired nationwide desirability.9 Intraregional trade and sojourning led
to the formation of numerous merchant guilds and societies based usually on
common birthplace, some of which became quite significant institutions that
came to assume civic responsibilities. This balance between commerce and public
life was officially approved, according to the Qianlong Emperor’s remark in 1748
regarding the debates on state grain policy: ‘With the affairs of the market-place,
for the most part one should let the people carry out the circulation for them-
selves. If once the government begins to manage it, what was originally intended
to be beneficial to the people will, with unsatisfactory implementation, turn out
full of hindrances.’10
The expansion in the bureaucracy that accompanied economic growth was not,
however, sufficient to offer the opportunity of an official career – ever the prize
of success in China – to all the sons of the traditional elite and those of the newly
rich. There were simply not enough official positions to go round, with the result
that people from old privileged families turned to employment in the very many
scholarly projects sponsored by both the court and wealthy individuals which
accompanied the rise of evidential scholarship. The newly rich, who were not nec-
essarily equipped or invited to undertake such work, embarked on the lifestyle of
the traditional gentleman literatus, and the acquisition of its material attributes.
Indeed many successful merchants did the same, though their lack of traditional
education contributed eventually to an influential shift in some aspects of this,
most notably, painting in Yangzhou.11 There was thus a substantial group of
people in the market for high quality goods. The sorts of goods they desired, the
access they had to these, and the uses to which such goods were put, are difficult
to identify precisely as the evidence is uneven. In terms of the present discussion,
however, it may be noted that ceramics have survived in quantity but are rarely
mentioned in texts, whereas silk has mostly perished but is reasonably docu-
mented; silk is written of more often in terms of production than consumption,
while the large quantities of extant Qing porcelain make it possible to sort the
wares according to fineness of body and glaze material, shape, and ornament.
The quality of porcelain produced in the last two decades of the seventeenth
century is high, the re-establishment of the imperial kilns in 1683 having had the
effect of raising standards at the many private kilns in and around Jingdezhen.
Few pieces are designated as imperial, and we cannot be sure that Queen Mary
and the Kangxi emperor were not surrounded by very similar pieces indeed,
though the former arranged them on furniture and overmantels in her bed-
chamber and drawing room while the latter used them for eating and drinking.
This situation is unique in the history of Chinese export porcelain, which from
the eighth century AD had comprised ceramics of middling to low quality, and it
was not to last.12 By the first decade of the eighteenth century porcelain produc-
tion had diversified, and there was established a category of imperial porcelain
that would not have been available outside the court, still less outside the country,
210 Shelagh Vainker
so that one might suggest that at this point, what was admired for decoration in
the royal palaces of Europe was not fit for the table of the emperor of China.
An indication of the original consumption of a porcelain object is sometimes
provided by the use of a mark painted, usually in underglaze blue, on the base of
the piece at the time of manufacture. By the mid-Kangxi period in the early 1700s,
much porcelain bore the standard six-character imperial mark unchanged since
its introduction in the Ming dynasty in the early fifteenth century in its format
of two characters for the dynasty followed by two for the emperor’s name then
two for ‘made in the year of’. Since imperial reign marks were copied at private
kilns, and imperial pieces did not always bear them, it is actually more instruc-
tive to look at the rarer marks giving studio names, commissioned by scholars and
the gentry.13 A piece showing characters from the popular novel The Water Margin
bears the studio name, Wenxin Zhai, of Sun Chong from Zhejiang province who
died in 1702; we know no more about him, from which we might infer he was
of middling social status, but what is additionally interesting about this is that
dishes of the same size illustrating other characters – usually three – from The
Water Margin, exist in the Burrell Collection, Glasgow, in the British Museum, in
three further examples in the Victoria and Albert Museum and in two more at the
Ashmolean (see Plate 33).14 The extensive porcelain holdings that make up about
half of most British public collections of Chinese art were in general acquired from
the mid-nineteenth century onwards; some pieces undoubtedly came from China
at the turn of the twentieth century but given the rather small number that sur-
vives in English country houses, we can assume that some of these were exported
from China at the time of their production around 1700.15 Here, then, is an
example of middling quality ware current in both the domestic market, where its
literary subject would be instantly recognisable, and the export market, where the
same subject would have been simply decoration. The bowl marked Luyi Tang, a
name used by 18 recorded Qing scholars, is of a type similarly well represented
in European collections.16 Its Kangxi period style, incorporating the overglaze blue
enamel introduced around 1700, makes it datable between 1700 and 1722.
This is the period in which specialisation increased, culminating at the very
end of Kangxi’s reign with the development in about 1720 of a pink enamel glaze
that was to become one of the most typical of the eighteenth century as well as
giving its name to the ‘famille rose’ porcelain type, which included some of the
finest pieces of the era. These are particularly associated with the reign of
Yongzheng (1723–35), which saw the refinement of porcelain types developed
under Kangxi and is significant for the appointment in 1728 of Tang Ying to the
post of imperial porcelain supervisor. He was responsible for overseeing the
increasingly close palace interest in exclusive wares that resulted in the disparity
between imperial and export wares outlined above, while the good ordinary pieces
produced in large quantities throughout the remainder of the eighteenth century
are more easily identified than their earlier equivalents.
The great many examples of general quality ware which make it possible to
identify a middle market for porcelain are unfortunately not matched by surviv-
ing eighteenth-century silks, for though quite large quantities of Qing dress
survive, much of that is loosely dated eighteenth- or nineteenth-century, and the

pieces which are reasonably reliably eighteenth-century are considerably fewer,
and most of them are imperial. In this they are representative of a prevailing
situation in Chinese cultural history: namely, that most cultural survival has been
determined to a greater or lesser degree by an imperial agenda. Since the Emperor
Taizong formed the first imperial art collection in the seventh century AD, com-
prising chiefly calligraphy and paintings, a standard has been followed and
elaborated by successive dynasts and imitated by scholars and officials. This
applies particularly to painting and calligraphy, in which canons were quickly
formed, and in antiquities – ritual bronzes, jades and inscription rubbings – which
were associated with the authority to rule and began to be particularly collected
from the time of the neo-Confucian revival of the eleventh century.17 It applies
also to texts, since the imperial library was always the repository of contempo-
rary writing and earlier works incorporated into collectanea: writings which were
not included in imperial book projects had much less chance of surviving, and
indeed in the eighteenth century, the Qianlong emperor himself decreed, in 1774,
that the officials charged with seeking out texts to be included in the monumental
Siku quanshu (‘Four treasuries’) publishing project were equally to track down
works that opposed dynastic interests, so that they may be burnt.18 Such ‘sedi-
tious’ texts encompassed not just historical writing, biographies, local gazetteers,
memorials and so forth but also poetry, plays and short stories, and more than
2,000 were ultimately lost in this way.
The same principles of selection, if not necessarily of destruction, apply to high
quality objects in a variety of media though here, ceramics provide something
of an exception. Ceramics have a sort of democratic durability; they very often
survive intact, regardless of the circumstances of their consumption, and even
when broken, the sherds yield most of what one would wish to know regarding
form and technique, while find context can add more information. This is par-
ticularly true of the great period of ceramics production, the Song dynasty, when
the first imperial wares were made alongside architectural ceramics and everyday
pots in a highly successful industry that covered most of the country. In fact, Song
ceramics provide one of the most complete technical and cultural single pictures
in all of Chinese art history.
The best source of ordinary grade ceramics is always kiln sites, and though very
much less excavation at Jingdezhen has been carried out on the non-imperial
kilns, they have yielded some interesting pieces. For example, the Kangxi
(1662–1722) period pieces now housed in Jingdezhen Taociguan (Jingdezhen
Ceramics Institute) are quite thickly potted and decorated in a sketchy, rapid
painting style with somewhat abbreviated pictorial scenes. These include figures
with featureless faces seated in a simple pavilion rather than a garden setting, and
tall bamboo with birds flying between the branches rather than in a river land-
scape.19 The contrast between the soft blue of the painting and the grey-blue tinge
of the background lacks the clarity of that between the brilliant blues and
sparkling white ground of the Kangxi porcelain known in Europe at the turn of
the eighteenth century. The Yongzheng (1723–35) period pieces excavated from
212 Shelagh Vainker
private kilns in the vicinity of the imperial ones are brighter, yet the distinction
between the wares termed ‘folk’ (minjian) by the archaeologists and those pre-
served in prestigious collections still applies.20
There is evidence of kiln activity across much of southern China for the Qing
dynasty, the most notable centre outside Jiangxi being Dehua in the coastal
province of Fujian, and known in the West as the producer of Blanc de Chine.
Despite their good situation for export, the kilns turned out large quantities of
wares for domestic consumption, principally figures of popular gods and god-
desses, and vessels for domestic altars and studios. In the nineteenth century,
kilns were developed around Canton on the south coast. However, there is prac-
tically no evidence of a Qing ceramics industry north of the Yangzi, and for
this reason ceramics should be added to the category of bulk goods transported
intraregionally.
We can propose this because ceramics were absolutely standard items in every-
day life; they were transported north to the court and it is barely conceivable that
the rest of north China was eating and drinking from any other material. They
are not written about, except as antiques and collectables, because they are a
routine and inconspicuous a component of everyday life.21 As eating and drink-
ing utensils, they were the simplest, as we know from the accounts of grand enter-
taining in the house of the eighteenth century poet and man of letters Yuan Mei
(1715–97): different sizes and shapes of vessels for different dishes, and the use of
four or five different wine cups, progressing from small to large, and beginning
with porcelain, then jade, then rhinoceros horn and finally glass.22 At the least,
this progression reflects the rarity of the various materials. In the great Qing novel
of manners Hong Lou Meng or ‘Dream of the Red Chamber/Story of the Stone’, it
is only the precious eleventh-century antiques that are mentioned, otherwise
ceramics are described less than tea or jewellery or silk.23 Indeed, the fine silks
mentioned in Hong Lou Meng include a robe woven with peacock feathers like the
Imperial one that survives in the Palace Museum, and so represent in fact a very
rarefied lifestyle.24 The circulation of novels such as this might possibly be one
reason that the literature of elegant living that accompanied the rise of con-
sumerism in the late Ming is apparently absent from, or at least very finely scat-
tered through, the large number of published works in the 18th century. The
writings of Li Yu (1611–80) are the closest to the eighteenth century that such
texts get, and one should perhaps pose the question (though not for addressing
here) of why this body of rather specific texts outlining how to arrange one’s fur-
niture and ornaments, what paintings to display at what time of year and so on,
was not a significant genre at a time of such increased access to the gentrified
lifestyle and its accoutrements.25
While literary references to silk goods are somewhat more numerous than those
to ceramics, the documentary evidence for silk as a product is far greater. Written
evidence of the ceramic industry is scant, particularly before the Ming dynasty,
yet silk, as an agricultural product significant both as an export commodity and
within the domestic economy, is included in treatises on agriculture and in the
dynastic histories from at least as early as the Tang (618–906) dynasty. Such
references, albeit to raw or unmade materials rather than artefacts, compensate

for the lack of surviving examples, and make it possible to gain some view of
the amount produced, the extent of the producing regions and, when added to
the references in poetry and literature to its use, also to gain an impression of the
contribution of silk to the material world of early China.26 In the eighteenth
century at least 15 dated works on sericulture were published, while dozens more
can be attributed to the Qing dynasty as a whole; many of these comprise chap-
ters in longer works on agriculture, and some are illustrated.27
Local gazetteers and centrally compiled official records reveal that silk was pro-
duced over most of the country, with centres in four places: Jiangsu and Zhejiang
provinces in the east (the Jiangnan region); Guangdong in the south; Sichuan in
the west; and Shandong on the east coast, north of Jiangsu.28 The Jiangnan region
was the most important of these, the industry having become concentrated there
from the late Ming onwards as the silk industry in other parts of the country
declined in favour of cotton.29 Mulberry trees began to replace rice, and silk
production remained largely household-based, while its markets increased in
complexity. Having been a commodity produced in small quantities to provide
peasant households with finished goods to exchange for daily necessities, silk
became for increasing numbers of households the principal source of income. This
process of specialisation during the early Qing also occurred with paper, tea and
sweets as the number of goods available to peasants for cash or exchange
increased.30 It was accompanied by a shift away from producing finished articles
as households carried out part-processes, for the countrywide demand for silk from
Jiangnan meant that merchants travelled to the region to buy silk, usually in bolts,
according to what was desired in their own provinces. The transactions were
increasingly carried out through local agents, who in turn placed orders with the
Jiangnan workshops.31 The imperial silk workshops were situated in the region, at
Hangzhou, Nanjing and Suzhou and, as with the imperial kilns at Jingdezhen in
Jiangxi, had a positive effect on the privately-run workshops.
The dragon robes worn by the emperor for conducting rituals, which were
designed by the Board of Rites in Peking and made up in Nanjing or Suzhou, took,
it has been calculated, 16 days to accomplish the pattern drawing, one year and
one month to complete the groundwork, and one year and four months to com-
plete the embroidery. This excludes time for the weaving of the ground fabric.32
Regulations for court dress were elaborately formulated in accordance with rank,
as indeed were porcelain designs. Imperial rituals were extended to the county
level in the eighteenth century, and bureaucratic standards came to permeate most
ritual, so that dress at birthdays, marriages, and so on was supposed to be like that
of officials, and would therefore presumably have been, wherever possible, of silk.
Another use of silk which expanded similarly was for opera costume, as the eigh-
teenth century saw the expansion of performance from private entertainment and
touring performances at local festivals, to a more permanent feature of urban life
with the establishment of theatres.33 In daily life too the consumption of silk
became more widespread, in that standards of dress in the late seventeenth
century had quite changed by the mid-eighteenth century, notably in reluctance
214 Shelagh Vainker
to wear cotton, preferences for dragon designs previously exclusive to court dress,
and the purchase of clothes in markets and shops rather than making them at
home.34
In addition to clothing, silk had always been used for ceremonial articles, and
indeed textiles associated with Buddhist dress and ritual constitute a considerable
proportion of the extant silk from earlier periods, as they have been preserved in
monasteries. From the eighteenth century, there are known examples of robes,
from miniature to larger than life-size, for clothing images; priests’ robes; pic-
torial hangings depicting Buddhist images, and altar cloths or frontals. Domestic
furnishings include table covers, chair covers (see Plate 34) draped over the back
to below the seat of high-backed wooden chairs; pictorial hangings, sometimes in
sets of six creating a continuous composition, and possibly set in folding screen
frames (see Plate 35). Within the palace, silk covers were used for throne cushions
and in the palace library, for wrapping books. A type of hanging disseminated
down the social scale from grand houses to almost everyone who could afford it
was the festive hanging, usually bright red embroidered in gold with auspicious
images for good fortune, long life or wedded bliss, with calligraphy according to
the occasion.
To what extent are these luxuries? The objects most desired by the most socially
ambitious of the newly rich in the eighteenth century would in most cases include
paintings, ritual bronzes, jades, calligraphy and other antiques and collectibles
associated with a scholar-official elite and the authority to rule. Ceramics and silk
were always to some extent functional, and never appeared as categories in cata-
logues of the imperial collections, for example. A certain amount of exclusivity
does however pertain. In porcelain, it was maintained by smashing at the kiln site
even slightly imperfect pieces, so there was no circulation of rejects.35 Silk has a
much longer history of imperial control, beginning with the stipulation of offi-
cial dress in the fourth century BC and the rituals surrounding sericulture and the
silk goddess – the only rituals to be conducted by the empress rather than the
emperor.36 Silk had associations, therefore, of its own, whereas porcelain was prac-
tically inevitable, and was desirable according to its quality. In this respect
increased consumption of silk in the eighteenth century is perhaps a clearer indi-
cation of luxury than porcelain consumption.
The dress regulations of the fourth century BC belong to what Arjun Apparudai
and Craig Clunas have identified as a method of regulating consumption in a
society with stable status and limited commodities.37 The Chinese tradition that
condemned extravagance and despised artisans began some 200 years earlier in
the sixth century BC and has persisted through the change to a high consump-
tion society that emerged in the Song (960–1279) dynasty, so that the Han (206
BC–AD 220) dynasty proscriptions of extravagance in funeral expenses, and the
ban by the Ming official Zhang Han (1511–93) on elaborate festival lanterns that
burnt away in minutes, find resonance in the early twenty-first century condem-
nation of outsize paper models of cars, mobile phones, and so on that are made
for and set alight at the grave-sweeping ceremonies during Qingming festival.38
Yet the change to a complex consumer society took place as early as the eleventh
century, when sumptuary regulations are less evident but the fact that even the
servant girls wear gold and silver earrings is lamented.39 After the Song, the late
Ming dynasty and the eighteenth century are periods when consumption also
flourished, and porcelain and silk were, as shown above, widely acquired and used.
The regularly renewed sumptuary laws on silk in the late seventeenth century
demonstrate an attempt at constraint that is still however politically rather than
economically motivated, for they refer to garment type and colour rather than
material, while the Qing Code imposes punishments for improper use of orna-
mental designs woven or embroidered.40 Conspicuous consumption was in fact
tacitly encouraged by the willing patronage of the throne of some of the most
ostentatious of the newly moneyed families, in particular the salt merchants of
Yangzhou.41 Yet though the use of goods of silk, porcelain, lacquer, gold and silver
would have been enjoyed by the well-off, it did little to confer social status, and
not just because the commodities were widely available. The salt merchants were
extremely rich, and one of their aims was to dissociate themselves from the stigma
of mercantile activity by using their wealth to educate their sons for official careers
and to acquire estates and retinues, which might include resident painters, as well
as fine objects. Since at least the Yuan (1279–1368) dynasty 500 years earlier,
impoverished scholar-officials had enjoyed some social acceptability, and the mer-
chants of Yangzhou were aware of a set of values which they knew could not be
represented by wealth. Thus their parties would include officials while excluding
fellow businessmen, and their sons received the best schooling in the empire,
having had established for them three academies that were staffed by prominent
literary figures. In fact, there existed mutual advantage for merchants and officials
in the exchange of material wealth for social prestige, and in this way it can be
said that taste moderated excess in worldly goods.
While Yangzhou was indeed the scene of some wild extravagances, the whole
southern Yangzi region was the wealthiest in the country and was the place of
production as well as consumption of many of the finest goods. Silk was manu-
factured there, and other materials were transported to the region for carving,
with Suzhou in Jiangsu province enjoying the reputation for the most skilled
craftsmen. The notion of the exotic, however, did not apply, since almost all came
from within the empire, and thus a gulf existed between that which was indeed
difficult to obtain and unquestionably luxurious, and the high quality material
goods that circulated throughout the population at almost every level, thanks to
the combination, exploited so early in China, of fine raw materials and a large
well-organised labour force.
The truly foreign and puzzling delights were found only within the very limited
sphere of the court, and no discussion of the exotic at this period would be com-
plete without some mention of reciprocity. The Qianlong emperor was curious
about certain aspects of European art and technology, and had at his court the
Jesuit painter Castiglione, known in Chinese as Lang Shining. Porcelain painted
in ‘Lang Shining’ style depicting European figures and pastoral scenes is preserved
in the Palace Museum, Taibei and in Beijing, while the emperor was also inter-
ested in European clocks, for example.42 The point has been made that export
216 Shelagh Vainker
items never include objects close to a country’s nationhood and rituals, yet the
adoption of imported exotic materials and techniques to create objects that
express ideals and practices can be clearly demonstrated.43 On the Chinese side,
by the commission to Castiglione in 1767 to draft sketches of Qianlong’s battle
campaigns for subsequent printing in France; on the European, by ecclesiastical
robes such as the chasuble embroidered for Jesuits now in the Peabody Museum,
Salem, or the cope made up from early nineteenth-century dragon-embroidered
silk, possibly originally sewn into cushion covers, formerly in use at Christ Church
Cathedral, Oxford and now housed in the Ashmolean Museum (see Plate 36).
Notes
1. The slow development of Chinese studies in Europe from c. 1600 onwards is discussed
in T. Barrett, Singular Listlessness: a Short History of Chinese Books and British Scholars
(London, 1989) and M. Wilson and J. Cayley, eds, Europe Studies China: Papers from an
International Conference on The History of European Sinology (London, 1995). See also
A. Reichwein (trans. J. Powell), China and Europe: Intellectual and Artistic Contacts in the
Eighteenth Century (London, 1925).
2. L. Ledderose, Ten Thousand Things: Module and Mass Production in Chinese Art, The A.W.
Mellon Lectures in the Fine Arts, 1998, The National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.,
Bollingen Series XXXV:46 (Princeton, 2000), pp. 48–9.
3. The porcelains of south China are distinguished from northern wares partly by the use
of the same material for both body and glaze, at least until the fourteenth century when
kaolin was first added to the body material. See N. Wood, Chinese Glazes (London: A.
& C. Black, 1999), pp. 27–73.
4. K.G. Deng, ‘Critical Survey of Research in Chinese Economic History’, Economic History
Review 52 (2000), pp. 1–23, in discussing the work of Mark Elvin and G.W. Skinner.
5. Kiln archaeology since the 1980s has revealed that kilns previously thought to have pro-
duced only one type of ceramic in fact produced a range. See Henansheng wenwu
yanjiusuo, ed., Ruyao de xin faxian: New Discoveries in Ru Kiln (Beijing, 1991) for a variety
of glaze types from the kiln associated with a rare, blue-green palace ware. Also, the
Ding kilns at Quyang in Hebei are recorded as having been used in the imperial palace;
some bear the mark ‘guan’ (official) and others were exported: all are of the same fine
white body with ivory-coloured glaze.
6. For example a brushpot with landscape in sepia on a white ground bordered with a
glaze imitating wood in the Palace Museum, Beijing. Palace Museum, Kangxi Yongzheng
Qianlong: Qing Porcelain from the Palace Museum Collection (Beijing and Hong Kong, 1989)
pl. 68; a ewer decorated with the arms of Peers, Ashmolean Museum EA 1978.130.
7. A recent example would be the Au Bak Ling collection exhibited at the Royal Academy,
London, autumn 1998. See R. Krahl and J. Thompson, Imperial Chinese ceramics from the
Au Bak Ling collection (Hong Kong, 1998).
8. For Qing social history, see E. Feng and J. Chang, Qingren shehui shenghuo (Tianjin, 1990);
A. Feuerwerker, State and Society in Eighteenth-Century China, Michigan Papers in Chinese
Studies no. 27 (Ann Arbor, 1976); D. Johnson, A. Nathan and E. Rawski, eds, Popular
Culture in Late Imperial China (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1985); S. Naquin and E. Rawski,
Chinese Society in the Eighteenth Century (New Haven and London, 1987).
9. Feuerwerker, State and Society in Eighteenth-Century China, p. 86.
10. Naquin and Rawski, Chinese Society in the Eighteenth Century, p. 26.
11. P. Ho, ‘The Salt Merchants of Yang-chou: A Study of Commercial Capitalism in
Eighteenth-Century China’, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies vol. 17 (1954), pp. 130–68.
G. Hsu, ‘Merchant Patronage of Eighteenth Century Yangchou Painting’, C. Li, ed.,
Artists and Patrons: Some Social and Economic Aspects of Chinese Painting (Kansas, 1989).
G. Hsu, A Bushel of Pearls: Painting for Sale in Eighteenth-century Yangchow (Stanford, 2001).
12. The contrast is drawn most clearly by the ceramics in late ninth-century pagodas, which
in China include the finest wares available, indeed arguably the most prestigious ever
produced, the mise secret colour Yue greenwares, and the much rougher wares found in
Japan. For greenwares excavated from Japanese temple sites see Tokyo National
Museum, Nihon shutsudo no chugoku toji (Chinese ceramics excavated in Japan; exhibi-
tion catalogue in Chinese and English) (Tokyo, 1978), nos. 3, 4 and 5.
13. A recent, illuminating study of these marks is M. Wilson, Rare Marks on Chinese
Porcelain (London, 1998).
14. Ibid., no. 34.
15. Those accessible to the public include Burleigh House in Lincolnshire, Long Melford
Hall in Suffolk, Hatfield House in Hertfordshire, and Woburn Abbey. The extent that
has survived privately is not quantifiable.
16. Wilson, Rare Marks, no. 36. An identical bowl and with the same mark is in the
Ashmolean Museum EA X.3642, ex Mallett Collection.
17. L. Ledderose, ‘Some Observations on the Imperial Art Collection in China’, Transactions
of the Oriental Ceramic Society, 43 (1978–9) pp. 33–46.
18. L. Carrington Goodrich, The Literary Inquisition of Ch’ien-Lung, American Council of
Learned Societies Studies in Chinese and Related Civilizations Number 1 (Baltimore,
1935). For imperial book collecting and the preservation of texts see G. Dudbridge, Lost
Books of Medieval China, The Panizzi Lectures 1999 (London, The British Library, 2000).
19. Zhongguo taoci bianji weiyuanhui, ed., Zhongguo taoci: jingdezhen minjian qinghua ciqi
(Shanghai, 1988), pl. 200, pl. 199.
20. Zhongguo taoci bianji weiyuanhui, nos. 204, 205.
21. The ‘secret colour’ greenwares produced in the ninth century at the Yue kilns in north-
ern Zhejiang province are the exception, being mentioned in Lu Yu’s Cha jing (Tea
Classic) and the poetry of Lu Guimeng. For Yue ware see Wang Qingzheng, ed., Yue
Ware, Miseci Porcelain (Shanghai, 1996).
22. Cited in Feng and Chang, Qingren shehui shenghuo, p. 86.
23. Cao Xueqin, Honglou Meng, chapter 40, Renmin wenxue chubanshe edn. (Beijing, 1973),
vol. 2, p. 487 for a reference to Ru ware; the rest of the chapter includes several dis-
cussions of silk gauze furnishings, particularly for window and bed curtains. A close dis-
cussion of ceramics in this novel is given in S. Naquin, ‘Porcelain in Hongloumeng’,
unpublished paper read at University of Pennsylvania, 2001 conference ‘Reading Eigh-
teenth Century China Through “Dream of the Red Chamber” ’.
24. Zhu Jiajin, Treasures of the Forbidden City (Hong Kong, 1987), no. 99.
25. C. Chang and S. Chang, Crisis and Transformation in Seventeenth-Century China: Society,
Culture and Modernity in Li yu’s World (Ann Arbor, 1992). C. Clunas, Superfluous Things,
Material Culture and Social Status in Early Modern China (Cambridge, 1991).
26. S. Vainker, ‘Northern Song Silk: Reconstructing the Evidence’, J. Tisdall, ed., Silk and
Stone: the Third Hali Annual (London, 1996) pp. 160–75 and 196–7.
27. Including Pu Songling, Nongsen jing (1705); Yang Shan, Youfeng guangyi (1740), in Xuxiu
siku quanshu 978:zibu: nongjialei (Shanghai, 1997), also Xiuji zhihua (1776).
28. E. Sun, ‘Sericulture and Silk Textile Production in Ch’ing China’, W. Willmott, ed.,
Economic Organization in Chinese Society (Stanford, 1992) pp. 79–108.
29. J. Fan and W. Jin, Jiangnan sichou shi yanjiu (Beijing, 1993); F. Teng et al., Zhejiang wenhua
shi (Hangzhou, 1992) pp. 331–5; C. Dietrich, ‘Cotton Culture and Manufacture in Early
Ch’ing China’, W. Willmott, ed., Economic Organization in Chinese Society (Stanford,
1992) pp. 109–35.
30. Z. Shi, Qingdai qianqi xiaonong jingji (Beijing, 1994) pp. 207–8.
31. Fan and Jin, Jiangnan sichou shi yanjiu, pp. 239–41.
32. Chen Juanjuan, Gugong bowuyuan yuankan, 1984.2 pp. 89–93. Cited in Wilson, Rare
Marks, p. 98.
218 Shelagh Vainker
33. Surviving eighteenth-century theatre costumes are scarce and difficult to identify.
However some late Qing examples, probably acquired at the auction of a Beijing
theatrical company’s stock in 1929, are now in the Minneapolis Institute of Arts and
the Metropolitan Museum of Art. See R. Jacobsen, Imperial Silks: Ch’ing Dynasty Textiles
in the Minneapolis Institute of Arts, 2 vols (Minneapolis, 2000), p. 433 and nos. 176–93.
For the evolution of performance art, see I. Tanaka, ‘The Social and Historical Context
of Ming – Ch’ing Local Drama’, Johnson, Nathan and Rawski, pp. 143–60; Naquin and
Rawski, p. 60.
34. Feng and Chang, pp. 182–3.
35. Hong Kong Museum of Art, Jingdezhen Zhushan chutu Yongle Xuande guanyao ciqi zhanlan:
Imperial Porcelain of the Yongle and Xuande Periods Excavated from the Site of the Ming
Imperial Factory at Jingdezhen (Hong Kong, 1989) p. 11.
36. The history of these rituals is intermittent. They began in the pre-Imperial era and were
revived periodically, including in the Tang, the Song (both at the end of Northern Song
and beginning of Southern Song), and the late Qing.
37. Clunas, Superfluous Things, p. 147.
38. Ibid., p. 146. News reports following Qingming festival, 7 April 2002.
39. J. Haeger, ed., Crisis and Prosperity in Sung China (Tucson, 1975). S. Vainker, ‘Northern
Song Silver’, Transactions of the Oriental Ceramic Society 59 (1994–5), pp. 11–31.
40. In 1672 and again in 1724. See Feng and Chang, p. 186. Article 429. Article 175 on ‘vio-
lating the use of clothing and houses’ prohibits the use of objects designed for one of
superior rank. W. Jones, trans., The Great Qing Code (Oxford, 1994). Other references to
silk are as raw material, and appear in the laws relating to the Board of Revenue rather
than to the Board of Rites (Article 175) or the Board of Works (Article 429). For the
situation in the Ming dynasty, see C. Clunas, ‘Regulation of Consumption and the
Institution of Correct Morality by the Ming State’, C. Huang and E. Zurcher, eds, Norms
and the State in China, Sinica Leidensia vol. XXVIII (Leiden, 1993).
41. A focused study of the life-styles of the Yangzhou salt merchants would provide the
most acute survey of luxury consumption in eighteenth-century China but has yet to
be undertaken. Ho, Salt Merchants is an excellent study of their commercial activities
and includes a section on lifestyle. Li Dou, Yangzhou huafang lu (1795) is a primary
source. The example of the Yangzhou merchants acquisition of paintings suggests a
loosening of the literati stranglehold on standards of social acceptability, and this in
turn may contribute to the lack of ‘elegant living’ texts referred to above.
42. National Palace Museum, Taipei, Qingdai hua falang tezhan mulu (exhibition catalogue
in Chinese and English) (Taipei, 1979), nos. 71, 76, 80; Palace Museum, p. 380, no. 61.
43. L. Ledderose, ‘Chinese Influence on European Art, Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries’,
T. Lee, ed., China and Europe: Images and Influences in Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries
(Hong Kong, 1991) pp. 221–49 emphasises the distinctions between categories of ritual
and export objects.
Plates
32. Ewer with the arms of peers, porcelain with overglaze enamel decoration and gilding,
c. 1730.
33. Porcelain dish, depicting characters from the novel Shuihu zhuan (The Water Margin),
c. 1700.
34. Chair cover, silk and gold thread kesi tapestry weave, eighteenth century.
35. Silk panel, embroidered in satin stitch, eighteenth century.
36. Cope with dragon embroidery.
15
Luxury, Clothing and Race in
Colonial Spanish America
Rebecca Earle
It may be said without exaggeration, that the finest stuffs made in countries,
where industry is always inventing something new, are more generally seen in
Lima than in any other place; vanity and ostentation not being restrained by
custom or law.1
With this grand overstatement the Spanish travellers Jorge Juan and Antonio
de Ulloa summed up their account of fashion in 1740s Lima. Dress in the capital
of colonial Peru, according to these men, differed from that of Europe only in its
extravagance. European goods and clothing, they insisted, were widely available,
which allowed the ladies of Lima to indulge their immoderate taste for Flemish
lace and pearls, to the ruination of their husbands. Such was these women’s
passion for finery that they often succumbed to uterine cancer, brought on, the
travellers were certain, by ‘their excessive use of perfumes’.2 Moreover, mid-
eighteenth-century Lima was, in the eyes of Juan and Ulloa, a city of sartorial
democracy:
Nor is the distinction between the several classes very great, for the use of all
sorts of cloth being allowed, everyone wears what he can purchase. So that it
is not uncommon to see a mulatto, or any other mechanic, dressed in a tissue
equal to anything that can be worn by a more opulent person, they all greatly
affect fine clothes.3
Juan and Ulloa paint a striking picture of colonial Spanish America as a land awash
with European luxury products (‘stuffs made in countries where industry is always
inventing something new’), and where the use of fine clothing was not controlled
by any sort of legal restriction (‘vanity and ostentation not being restrained by
custom or law’). Neither feature accords very well with current understanding of
either eighteenth-century Spanish American trade or Bourbon colonial legislation,
and it would be easy to dismiss Juan and Ulloa’s account as mere hyperbole.4
Certainly the extravagance of colonial costume seems for Juan and Ulloa to have
served as a metaphor for the unrestrained corruption that they considered typical
of creole government in Spain’s American colonies.
219
220 Rebecca Earle
Readers of this book will by now be familiar with the use of luxurious con-
sumption as a metaphor for political and moral corruption. Nor did the Spanish
travellers Juan and Ulloa need to resort to the writings of English and French
philosophers to make use of this imagery. In Spain, as elsewhere in eighteenth-
century Europe, writers analysed the concept of lujo, or ‘luxury’, and debated
whether luxury provided an essential stimulus to the economy, or whether it led
to corruption, effemination, and, ultimately, damnation. Works such as Juan
Sempere y Guarinos, Historia del lujo y de las leyes suntuarias en España (1788)
stressed the beneficial aspects of the luxury trades, while others, such as José
Cadalso’s 1789 imitation of the Lettres persanes, worried that excessive consump-
tion, particularly of foreign goods, would weaken the nation. Cadalso’s Moroccan
traveller Gazel observed, in language not unlike that of Rousseau:
Examine the history of all nations, and you will see that the authority of each
has rested on custom. On this strong base they have grown, from this growth
has come abundance, this abundance has produced luxury, from luxury has
followed effemination, effemination gives birth to weakness, and from weak-
ness has come ruin.5
It would be easy, then, to interpret Juan and Ulloa’s description of Limeño luxury
as nothing more than an exotic setting for a familiar debate; a Peruvian response
to the Fable of the Bees. But to do this would be to overlook a further dimension
to Juan and Ulloa’s account that was largely absent from the European discussion
of luxury. This is the role of race. In their account Juan and Ulloa stressed that
the uniform use of fine clothing in Lima made it was difficult to distinguish not
only between different social classes but also between different races: ‘It is not
uncommon to see a mulatto, or any other mechanic, dressed in a tissue equal to
anything that can be worn by a more opulent person.’ The remainder of this
chapter will explore the relationship between luxurious clothing and race in colo-
nial Spanish America.
Juan and Ulloa were not alone in viewing Spain’s American colonies as a land
of widespread sartorial luxury. European travellers from the seventeenth and eigh-
teenth centuries lingered over descriptions of luxurious colonial dress, particularly
in Mexico City and Lima, the two most important viceregal capitals in Spanish
America. ‘Of all the parts of the world, the people here are most expensive in their
habit,’ reported the British marine captain William Betagh of 1720s Lima.6 The
clothing of the elite was said to be festooned with jewels: the ladies of Lima had
‘an insatiable appetite for pearls and jewels, for bracelets, earrings and other para-
phernalia, which saps the wealth of husbands and lovers. We have seen ladies
who wear sixty thousand pesos worth of jewels on their person,’ claimed the
French traveller Amédée Frézier.7 ‘Both men and women are excessive in their
apparel, using more silks than stuffs and cloth . . . A hatband and rose made of
diamonds in a gentleman’s hat is common, and a hat-band of pearls is ordinary
in a tradesman,’ observed the English priest Thomas Gage nearly a century earlier.8
Luxury, Clothing and Race 221
As this latter quotation suggests, in these accounts it is not the elite alone who
wear such finery. The poor, mixed-race population is also described as dressing
with extraordinary elegance and expense:
A blackamoor or tawny young maid and slave will make hard shift, but she
will be in fashion with her neck-chain and bracelets of pearls, and her ear-bobs
of some considerable jewels . . . The attire of this baser sort of people of black-
amoors and mulattoes . . . is so light, and their carriage so enticing, that many
Spaniards even of the better sort (who are too prone to venery) disdain their
wives for them
sighed an infatuated Gage.9 The Mexican chronicler Juan de Viera likewise claimed
that in Mexico City ‘the Indian women who trade in the plaza regard it as
fashionable to wear a necklace with six or eight strings of pearls and coral, many
reliquaries, and rings of gold, silver and red gold’.10 The slaves of wealthy women,
acting as extensions of the bodies of their owners, display similar finery. Mulata
slaves in Chile, claimed English sailor John Byron, ‘dressed almost as well . . .
excepting jewels’ as their mistresses.11 In Cartagena, slave women strolled through
the streets adorned with golden necklaces and earrings, strings of pearls and silken
shawls, alleged one eighteenth-century Spanish friar.12 (See Plate 37.)
Overall, the image presented in such seventeenth- and eighteenth-century
accounts is one of luxury, wealth and successful emulation. All races and classes
effect elegant garb, as Mexico city’s inhabitant Agustín de Vetancurt, noted in
1698:
The beauty of [Mexico City] is in its inhabitants, because of their elegance and
cleanliness . . . The poorest woman has her pearls and jewels, and considers
herself unhappy if she does not have her gold jewellery to wear on holidays
. . . Great is the elegance and lustre . . . it is greatness, but whoever was to see
everyone together, not making distinctions between the rich noble or gentle-
man, and the artisan, would think it impolitic, but it is the glory of this
country, which inspires majesty, aggrandises humble hearts, and annihilates
wretched conditions.13
Sartorial emulation, such accounts stressed, was neither impractical nor

doomed to failure. Instead, dressing luxuriously was presented as both easy and
successful. A well-dressed mestiza or mulata might be viewed with moral disap-
proval, but she was generally acknowledged to be appealing, perhaps all too
appealing, as Thomas Gage’s remarks suggest. In this these descriptions contrast
markedly with the accounts of nineteenth-century European and American
travellers. Nineteenth-century travellers generally disdained attempts by the
non-white population to dress well as ludicrous failures. The comments of the
American abolitionists Thome and Kimball on the costume of Black women in
Antigua are typical:
222 Rebecca Earle
Their dresses were in every colour and style, their hats were of all shapes and
sizes, and fillagreed with the most tawdry superfluity of ribbons. Beneath their
gaudy bonnets were glossy ringlets, false and real, clustering in tropical luxu-
riance. This fantastic display was evidently a rude attempt to follow the
example set them by the white aristocracy.14
For Thome and Kimball these Antiguan women have clearly failed in their ‘rude
attempt’ to emulate white dress, and their fine clothes are certainly not viewed
as a sign of ‘greatness’. On the contrary, by the 1820s ‘gaudy’ had become the
term most typically used to describe luxurious Ibero-American dress.15
Fine clothing, particularly when worn by the non-white population, came in
the nineteenth century to signify something quite different from its eighteenth-
century meaning. It had ceased to ‘inspire majesty, aggrandise humble hearts, and
annihilate wretched conditions’, as it had in 1698. This change in the meaning
of non-white luxury mirrors the significant shift in scientific understandings of
the origins of racial difference, and indeed of the very meaning of race. Enlight-
enment theories such as those of the Comte de Buffon and Johann Friedrich
Blumenbach had emphasised that race was the consequence of the effects of cli-
mate, food and culture. For eighteenth-century philosophers skin colour was thus
in part a function of culture (including dress) and environment.16 The centrality
of clothing, in particular, in designating race is illustrated by Carl Linnaeus’s
classification of homo sapiens into five racial types:
1. Wild man. Four-footed, mute, hairy.

2. American. Copper-coloured, choleric, erect. Hair black, straight, thick; nostrils
wide; face harsh; beard, scanty; obstinate, content, free. Paints himself with fine
red lines. Regulated by customs.
3. European. Fair, sanguine, brawny. Hair yellow brown, flowing; eyes blue; gentle,
acute, inventive. Covered with close vestments. Governed by laws.
4. Asiatic. Sooty, melancholy, rigid. Hair black; eyes dark; severe, haughty,
covetous. Covered with loose garments. Governed by opinions.
5. African. Black, phlegmatic, relaxed. Hair black, frizzled; skin silky; nose flat; lips
tumid; crafty, indolent, negligent. Anoints himself with grease. Governed by
caprice.17
Eighteenth-century scientific opinion thus regarded clothing as a racial char-

acteristic. Such views fit well with the concepts of race employed in colonial
Spanish America. There, racial categories reflected not only skin colour, but also
the level of wealth, and more importantly, the culture with which the individual
identified. The transformative potential of emulation was thus an integral part
of colonial Spanish American racial classifications.18 In lawsuits individuals might
seek to establish their race by demonstrating that they wore the clothing appro-
priate to their claimed status; when in 1686 Blas de Horta tried to demonstrate
that he was not an Indian, he did not summon his parents. Rather, he produced
a witness to affirm that he wore ‘Spanish dress’.19 Thus a mixed-race woman
dressed in elegant European clothing truly belonged to a different racial group

from the same woman dressed in rags. In fine clothes she might be confirmed
in her identity as a mestiza; in rags she might become a parda, or another less
regarded race.20 For this reason ‘the lowest class of Spaniards are very ambitious
of distinguishing themselves from [mestizos], either by the colour or fashion of
the clothes,’ as Juan and Ulloa observed.21 This sort of racial self-reclassification
through clothing was complemented in the Hispanic world by a complex legal
system which allowed individuals to permanently change their race through the
acquisition of legal documents confirming the desired racial identity. Processes
known as gracias al sacar and autos sobre declaratoria de mestizo, available through-
out the eighteenth century, entitled their owners to alter their racial identity,
thereby allowing access to careers and activities open only to legitimately born
individuals of ‘clean’ blood.22
It is for this reason that the colonial Americas retained sumptuary legislation
for centuries after such laws had been discarded in Europe. Sumptuary laws – leg-
islation designed to control excessive display, particularly through the regulation
of clothing – are employed only in cultures which consider it possible to disguise
one’s status via clothing. In the Americas sumptuary legislation was considered
necessary during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries precisely in order to
control the sorts of unsanctioned personal transformation via dress discussed
above. Sumptuary legislation had been discarded in most parts of Europe by the
seventeenth century, but reached its heyday in the American colonies only in the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, precisely the period when, as we saw, it
was considered possible, even easy, for non-elites to successfully imitate elite dress.
The significance of such laws for our purposes thus lies in the attitudes they
suggest towards clothing and identity, rather than in their enforcement, which
was limited.23
Sumptuary legislation in the Americas, as in Europe, attempted to control the
clothing worn by different classes of person, but the American codes also tried to
preserve distinctions between different races, a feature that was largely absent in
the European legislation. In sixteenth-century Mexico, black women were banned
from wearing gold, pearls, silk or other luxurious goods, unless they were married
to a Spaniard, and were similarly prohibited from wearing Indian garb unless
married to an Indian. Most Indian women were at the same time banned from
adopting Spanish dress.24 In seventeenth-century Lima city ordinances banned
‘negroes, mulattos and zambos’ from carrying swords or other weapons, and black
and mulatto women from wearing ‘woollen cloth . . . cloth of silk, [or] lace of gold,
silver, black or white’.25 Comparable laws were passed in eighteenth-century Peru
aimed at ‘moderating the scandalous excesses of the clothing worn by blacks,
mulatos, Indians and mestizos’.26 In eighteenth-century Brazil, white colonials
repeatedly asked the Portuguese Crown to legislate against the perceived excesses
of coloured dress, while in the French colony of Saint Domingue sumptuary
legislation specifically banned free people of colour from the ‘reprehensible
imitation’ of the clothing, jewellery and hairstyles worn by whites. Free people of
colour were instead required to dress in accordance with ‘the simplicity of their
224 Rebecca Earle
condition’.27 The eighteenth-century Spanish slave code for Santo Domingo sim-
ilarly prohibited both slaves and free people of colour from wearing ‘pearls, emer-
alds, and other precious stones’, and, equally significantly, prohibited them from
wearing the Spanish mantilla in place of the African head-cloth.28 Comparable
legislation was issued for the Dutch Caribbean islands in 1786.29
Such laws aimed at preserving the distinctions between white and coloured
dress were accompanied by laws intending to preserve class distinctions that sur-
vived well into the eighteenth century. Indeed, such legislation first appeared in
Britain’s American colonies in the 1620s, nearly two decades after all sumptuary
laws had been comprehensively revoked in England itself.30 In Spanish America,
legislation aimed at the ‘common people who without having sufficient wealth
wish to dress like the wealthy’ was issued regularly until the end of the eighteenth
century.31 In 1773, for example, the president of Chile’s Audiencia ordered that
at Carnival ‘no person may use a costume that does not correspond to his estate,
sex and quality’, so as to avoid ‘serious inconveniences’.32
It was only in the nineteenth century, after the overthrow of Spanish colo-
nialism, that such laws were discarded in Spanish America. They were discarded
because they ceased to be necessary: it was no longer considered possible to alter
one’s race via luxurious dress. On the contrary, as we have seen, attempts by non-
whites to dress well were regarded as ludicrous failures. Legislation was no longer
necessary to control such transparent deceits. The nineteenth-century abandon-
ment of sumptuary laws thus sheds additional light on the nature of biologised
racial theories emphasising the inherited, inflexible, nature of perceived racial
characteristics. In Spanish America, changing scientific thinking combined with
the official abolition of racial categories, which occurred in many countries after
independence from Spain, to make inconceivable the legal alterations of race
permitted in the eighteenth century. Racial categories were thus simultaneously
abandoned legally and strengthened socially and scientifically in nineteenth-
century Spanish America. Mid-nineteenth-century French anthropologist Alcides
d’Orbigny’s racialised description of ‘American Man’ contrasts sharply with
Linnaeus’s eighteenth-century account:
AMERICAN MAN
First Race: ANDO-PERUVIAN: Olive-brown colour, more or less dark. Short
stature. Forehead only slightly elevated or receding; horizontal eyes, never
narrow at the outer corner.
Second Race: PAMPAS-DWELLER: Olive-brown colour. Stature often of very
great. Forehead convex and non-receding; horizontal eyes, sometimes
narrow at the outer corner.
Third Race: BRAZILIAN-GUARANI: Yellowish colour. Medium stature. Forehead
slightly convex; eyes slanting upwards at the outer corner.33
Dress, along with forms of government, has disappeared from this typical
nineteenth-century racial classification. Clothing was no longer considered a
racial characteristic. As a consequence, a mixed-race woman in fine clothes be-
came simply a jumped-up half-caste. No longer was she the elegant, silk-clad crea-
ture of Thomas Gage’s account, whose seductive gaze enticed married Spaniards
to their doom. The disdain for well-dressed people of colour in the Americas is
thus symptomatic of the hardening of racial categories and of the changing
meaning of luxury in the nineteenth century. ‘Clothes make the man’ is not a
nineteenth-century sentiment, at least as far as racial identity was concerned.
Acknowledgement
I would like to thank Sheena Boa, John Gilmore, Gad Heuman, Steiner Saether,
Guy Thomson and Dror Wahrman, who offered many suggestions and sources,
and Maxine Berg for inviting me to speak at the Warwick Luxury Project’s winter
2000 workshop.
Notes
1. Jorge Juan and Antonio de Ulloa, A Voyage to South America [1806 John Adams transla-
tion] (New York, 1964), p. 196.
2. Ibid., pp. 196 and 214.
3. Ibid., p. 196.
4. For eighteenth-century trade, see John Fisher, Relaciones económicas entre España y
América hasta la independencia (Madrid, 1992); and for Bourbon social legislation, see,
inter alia, Juan Pedro Viqueira Albán, Propriety and Permissiveness in Bourbon Mexico,
Sonya Lipsett-Rivera and Sergio Rivera Ayala (trans.) (Wilmington, 1999).
5. See José Cadalso, Cartas Marruecas [1789] (Madrid, 1950); and Juan Sempere y
Guarinos, Historia del luxo y de las leyes suntuarias de España, 2 vols (Madrid, 1788). The
quotation is from Cadalso, Cartas Marruecas, pp. 168–9. Juan Rico, ‘Criptoburgesía y
cambio económico en la Ilustración española’, Cuadernos Hispanoamericanos, vol. 408
(1984), provides an excellent overview of the Spanish luxury debates.
6. William Betagh, A Voyage Round the World, being an Account of a Remarkable Enterprise
begun in the Year 1719 (London, 1728), p. 266.
7. Amadeo Frézìer, Relación del viaje por el mar del sur [1716] (Caracas, 1982), p. 191 (see
also pp. 219–22).
8. Thomas Gage, Travels in the New World [1648] (Norman, 1958), p. 68.
9. Ibid., p. 68 (or see p. 73).
10. Juan de Viera, ‘Breve Compendiosa, Narración de la ciudad de Mexico, corte y cabeza
de toda la America Meridional’ [1778], in Agustín de Vetancurt, Juan Manuel de
San Vicente and Juan de Viera, La ciudad de Mexico en el siglo XVIII (1690–1780): Tres
crónicas (Mexico, 1990), p. 256.
11. John Byron, Byron’s Narrative, containing an Account of the Great Distresses Suffered by
Himself, and his Companions on the Coasts of Patagonia from the Year 1740 till their Arrival
in England, 1746 (Belfast, 1844), p. 107.
12. Fray Juan de Santa Gertrudis Serra, Maravillas de la naturaleza, 2 vols (Bogotá, 1956), vol.
1, p. 43.
13. Agustín de Vetancurt, ‘Tratado de la Cuidad de Mexico y las Grandezas que la ilustran
despues que la fundaron españoles’ [1698], in Vetancurt, San Vicente and Viera, La
ciudad de Mexico en el siglo XVIII, pp. 46–7.
14. Jas. A. Thome and J. Horace Kimball, Emancipation in the West Indies. A Six Month’s Tour
in Antigua, Barbados and Jamaica in the Year 1837 (New York, 1838), p. 8. For other exam-
ples, see Charles Stuart Cochrane, Journal of a Residence and Travels in Colombia during
the Years 1823 and 1824 [1825], 2 vols (New York, 1971), vol. 2, pp. 88–9; Captain G.F.
226 Rebecca Earle
Lyon, Journal of a Residence and Tour in the Republic of Mexico in the Year 1826 [1828], 2
vols (Port Washington, 1971), vol. 1, pp. 106, 202, vol. 2, pp. 235–6; John Luccock, Rio
de Janeiro and the Southern Parts of Brazil taken during a Residence of Ten Years in that
Country from 1808 to 1818 (London, 1820), p. 190; and Isaac Holton, New Granada:
Twenty Months in the Andes [1856] (Carbondale, 1967), pp. 192–3.
15. For representative examples, see Cochrane, Journal of a Residence and Travels in
Colombia, vol. 2, pp. 88–9, 119; Joel Roberts Poinsett, Notes on Mexico Made in the Autumn
of 1822 (New York, 1969), pp. 48, 52, 77; Edward Thornton Tayloe, Mexico, 1825–1828.
The Journals and Correspondence of Edward Thornton Tayloe, C. Harvey Gardiner ed.
(Chapel Hill, 1959), p. 40; and Lyon, Journal of a Residence and Tour in the Republic of
Mexico, vol. 2, p. 235.
16. See Georges Louis Leclerc de Buffon, ‘Variétés dans l’Espèce Humaine’, Oeuvres Complètes
[1749+], 6 vols (Paris, 1859), vol. 3, pp. 268–325. For comments on eighteenth-century
racial theories, see Stephen Jay Gould, Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History
(London, 1973); Londa Schiebinger, Nature’s Body. Sexual Politics and the Making of
Modern Science (London, 1993); Anne McClintock, Imperial Leather. Race, Gender and
Sexuality in the Colonial Contest (New York, 1995); and Kenan Malik, The Meaning of Race.
Race, History and Culture in Western Society (London, 1996).
17. Sir Charles Linné, A General System of Nature through the Three Grand Kingdoms of Animals,
Vegetables and Minerals, 7 vols (London, 1806), vol. 1, p. 9. Linnaeus developed and
revised his Systema Naturae from 1735 until his death in 1778.
18. A good starting point for exploring the meaning of race in Spanish America is Peter
Wade, Race and Ethnicity in Latin America (London, 1997).
19. Martin Minchom, The People of Quito: 1690–1810: Change and Unrest in the Underclass
(Boulder, 1994), pp. 158, 190.
20. For very clear examples, see Jaime Jaramillo Uribe, Ensayos sobre historia social colom-
biana (Bogotá, 1969), pp. 195, 211.
21. Juan and Ulloa, A Voyage to South America, p. 137.
22. For gracias al sacar and autos sobre declaratoria de mestizo, see Minchom, The People of
Quito, pp. 158–70; and Ann Twinam, Public Lives, Private Secrets: Gender, Honor, Sexual-
ity and Illegitimacy in Colonial Spanish America (Stanford, 1999).
23. For discussion of sumptuary laws in Europe, see Francis Elizabeth Baldwin, Sumptuary
Legislation and Personal Regulation in England (Baltimore, 1926); James Laver, The Concise
History of Costume and Fashion (New York, 1969), p. 72; Michael and Ariane Batterberry,
Mirror Mirror: A Social History of Fashion (New York, 1977), pp. 49–50; Alan Hunt, Gover-
nance of the Consuming Passions. A History of Sumptuary Law (London, 1996); and Daniel
Roche, The Culture of Clothing. Dress and Fashion in the ‘Ancien Régime’ (Cambridge, 1996).
Sumptuary laws were retained in Spain and Portugal well into the eighteenth century,
far longer than elsewhere in Europe. See Martin A.S. Hume, ‘A Fight against Finery (A
History of the Sumptuary Laws in Spain)’, in Ten Years after the Armada and Other His-
torical Studies (London, 1896); Mary Elizabeth Perry, Gender and Disorder in Early Modern
Spain (Princeton, 1990), p. 48; Cecelia Salinas, Las Chilenas de la Colonia. virtud sumisa,
amor rebelde (Santiago, 1994); and Silvia Hunold Lara, ‘The Signs of Color: Women’s
Dress and Racial Relations in Salvador and Rio de Janeiro, ca 1750–1815’, Colonial Latin
American Review, vol. 6:2 (1997).
24. Julia Tuñón Pablos, Women in Mexico. A Past Unveiled, Alan Hynds (trans.) (Austin, 1999),
pp. 26–8. See also Gonzalo Aquirre Beltrán, ‘The Integration of the Negro into the
National Society of Mexico’, Magnus Mörner, ed., Race and Class in Latin America (New
York, 1970), p. 24.
25. Josephe and Francisco Mugaburu, Chronicle of Colonial Lima. The Diary of Josephe and
Francisco Mugaburu, 1640–1697, Robert Miller (trans.) (Norman, 1975), pp. 32, 59, 82–3,
124, 217.
26. R.C. aprobando un bando del Virrey del Peru para moderar el exceso en los trajes que
vestían los negros, mulatos, indios y mestizos, San Ildefonso, 7 September 1725, in
Richard Konetzke, ed., Colección de Documentos para la Historia de la Formación Social

de Hispanoamérica, 1493–1810, 3 vols (Madrid, 1962), vol. 3:1, p. 187. See also R.C. al
presidente de la Audiencia de Guadalajara sobre que observe las ordenes y leyes que
prohiben traer armas los indios, mestizos, negros y mulatos, Madrid, 30 Dec. 1692;
and Pragmática contra el abuso de trajes y otros gastos superfluos, Madrid, 10 Feb. 1716;
in Konetzke, ed., Colección de Documentos, vol. 3:1, p. 27, pp. 124–34, respectively.
27. Lara, ‘The Signs of Colour’; and Réglament provisoire des Administrateurs, concernant
le Luxe des Gens de couleur, 9 February 1779, in Médéric-Louis-Élie Moreau de Saint-
Méry, Loix et Constitutions des Colonies Françoises de l’Amérique sous le vent, 6 vols (Paris,
1784–90), vol. 5, pp. 855–6.
28. Extracto del Código Negro Carolino, Santo Domingo, 14 March 1785, in Konetzke, ed.,
Colección de Documentos, vol. 3:2, p. 562. See also Médéric-Louis-Élie Moreau de Saint-
Méry, Descripción de la parte española de Santo Domingo [1796] (Ciudad Trujillo, 1944),
p. 93.
29. Neville Hall, Slave Society in the Danish West Indies: St. Thomas, St. John and St. Croix, ed.
B.W. Higman (Baltimore, 1992), pp. 116, 148–9.
30. For comment on this, see Hunt, Governance of the Consuming Passions, p. 38.
31. The quotation is from a 1648 appeal by the Audiencia of Chile (Salinas, Las Chilenas de
la Colonia, p. 114).
32. Salinas, Las Chilenas de la Colonia, p. 115. See also pp. 125–6.
33. Alcide D’Orbigny, L’Homme Américain (de l’Amérique méridionale), considéré sous ses
rapports physiologiques et moraux, 2 vols. (Paris and Strasbourg, 1839), vol. 1, pp. 245–9.
Plate
37. Vicente Albán, ‘Distinguished Lady with her Black Slave’, Quito School, 1783.
16
Asian Luxuries and the Making of the
European Consumer Revolution
Maxine Berg
Introduction
The entry of Asian manufactured goods into Europe in the early modern period
takes us to the heart of two debates: the debate during that period on luxury, and
the debate during our own recent times on Orientalism. For the products of the
East, both foodstuffs and manufactured goods, were desired in Europe because
they were ‘Oriental’, that is to say strange, exotic, other. Trade with the Orient
was seen in terms of the senses – colour, texture, smell and taste. Luxury was con-
flated with sensuality and foreignness.
The exotic East had, however, long been perceived over the course of the
medieval and early modern period through seeing objects – fabrics, carpets,
ceramics, furnishings, jewels, colours, patterns and ornament. Indeed, back to even
earlier periods in other parts of Eurasia, China was called ‘Serica’ to correspond
with the Chinese word ‘si’ for silk, of ‘China’ derived from the Chinese word ‘ci’
for ceramics.1 Eastern goods retained a sense of luxury and difference. These eastern
commodities were, however, prefabricated in much the same way as was discourse.
They were a construct of the market, seeming to represent the lives and values of
the East, but constructed to meet European preconceptions of eastern art.
Europeans had a long acquaintance with Oriental luxury goods. Fine tableware
in ceramics, glass and silver was, in Renaissance Italy, a sign of civility, and princes,
aristocrats and wealthy merchants displayed Oriental porcelain among their
domestic possessions. The Merchant of Prato in the fourteenth century, though a
man of great wealth, had relatively basic domestic possessions, but these included
ceramics, glass and silver. By the mid-fifteenth century Cardinal Gonzaga was
famed for his collection of treasures and the opulence which marked him as
a figure of magnificence and authority; he held in his inventory sumptuous arti-
cles of clothing in ‘the Turkish style’, and damasks, velvets and brocades ‘from
Alexandria’.2 Two hundred years later Asian goods were still exotic. Paris shops in
1644 sold ‘objects of Lachinage’ as a part of collections of curiosities. John Evelyn
reported, ‘among the Houses is a shop called Noah’s Ark, where are to be sold all
sorts of Curiositys, naturall & artificial, for the furniture of Cabinets, Pictures and
Collections, as of Purcelane, China . . . Shells, Ivory, Ebony: birds, dryed Fishes,
228
Asian Luxuries and the Making of the European Consumer Revolution 229
Insects:, etc. of more Luxury than Use.’3 But the trade in Oriental consumer goods
was to take on whole new dimensions with the extension of maritime trade and
the founding of the East India Companies early in the seventeenth century. This
trade was to change the material culture of Europe, bringing with it new objects,
colours, patterns and finishes.
Oriental commodities were profoundly attractive; once the possibilities of their
possession moved beyond princes and aristocrats, there seemed no stopping the
expansion of trade. Apart from the objects themselves, there was enormous fas-
cination with the exotic skills and production processes behind the materials,
colours and patterns otherwise undiscovered in Europe. There was a fascination
with the refinement and civility of the East, and an admiration for the technical
wizardry – the ease in producing materials so precious and objects so finely crafted.
For these eastern commodities were not the products of long-accumulated skills
and artistic genius of the individual craftsman. They were processes involving
large-scale production, division of labour and specialisation, and commercializa-
tion and adaptability to the diversity of global markets.
First, the attraction of Oriental goods in Europe was in their perception as luxu-
ries. We thus need to see the objects which reached the West from the seven-
teenth century onwards as ‘constructs’; they formed a part of the European luxury
debates. Asian luxury was ‘Persian’ or ‘Oriental’. There was the Enlightenment
belief that while the West had progressed, the Islamic world was in decline. Persian
luxury and the Orient was associated with excess, the sensual and seduction. The
luxury of the East might bring corruption, a loss of identity, falsity and effemi-
nacy. But China was somewhat differently perceived. China was associated not
with sensuality and excess, but with ethics, harmony and virtue. China and Con-
fucius inspired Leibniz, then Voltaire and the Encyclopedists to perceive through
the prism of Chinese objects their own aspirations to human elegance and refine-
ment. In possessing things Chinese, they sought to access levels of civilisation
beyond the market.4
The classic ancient luxury import from Asia to Europe was silk, but it was to
be the relatively new imports of calicoes, porcelain and lacquered ware whose
popularity and extensive trade in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was
to have the greatest impact of European, and especially British industry. These
latter commodities were not perceived to be high luxuries like gold and silver
objects or jewellery, or even silk, nor were they base goods for a mass market.
They were not like the luxuries which had dominated the old commodities trade
in spices, perfumes and groceries. The calicoes, porcelain, lacquerwares and other
ornamental goods imported in quantities from Asia in the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries retained the exotic qualities that enhanced their desirability,
but as manufactures they were also to have a profound effect on European
consumption patterns and production processes.
These were special luxuries – they were part of a group of objects that ‘imi-
tated’ or mimicked gold and silver in a cross-cultural transmission. It was this
quality of ‘imitation’ which gave rise to the Asian luxury goods trade, and also to
the European consumer goods manufacture which succeeded it. An imitative
230 Maxine Berg
material was a source of wonder, and taste became a new means of displaying
prestige. The Portuguese delegate at the Council of Trent in 1562, shocked at the
array of gold and silver on the papal table, recommended porcelain from China
– ‘far superior to silver in elegance and neatness’; ‘its lustre surpassing both crystal
and alabaster, while its relative low price compensated for its fragility’.5 Renais-
sance Italian city states, and especially Venice built on the role of taste in dis-
playing prestige – the consumption of new luxury goods made from relatively
inexpensive materials, such as glass and maiolica, opened new markets for con-
sumers. Glass had a special quality in its capacity to imitate other more precious
materials such as precious stones and crystal; special value was placed on the
beauty, variety and craftsmanship of the object.6
The use of these new materials, and their production and trade on a signifi-
cant level depended on levels of wealth and the possession of some of this wealth
in non-elite mercantile and bourgeois groups. Such conditions had previously
appeared in Song China, ancient Athens and Renaissance Italy. It depended on
customs of civility and taste ranging from the Greek Symposia to the fifteenth-
century Italian civility at table with its glass, maiolica, cutlery and silver. These
conditions were to reappear again in late seventeenth and eighteenth-century
Europe with a parallel context of the English tea table.7
These imitative processes at the heart of the cross-cultural transmission of
luxury were also the processes that generated product innovation in Europe,
and the technological innovation to carry this into an Industrial Revolution.
European imitation of Oriental luxury created new products, but also sought to
convey the taste for the original.
Oriental luxury, perceived from the perspective of technically advanced
and refined consumer objects became incorporated into a new modern luxury.
Montesquieu, Hume and Smith wrote of luxury as an aspect of people’s desire to
better themselves. Luxury could be tamed in refined living and building culture
in a well-governed state. Commercial writers were keen to point out what the
West could learn from the Orient.
Porcelain, one of the major entries in the Encyclopédie and Postelthwayt’s Uni-
versal Dictionary of Trade and Commerce was based on the Jesuit chronicle of the
overseas missions, and the reports of Father d’Entrecolles written in 1712 and on
the ‘History of Feou-lean’. The entry was revised, translated and reprinted in many
of Europe’s great commercial dictionaries and encyclopedias. Great admiration
was expressed for the secret art, and the huge scale and division of labour on
which it was practised.
Postlethwayt’s entry on the Mechanical Arts in his Universal Dictionary of Trade
and Commerce praised those arts of Bengal, China and Japan. Of Bengal he wrote,
‘The artizans here have wonderful skill and dexterity; they excel particularly in
making linen cloth, which is of such fineness, that very long and broad pieces of
it may easily be drawn through a small ring . . .’ The Chinese ‘gild paper with leaf
gold and silver, laid on with a very good sort of varnish they have, which is the
same wherewith they varnish their lacquered wares . . . they also gild paper and
weave it into their silks.’
‘Among the Japanese, they have the art of making lacca in a manner superior
to the Europeans . . . The colours wherewith they dye their stuffs never fade . . .’
And finally, ‘Upon the whole, in whatever mechanical or manufactured arts
other nations may excel Great Britain, our artists should be upon the watch, not
only to imitate, but surpass if possible. Those which are imported, and which they
can see, handle and minutely examine, they are the most like to imitate or excel.
As we have arrived at a great perfection in the China ware, why may we not in
divers other eastern arts and manufactures?’8
By the time of the arts and crafts movement in Europe in the 1880s this
manufacturing superiority came to be perceived as separated off from the market,
as the result of a level of civilization beyond the market. It was believed that
in China and Japan the skilled workman was respectfully received by a prince,
while the richest merchants would be beneath his notice.9 But in the eighteenth
century, it was commerce as well as craft that Europeans sought to replicate.
There is another absolutely vital factor that the new Asian luxuries touched;
this was fashion and design styles. The new luxuries came to Europe precisely at
the time when styles diffused rapidly across Europe, and indeed became centred
on France, and when fashion came to play a major part across the social classes.
The new flowered fabric provided surprise and novelty, and were reconfigured and
re-elaborated in silk fabrics. Art and design styles shifted from the baroque of Louis
XIV towards the lighter, more playful and asymmetrical rococo, or ‘le gout
moderne’. The rococo contained all the elements of novelty, surprise and variety
so central to contemporary aesthetics. It was developed for interiors, furnishings,
ornament, graphic design and art as well as fabric design, and hence had an
incredibly wide impact. The Oriental styles were a breath of fresh air, and so easily
mixed with other designs, and were so adaptable to innovation as to produce a
new chinoiserie.
The gout moderne was associated with the new bourgoisie in France. It was an
assault on the social and political prerogatives of the nobility; as a new style it
brought together commercial and cultural modernity. French furniture makers
used exotic woods, and drew on oriental motifs and lacquer techniques to evoke
China and Japan. They valorised the novel with a virtuoso display of new world
and eastern material along with new fragile and light forms decorated with new
techniques in veneers and marquetry.10
Asian consumer cultures
Europe discovered Eastern luxury via the Portuguese trade. Lisbon was the centre
for Eastern curiosities. The Portuguese and Spanish found contact with China
via trade from the Malaccas to the Philippines where Chinese ships came with
silk, cotton, porcelain and curios, and on to Mexico and Brazil. And as we know
they gained access to Nagasaki in the 1570s. There were Dutch and Portuguese
factories on Hirado Island and Nagasaki Harbour by 1609. The Portuguese
continued to control direct trade with China until the end of the seventeenth
century. Oriental goods, including porcelain was traded from here through the
232 Maxine Berg
great fairs and cities of Europe, and collected by Europe’s elite for their cabinets
of curiosities.
Britain gained access to the trade in this luxury through the marriage of
Catherine of Braganza and Charles II in 1662. This brought to England the ports
of Tangiers and Bombay, and Charles introduced to the English a stylish way of
living. This did not include at this stage a widespread taste for Oriental luxury.
This taste was spread by the Dutch when the Oriental emporium of Europe shifted
from Lisbon to Amsterdam.11 The ships which brought such vast amounts of
exotic luxury goods from across the world opened European eyes to more
advanced and elegant ways of living, indeed to consumer cultures just now begin-
ning in Europe. In China, just as in Europe the dynamics of human consumption
changed in response to changes in income and shifts in taste. An active consumer
culture and highly commercialised economy provided the vital supports for the
trade in export wares to Europe.12
What were the commercial and manufacturing characteristics of Asian con-
sumer societies? What particular expertise did China, Japan and India acquire in
internationally traded consumer and luxury goods? What did western observers,
merchants and manufacturers learn from these, and how did they adapt them to
their own purposes?
China had long experience of extensive commercialisation and integration into
the international economy. It made prodigious technological progress during the
Song-Yuan period (960–1368), so much so that Chinese historians have argued
for close comparability between eleventh-century China and early eighteenth-
century Europe. Ironmakers used coke in blast furnaces for smelting by the
eleventh century, and fed a rapidly expanding demand for iron for weapons, farm
implements, iron currency and especially for industry. A water-powered spinning
machine was invented for use on hemp. State industries developed large work-
shops alongside a whole range of specialised private manufactures. A wide range
of consumer goods, most designed for popular markets, was available to rapidly
expanding urban populations.13
China and Japan were also highly urbanised societies. By the Ming dynasty
(1368–1644) there were 45,000 market towns in China, each of which affected
15–20 villages. Japan under the Tokogawa shogunate in the seventeenth century
had 160 places of over 5,000, and a big increase in really large cities – Edo grew
from a fishing village to a million by the eighteenth century.
And the market was facilitated by extensive canal development. The merchant
and industrial groups grew more prosperous. The state for a short time attempted
to curb the extravagance of once humble classes with sumptuary laws, but they
proved unenforceable.14 The extensive urban centres of the Indian Ocean took
their life from the substantial presence of merchants, long-distance trade and
artisan production.
There was extensive development of the middle market during the Ming and
Qing dynasties. There were not enough official positions to go around, and the
newly rich patronised the arts. There were a lot of people in the market for high
quality goods. This meant product differentiation in products like ceramics and
silk which were otherwise either imperial ware, or functional bulk commodities.
High quality ceramics were distinguished by studio marks, and would have been
made for private consumers in the Chinese middle market. Similarly, silks though
functional, were also made in special qualities and designs for this middle
market.15
In Japan too the domestic market was huge; agricultural productivity growth
allowed higher living standards to traders, clerics, warriors and urban producers
of goods and services. Cottage industries produced lacquerware, fans parasols,
toys, footwear, paper lanterns, and a whole range of small manufactured goods.
‘Japan developed a varied, stylish economy, full of clever devices and clever
designing, though no machines.’16
In India, luxury markets based around the Moghal courts and high degrees of
regional differentiation were reflected in a diverse consumer culture. Fashionable
clothing was mainly expressed in colour, patterning, embroidery, pleating and
various types of adornment and accessories such as sashes, slippers and jewellery.
Silk and cotton fabrics were used in an extensive variety of weaves, patterns,
colours and degrees of fineness. Urban housing for the wealthy mercantile classes
displayed sophisticated architectural design incorporating modular construction,
internal courtyards and gardens, wind towers and ventilating rooms.17
China, Japan and India provided long-standing models of highly urbanised
commercial societies providing for a flowering of consumer culture. Already pro-
viding for consumer markets on a vast scale, how were Asian production processes
affected by new European markets in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries?
Asian maritime trade in luxury ware was based on the coexistence of a
domestic market of widely differentiated consumer ware. Chinese ceramics sold
to 64 foreign destinations, and textiles to 85: it traded metal products, gold, silver,
copper and iron to another 134. At the time of the Ming dynasty (1368–1644)
China’s main imports were horses, materials for Chinese medicines and monetary
metals, but throughout the early modern period it was the main supplier of indus-
trial goods. It exported iron goods, textiles (silk and cotton), ceramics and lac-
querware, as well as silver, gold and copper and lead products, a whole range of
handicrafts, stationery and books.18 China’s main barter good to the Spice Islands
was Indian piece goods acquired in its own triangular trade.
There was also an extensive trade to Japan and in the South China Seas.
Chinese ships trading to Japan during the Ming period averaged 298.4 tons; those
travelling to South and West Asia had loading capacities of 955 tons. During the
Ming period 130 Chinese government-registered vessels travelled overseas each
year; the return tonnage on these was 1,767,120 tons a year. The China-Manila
trade was also extensive, rising to 3,200 metric tons by the end of the Ming period,
and was dominated by high-value goods. In Manila the voracious Chinese
demand for silver was met by the Spanish trade in South American silver, and
Chinese silks and porcelain as well as Asian spices were sent along the American
coast and back via Mexico to Europe, or out to other South Asian traders. The
Chinese traded great quantities of porcelain to these Asian markets both before
and after European markets opened. In 1645 alone 229,000 pieces were sold to
234 Maxine Berg
the Japanese, and another 300,000 to the Arabs through the Dutch. It was no
small wonder that the South China Seas and Indian Ocean are referred to by
China’s historians as the Asian Mediterranean.19
The trade in ceramics was well established by the fifteenth century between
China and the South Seas and Japan. In the first half of the seventeenth century
more than half the exports from China went to South Seas markets. Most were
low-priced coarse ware and medium quality ware. European imports were of
higher quality. Europe’s share was 31 per cent of the quantity of Chinese ceramic
exports in third quarter of the seventeenth century, but its share of value was 50
per cent.20 Japanese sources of supply of ceramics were important from the mid
seventeenth century, and came to compete with the Chinese. There was a prior
internal Japanese market for high quality expensive blue and white porcelain; but
higher quality Japanese ware was exported in South Seas markets and to Europe,
largely through Chinese merchants and through a small trading factory at
Deshima on Hirado Island. Kakiemon ware was exported first – then Imari – enam-
elled red and green decoration. The bulk of the Japanese trade also went to the
South Seas, and only 10 per cent to Europe.21 The Dutch traded Asian silks brought
to Batavia for Japanese porcelain bought in Deshima or in other South Asian ports.
China shipped silk to Batavia for re-export to Japan along with silk arrived from
Bengal. In return China imported cotton textiles from India, some for re-export,
spices, sandalwood and other timber for ships or ships themselves from South-
East Asia, and silver from everywhere.
A new Asian–European direct trade in manufactured goods was also erected on
a longstanding intra-Asian trade in textiles and ceramics. The Indian cotton textile
trade faced a stable and continuous demand in Asian foreign trade. There was an
enormous degree of product differentiation finely tuned to the specialised tastes
of highly diversified markets. Interregional trade was based on fine textiles sup-
plied from special centres – muslins from the Dacca districts of East Bengal, silks
and taffetas from Kasimbazar, fine chintzes and transparent muslins from the
towns of West and Central India, Ahmedabad and Sironj. A much more extensive
trade in cheaper and coarser cotton textiles as well as basic foodstuffs was exported
from Gujarat to the Red Sea area as well as to Indonesia. When Indian merchants
lost the carrying trade in spices in the Indian Ocean in the seventeenth century,
textiles came to be even more important. Until the early eighteenth century with
the decline of the port of Surat and the Indian fleet there, the mass of trade in
the Indian Ocean was in Indian hands.22
The trade in textiles and ceramics between Asia and Europe was based on trade
routes and trade organization already marked out for the spice trade, and subse-
quently for colonial groceries, notably tea. The trade in high-quality luxury
manufactures was based in the long-standing emporia trade. But the extensive
production and marketing throughout the Asian world of coarse low quality wares
was also well developed by the fifteenth century. This was not a ‘mass’ produc-
tion since products were finely adapted to fit the specialised tastes of different
markets throughout southern Asia. These pre-existing conditions allowed to
Europeans the opportunity to develop a new scale of marketing for what came
to be seen as semi-luxury ware. These goods were both differentiated to suit the
demands for distinctive identities and novelty in the markets of the middling
classes. They were also produced and traded in sufficient volumes to make them
affordable. And they were still foreign, ‘Oriental’, and so endowed with the
qualities of luxury ware.
European imports of Asian luxuries in the seventeenth and eighteenth cen-
turies were thus added to large pre-existing domestic markets and a highly devel-
oped Asian trade. There was, nevertheless, a demand shock. In the case of China,
the Dutch traded a million pieces of porcelain at the end of the seventeenth
century. The effect of this European trade for China was a shift from a more
broadly-based consumer goods trade to one based in silk and porcelain. The axis
of trade shifted from the south to the north, and from the interior to the coastal
trade. This was accompanied by a shift in population. But even greater changes
were to come with the shift in the East India Company trade in the late eigh-
teenth century away from luxury goods to tea – tea increased to over 90 per cent
of imports of the British East India Company in the 1790s.23
European markets for Asian luxuries
The growth in European demand for Indian textiles was fostered by the East India
Companies, and subsequently curtailed by European governments. As early as
1609 the English East India Company was investigating types of cotton cloth
available in Western India which were deemed suitable for European and Middle
Eastern markets. It sought 12,000 pieces of fine white fabrics and the painted
calicoes of Gujarat; the VOC ordered 7,000 similar pieces in 1617 (see Plate 38).
Imports also focused on the coarser cottons of the inter-Asian trade, imported
both for the African slave trade and for the cheaper ends of the European market,
but at this stage, for clothing, there was little displacement of European linens
and fustians for common use. In the 1620s the Court of the English East India
Company reported ‘calicoes are a commodity whereof the use is not generally
known, the vent must be forced and trial made into all parts . . . much of it is very
useful and vended in England whereby the price of Lawns, Cambricks and other
linen cloth are brought down.’24
The Company was clearly testing the market for its textile imports, and fre-
quently expressed concerns about overstocking the market. It imported velvets,
coverlets, quilts, damasks, taffetas and pile carpets from Persia; it tried out cotton
piece goods, gave up on some, but did well with white baftas from Gujarat used
for bed and table linens. It used the terminology of the European linen trade, for
example, calico lawns, to sell the new cloth. It imported coarse strong calicoes
usually dyed blue or brown and used for packing and making sails. Its greatest
successes were with chintzes, pintadoes and striped calicoes, used initially for cur-
tains or hangings.25
By the latter half of the seventeenth century the main increase in demand was
for clothing fabric. The Company emphasised luxury and semi-luxury markets. It
asked the Surat Factory in 1683 for chintz printed on fine cloth desirable to upper-
236 Maxine Berg
class women: ‘in Holland the Indian chintzes were already the ware of Gentle-
women’, but in England ‘of the meaner sort’. Four years later it reported that
chintz had become ‘the ware of ladyes of the greatest quality, which they wear
on the outside of Gowns and Mantuas which they line with velvet and cloth of
gold’.26 By the later seventeenth century, the Dutch and English companies were
importing over a million pieces each of Indian cotton goods. By the eighteenth
century Bengal muslins and Coromandel chintz were the new luxury textiles.27
(See Plates 38 and 39.)
The companies forged their successes not on mass market textiles, but on more
expensive, differentiated fabrics for a discerning class conscious market. The key
to the market was in identifying a wide range of semi-luxury and luxury fabrics,
colours and patterns suited to a broad middling class attuned to distinctiveness,
fashion and novelty, as well as a clear divide between ornamental and useful ware.
These fabrics were clearly seen by their consumers and by contemporary moral-
ists as luxuries partly because they were Oriental imports, but more because they
were coloured, patterned and fine fabrics. The Dutch moralists who condemned
the vainglorious cloth harmful to the nation’s interests did not stand a chance
against a public which liked the cloth. Swedish Puritans who associated the cloth
with Eastern luxuries and the decline of morals could not hinder the prosperity
of the Swedish East India Company.28
The importance of porcelain exports in Europe cannot be underestimated. They
arrested the development of tin-glazed earthenware which had diffused from Italy
to Holland in the early sixteenth century. The universal appeal of the Chinese
blue and white which ranged from Japan to Istanbul to Amsterdam went with
the urbanised, commercial cultures of these places. The very receptive markets in
Europe were connected with changes in food conventions and etiquette, and espe-
cially in Northern Europe with the growth of increasingly prosperous middling
ranks. The Dutch East India Company imported 43 million pieces from the begin-
ning of the seventeenth century to the end of the eighteenth century. The English,
French, Swedish and Danish Companies shipped another 30 million.29
Chinese imports thus dominated the ceramics trade in Europe for approxi-
mately 200 years. It was not until the mid-eighteenth century that the rise in
Chinese porcelain prices combined with a new phase of ceramics innovation in
Europe contributed to a relative decline in the trade. Just as in Indian textiles, the
same luxury and semi-luxury markets lay behind the rise of porcelain imports in
the same period. But in this case the companies needed to make no effort to create
a vent for a desirable product for which no substitute existed. Porcelain always
constituted a relatively small proportion of the Companies’ total trade, but it was
important in very different ways. It was porcelain, to a much greater degree than
textiles, which defined the ‘Orient’ to European consumers. The early pieces to
reach Europe were high luxury goods, esteemed for their translucence, durability
and fine distinctive blue and white decoration. There was nothing in Europe at
the time to match these (hard paste porcelain was not made there until 1709).
Most English families ate from pewter plates, wooden trenchers or coarse earth-
enwares which were still clay or brick-coloured. Tin glazed earthenwares of the
Delft type were owned first by the elites then later the middling households of
Holland from the early seventeenth century, but the white glaze was easily
chipped, and the earthenware was unsuitable for teawares. Oriental porcelain was
thus not just an ornamental novelty, but a useful decency.30
Porcelain, however, had other qualities which lifted it beyond elite luxury
markets. It could be produced in China and Japan in large quantities, and even
the most basic Chinese ware was still more attractive than what was available in
Europe. It was also heavy, and if not used as ballast (more commonly copper or
saltpetre was used for this), it went deep into the holds just on top of the true
ballast of ships carrying valuable cargoes of spices and silk, and later of tea. It was
an ideal semi-luxury good; the highest quality ornamental pieces graced the porce-
lain cabinets of the palaces and chateaux of Europe’s monarchs and nobility. But
equally, upwardly mobile tradespeople in European towns could afford the pieces
of useful ware distributed by local ‘china men’.
Asian production processes
Asian success stories in providing consumer markets in Europe go back to the

special features of luxury commodities, and the trade established in these through-
out Asia. Luxury objects produced by specialised non-local craftsmen were uni-
versally desired by most societies. The reasons for this lie not just in aesthetic
sensibilities, but in art, religion and magical transformation. The appeal of such
objects dictated the continuity of trade even in times of political conflict. But an
active trade also developed across Asia in ordinary domestic commodities – coarse
cloth, earthenware, iron implements and brass utensils. Product variations even
in very ordinary goods were closely associated with locality, along with a sense of
the markets such goods were intended for. Regional specialization and extensive
product differentiation were the key to production processes.31
There are celebrated descriptions of the porcelain city, Jingdezhen during the
late Yuan period (1279–1368) as the largest industrial operation in the world, with
over 1,000 kilns, 70,000 workers and production processes that anticipated
modern assembly-line manufacture.32 ‘Tens of thousands of pestles shake the
ground with their noise. The heavens are alight with the glare from the fires, so
that one cannot sleep at night. The place has been called in jest “The Town of
Year-Round Thunder and Lightning.” ’33 The kiln technologies developed as far
back as the Han period (206 BC–220 AD) surpassed European techniques until the
nineteenth century. By the Song period multi-chamber ‘dragon kilns’ stretched
up hillsides as much as 60 metres. They could fire more than 50,000 pieces at a
time over several days. They also provided for temperature differences of as much
as 600 degrees Celsius between the firebox in the lower area and the chimney in
the upper, so that in a single operation a whole range of wares could be produced
from high-fired porcelain in the lower chambers to earthenware in the top.34
Textile production was equally finely tuned to large-scale output combined
with diversity. Indian industrial districts added production for Europe to long-
standing production cycles for the pan-Asian trading ring. As we have seen pro-
238 Maxine Berg
duction had long been honed to diverse tastes across social, religious and national
groups from the Middle East to Japan. These export-oriented textile regions
quickly assimilated and adapted European styles and motifs to a new kind of
Oriental design for European markets.
The key point about these regions was their capacity to produce an enormous
range of types, qualities, patterns, lengths and widths of cloth, a diversity we
usually think of as available only in the global markets of the twentieth century.35
The link between the Company and the weavers was achieved through Indian
merchants at the ports who used an advance contract system, that is they
employed agents who advanced money to weavers specialising in the kinds of
fabrics needed. The whole system relied on a close network of information town
to town, village to village of skilled and reliable weavers able to deliver the qual-
ities and patterns desired on time, and agents travelled the textile regions seeking
these out.36
Porcelain production was more concentrated, but flexibly accommodated the
diverse demands of Asian and European markets. Much of the European ware was
produced in one centre, Jingdezhen, a whole city of porcelain production, with a
small amount, as well as decoration, available in Canton. Another centre, Tehua,
produced the blanc-de-chine also admired in Europe. Jingdezhen had been rebuilt
after a fire in 1683; a series of innovative directors reorganised its factories, pro-
moted the invention of new glazes, and increased productivity. Factories were
departmentalised even down to a high degree of division of labour in the deco-
rating studios. Painters specialised in particular motifs, flowers, birds and animals
or mountains and rivers, and no one piece of porcelain was a personal creation.37
Most of the porcelain was bought through a Hong Merchant who took
European merchants out to some of the hundred or so shops in Canton where
they bought their goods, and placed orders for others. The production system was
flexible enough to absorb the increase in demand for goods in the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries, and also adept at copying the shapes and designs sought
in European markets. In 1777–8 well over 800 tons of chinaware was carried by
European East India Company vessels.38 (see Plates 40–41.)
Imitation and the creation of chinoiserie
Adaptation of designs and shapes to European tastes required a complex interac-

tion of responses to market demand and technique. A process of imitation was
put in train, and a form of chinoiserie created in the process. This imitation was
frequently commented on by western observers who admired the ease with which
Asian craftsmen accommodated to the alien shapes, colour schemes and flora pre-
ferred in Europe. In the early Coromandel chintzes the subject matter was derived
from Persian or Deccani miniature paintings and from Chinese ceramics, as well
as from Jesuit engravings. But from the third quarter of the seventeenth century
artisans were increasingly dependent on pattern books or musters sent from
England, Holland and France. The effect of this international market orientation
was to reinforce the specialization of producers to specific export zones. High risks,
born by the merchants, attached to experimentation with designs.39 The East India
Company merchants, by the eighteenth century however, attempted to break
through to a more adaptive form of imitation. The Court of Directors wrote:
We send you some patterns, which may govern you so far as to see thereby
that we want some new Works . . . endeavour to send us every year New
Patterns, as well of the Flowers as Stripes, at least five or six in a bale, and let
the Indians Work their own Fancys, which is always preferable before any
Patterns we can send from Europe.40
This example from India was similar to practices in China and Japan. European
shapes were sent out to China for basic tea and chocolate cups, saucers, plates,
bowls, but also for more specialist candlesticks, goblet-shaped flower pots, punch
bowls, small tea kettles in a whole range of stoneware, silver, pewter and glass as
models for ceramic imitations. Key innovations adapting Chinese and Japanese
eating and tea settings to European tastes were the tea and dinner services. The
dinner service with complete setting for each person was an invention of the VOC
and EIC which started importing porcelain dinner services in early eighteenth
century. During the eighteenth century, English families commissioned from
China 4,000 services with coats of arms. Each setting cost ten times that of
ordinary settings.
These oriental imitations of European culture were not a new departure for
Chinese and Japanese producers, for their design and production processes had
long accommodated the variety of forms and decorative style demanded in a wide
range of cultures across South-East Asia and India, as well as the Middle East.
To go even further back, porcelain was the principal material vehicle for assimi-
lation and transmission of cultural themes across great distances. Chinese porce-
lain artists adapting alien forms & decoration, and exported these to foreign
places, including some where these forms had originated generations before.41 The
adaptive product innovation arising from this practice of ‘imitation’ was an inte-
gral part of production for world markets. The Asian imitation of European forms
and designs was combined with Oriental themes in a product design for world
markets. A further development on these imitative principles was to come with
European responses.
European responses
What impact did these Asian luxury goods have on Europe? The three areas which
I have identified are:
1. The design and style of luxury and semi-luxury consumer goods for a civilised
way of life.
2. Production and mercantile systems able to make a rapid transition to a demand
shock – to be able to produce and distribute a highly diverse range of goods
for large urban and middling class markets right across the world. This was
240 Maxine Berg
production was production on an industrial scale which had never before been
seen in the West.
3. The imitative processes involved in product development for Western markets.
If China, Japan and India could do this, why could not the West? What part
did ‘imitation’ play in the development of European consumer goods?
If imitation was part of the design aesthetic of oriental commodities, it was

also central to western aesthetic traditions. Certainly, during the eighteenth
century artists and moral philosophers from Hogarth and Reynolds to Smith and
Hume made imitation a central part of their theories of taste and aesthetics.
Imitation was, of course, central to policies of import substitution, and it was
also important to technology. If we look first to import substitution. Imports of
Asian luxuries were perceived to cause an imbalance of trade. There were no com-
parable markets for European exports in Asia. While there seemed no possibility
of finding substitutes for the raw materials and foodstuffs imported from Asia,
especially tea, in the eighteenth century, it was seen as possible to stem the tide
of Asian manufactures. Could not Europeans produce similar goods in the Asian
style? Thus it was that these desirable consumer goods soon faced heavy tariffs
and prohibitions in Europe. In Britain from the late 1680s a series of restrictions,
duties and excise taxes were imposed, followed by outright prohibition of
imported printed calicoes in 1700.
The restrictions in England reached not just to imported wares, but to home-
produced calicoes. Vested interests in the woollen, linen and silk industries
succeeded in another prohibition in 1721 on the sale, purchase or wearing of all
printed cloth containing cotton; printers instead exercised their talents on linens,
fustians and calicoes for export. The French acted earlier, banning the import, pro-
duction and use of painted calicoes in 1686, but retracted the prohibition in 1759.
The Spanish waited until the Peace of Utrecht, then in 1717 banned silks and
other textiles from Asia and China, and the next year extended this to the use of
all these materials.
The Dutch as well as the German states and the Swiss took a more liberal stance.
A liberal policy on imports also spawned a local printing industry. Local textile
producers protested in the Netherlands, but the Republic did not intervene, and
as well as importing from Asia, there was a proliferation of calico-printing shops
around Amsterdam, as well as in the German towns of Bremen, Frankfurt, and
Hamburg. The French printers took refuge in the Swiss towns establishing a French
industry in exile in Neufchâtel, Lausanne, Geneva and Basel.42
The printing of cotton in England started in the seventeenth century. In 1676
Will Sherwin was granted a patent to print on broad cloth. But polychromy in fast
bright colours was not possible until 1740. There were large numbers of patents
in England for printing technologies, and the London base of the industry from
the mid-eighteenth century was facing competition from Lancashire. This import
substituting semi-luxury industry, basing its markets in the demand for printed
fabrics of fine counts inspired by the Asian imports, sparked the growth of the
cotton industry and the rapidly mechanising processes which accompanied it.
There were no corresponding prohibitions on the import of ceramics from Asia,

but European rulers and princes patronising their own early porcelain works
imposed strict controls on competing factories. In the case of France, Louis XV
and XVI kept excise duties high and issued prohibitory edicts to protect the royal
manufactory at Sèvres from competition.43 Though there were no prohibitions in
England on the importation of Far Eastern ceramics, the goods nevertheless faced
tariffs which rose rapidly over the course of the eighteenth century. These started
in 1704 at 12.5 per cent of the value at wholesale auction prices; the duty rate
was approximately one third of the sale value for sample years during the 1770s,
and by the early 1790s was charged at half the auction value. The East India
Company faced high tariffs, but its returns on imported porcelain were further
restricted by an oligopoly of London china dealers, operating a ring to keep prices
artificially low. The discovery prompted its decision to discontinue its bulk impor-
tation of porcelain.44
These protectionist measures on some of the most rapidly growing manufac-
tured imports did indeed foster the rapid growth of import-substituting industries.
The markets for these industries had been prepared by Asian imports: a huge re-
export trade (40 per cent of British exports by 1750) now absorbed high propor-
tions of colonial imports, and new domestically-produced substitutes swelled
exports.
The effect of Asian imports of ceramics was to inspire the rise of Europe’s great
porcelain works, and indigenous pottery industries. Tin-glazed approximations
were available in various forms from the end of the sixteenth century. There was
the Spanish and Islamic then Italian faience and maiolica distinguished by its
white glaze and sparse decoration. There was delftware, and there was Dutch and
English majolica.
Other ceramics works were royal manufactories or high luxury producers of
European porcelain. Meissen first produced a hard red unglazed stoneware close
the red stoneware of Yi Hsing. These were imitated in Bayreuth, Delft and in
Staffordshire. The Meissen factory, the royal works of Saxony, made the break-
through to produce hard-paste porcelain in 1709, and produced expensive goods
in Chinese and Japanese designs. Likewise, France’s Chantilly factory which pro-
duced a soft-paste porcelain before the end of the seventeenth century was the
project of an aristocrat who owned a large collection of Japanese original decora-
tive pieces. Rouen, Vienna, St Cloud and Mennecy all followed suit. During the
eighteenth century there were porcelain factories under the patronage and control
of rulers and princelings at Sèvres, Paris, Berlin, Vienna, Naples, Florence and
Vicenza. The English porcelain works, Chelsea and Bow both took their patterns
from aristocratic collections of Japanese originals. Bow called itself the ‘New
Canton’. Worcester copied the Imari patterns and colours.45
European porcelain may have been an import substitute, but it did not meet
the market demand of Chinese porcelain. Indeed Postlethwayt set out the key dif-
ference between this European porcelain and that of Asia.
‘What render the Oriental porcelain so universally estimable is, not only is
general delicacy, but its general greater cheapness compared to that of Dresden,
242 Maxine Berg
or any other nation: and ‘till England, France, Holland or Saxony, can afford this
manufacture at as reasonable rates as the Eastern nations do, it can never be
expected that any, or indeed all the united European porcelain manufactures, will
vend so large a quantity as is done by the Asiatics in general.’
The real substitute was provided by another imitation of Asian ware, fine
earthenware. This drew on cheaper indigenous materials, was developed in
Britain’s own pottery region, and set in train an extensive product innovation in
eating and drinking utensils. The substitute was not provided by Europe’s porce-
lain works, but by European earthenware manufacturers who worked to perfect a
‘creamware’ or ‘pearlware’ alternative to porcelain. This fine lead-glazed earthen-
ware was first made in Staffordshire between 1730 and 1740, and quickly demon-
strated its advantages over the softer, easily chipped continental tin-glazed faience
and delftware. Wedgwood was one of a number of earthenware manufacturers in
Staffordshire, Liverpool, Leeds and elsewhere now turning their attention to
creamware. In 1763 he described this as ‘a species of earthenware for the table
quite new in its appearance, covered with a rich and brilliant glaze bearing sudden
alterations of heat and cold, manufactured with ease and expedition, and conse-
quently cheap’.
He established a prosperous export trade, and saw himself turning the tables
on the Chinese when he wrote to Bentley in 1767: ‘Don’t you think we shall
have some Chinese Missionaries come here soon to learn the art of making
Creamcolour.’46
Conclusion
Imitation was the means by which a quality consumer goods manufacture was
introduced to Europe, and especially to Britain during the later seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries. This was a process of creating an ‘economy of quality’ in
response to Asian luxury. It was a policy of using the arts, including the fine arts
and design in combination with modern manufacturing technique. This was the
lesson that merchants and manufacturers had learned from Asia.
The great Asian manufactures which entered Europe on a large scale between
the later sixteenth century and the eighteenth century brought a new kind of
semi-luxury to world trade. These were novelty consumer goods, exotic in prov-
enance and style, but domestic and endowed with the variety to display taste and
individuality. They were also produced and traded at a level which made them
available, not just to traditional elites, but to the rapidly expanding middling and
urban populations of Europe.
Notes
1. Gang Deng, Chinese Maritime Activities and Socioeconomic Development c. 2100 B.C.–1900
A.D. (Westport, Conn. and London, 1997), p. 113.
2. R.A. Goldthwaite, Wealth and the Demand for Art in Italy 1300–1600 (Baltimore, 1993),
pp. 224–50; Lisa Jardine, Worldly Goods. A New History of the Renaissance (London, 1996),
p. 69.
3. Carolyn Sargentson, Merchants and Luxury Markets (London, 1996), p. 66.

4. P.J. Marshall, ‘Taming the Exotic: the British and India in the Seventeenth and
Eighteenth Centuries’, in G.S. Rousseau, R. Porter, eds, Exoticism in the Enlightenment
(Manchester, 1990), pp. 46–65, 57; Chandra Mukerji, From Graven Images: Patterns of
Modern Materialism (New York, 1983); A. Reichwein, China and Europe. Intellectual and
Artistic Contacts in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1925), p. 89.
5. J. Raby and M. Vickers, ‘Puritanism and Positivism’, in M. Vickers, ed., Pots and Pans: A
Colloquium on Precious Metals and Ceramics in the Muslim, Chinese and Graeco-Roman
Worlds (Oxford, 1985), pp. 217–23, at 217–19.
6. Patrick McCray, The Fragile Craft Glass in Renaissance Venice (Aldershot, 1999).
7. Andrew Sherratt, ‘Silver and Skeuomorphism in the Ancient World: the Social and
Economic Context of Greek Pottery Production’, Unpublished paper; Michael Vickers
and D. Gill, Artful Crafts. Ancient Greek Silverware and Pottery (Oxford, 1994).
8. Malachy Postlethwayt, J. Savary des Bruslons, The Universal Dictionary of Trade and
Commerce, I, fourth edition (London, 1774), entry on Mechanical Arts.
9. Cited in J.M. MacKenzie, Orientalism, History, Theory and the Arts (Manchester, 1995),
p. 127.
10. Linda Colley, ‘The English Rococo. Historical Background’, in M. Snodin, ed., Rococo
Art and Design in Hogarth’s England (London, 1984), pp. 10–17; Kate Scott, The Rococo
Interior (New Haven and London, 1995).
11. E.L. Jones, ‘The Fashion Manipulators: Consumer Tastes and British Industries
1660–1800’, in L.P. Cain and P.J. Uselding, eds, Business Enterprise and Economic Change
(Ohio, 1973).
12. On the significance of this Chinese and Japanese consumer culture, and a sophisticated
intra-Asian trade in luxury goods, see John E. Willis, ‘European Consumption and Asian
Production in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries’, in John Brewer and Roy
Porter, eds, Consumption and the World of Goods (London and New York, 1973), pp.
133–47; Peter Burke, ‘Rex et verba: Conspicuous Consumption in the Early Modern
World’, in Brewer and Porter, Consumption and the World of Goods, pp. 148–61; Craig
Clunas, Superfluous Things. Material Culture and Social Status in Early Modern China
(Cambridge, 1991), and his ‘Modernity Global and Local: Consumption and the Rise
of the West’, American Historical Review, 104 (1999), pp. 1497–511.
13. E.L. Jones, Growth Recurring: Economic Change in World History (Oxford, 1988), and
Kenneth Pomeranz, The Great Divergence. China, Europe and the Making of the Modern
World Economy (Princeton, 2000).
14. Kent Deng, ‘A Critical Survey of Research in Chinese Economic History’, Economic
History Review, 52 (2000), pp. 1–23; Jones, Growth Recurring, pp. 80–2.
15. See Shelagh Vainker, ‘Luxury or Not: Silk and Porcelain in Early Modern China’, this
volume.
16. Jones, Growth Recurring, p. 158; Eric Jones, Lionel Frost and Colin White, Coming Full
Circle. An Economic History of the Pacific Rim (Boulder, Colorado, San Francisco, Oxford,
1993), p. 35.
17. K.N. Chaudhuri, Asia before Europe (Cambridge, 1990), pp. 186–90, 200–20.
18. Deng, Chinese Maritime Activities, p. 134. Kent Deng, ‘Critical Survey of Research in
Chinese Economic History’, Economic History Review, 53 (2000), pp. 1–28, 4–5.
19. Gang Deng, ‘The Foreign Staple Trade of China in the Pre-Modern Era’, The International
History Review, 19 (1997), pp. 253–83, 264–5, 276.
20. C. Ho, ‘The Ceramic Trade in Asia, 1602–82’, in A.J.H. Latham and H. Kawakatsu,
Japanese Industrialization and the Asian Economy (London, 1994), pp. 35–70, 36–49, 43,
47.
21. Oliver Impey, ‘Japanese Export Porcelain’, in J. Ayers, O. Impey, J.V.G. Mallet, Porcelain
for Palaces (London, 1990), pp. 25–36; H. Nishida, ‘Japanese Export Porcelain during the
17th and 18th Centuries’, D. Phil Thesis (Oxford, 1975), pp. 65–70; C. Ho, ‘The Ceramic
Trade in Asia, 1602–82’, pp. 43 and 47.
244 Maxine Berg
22. K.N. Chaudhuri, The Trading World of Asia and the English East India Company 1660–1760
(Cambridge, 1978), pp. 205 and 242; A. Dasgupta, ‘Indian Merchants and the Trade in
the Indian Ocean’, in T. Raychaudhuri and I. Habib, The Cambridge Economic History of
India, I (Cambridge, 1982), pp. 407–33, 415–16 and 428–33.
23. Kent Deng, ‘Critical Survey of Research in Chinese Economic History’ and [Gang] Deng,
‘The Foreign Staple Trade of China in the Pre-Modern Era’, 253–83, 264–5 and 276.
24. K.N. Chaudhuri, The English East India Company. A Study of an Early Joint Stock Company
1600–1640 (London, 1965), p. 195.
25. Ibid. For further detail on adapting these imports to European taste see Maxine Berg,
‘Manufacturing the Orient: Asian Commodities and European Industry’, Proceedings
of the Istituto ‘Francesco Datini’, Prato, vol. 29, 1998, pp. 385–419; John Styles, ‘Product
Innovation in Early Modern London’, Past and Present, 168, 2000, pp. 124–69; and espe-
cially Beverley Lemire, Fashion’s Favourite. The Cotton Trade and The Consumer in Britain
1600–1800 (Oxford, 1991).
26. Chaudhuri, The Trading World, p. 282.
27. Chaudhuri, ‘European Trade with India’, in T. Raychaudhuri and I. Habib, The
Cambridge Economic History of India, pp. 382–406 and 402.
28. Ibid, p. 401; M. Beurdley, Porcelain of the East India Companies (London, 1962), pp. 117–18.
29. Robert Finlay, ‘The Pilgrim Art: the Culture of Porcelain in World History’, Journal of
World History, 9 (1998), pp. 141–88 and 168.
30. G.A. Godden, Oriental Export Market Porcelain and its Influence on European Wares
(London, 1979), p. 114.
31. K.N. Chaudhuri, Asia Before Europe. Economy and Civilisation of the Indian Ocean from the
Rise of Islam to 1750 (Cambridge, 1990), pp. 304–9.
32. Finlay, ‘The Pilgrim Art’, p. 148.
33. Elvin, The Pattern of the Chinese Past, p. 285.
34. Finlay, ‘The Pilgrim Art’, p. 148.
35. Lemire, Fashion’s Favourite, p. 18.
36. K.N. Chaudhuri, Trade and Civilization in the Indian Ocean (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 200–2.
37. Godden, Oriental Export Market Porcelain, p. 113; D.F. Lunsingh-Scheuleer, Chinese Export
Porcelain (London, 1974), pp. 24–8.
38. Ibid., p. 47.
39. Chaudhuri, Asia Before Europe, pp. 302–3 and 312.
40. Cited in Chaudhuri, Asia Before Europe, p. 303.
41. Finlay, ‘The Pilgrim Art’; Jessica Rawson, Ancient China, pp. 206–12.
42. J.K.J. Thomson, ‘State Intervention in the Catalan Calico-Printing Industry in the
Eighteenth Century’, in M. Berg, ed., Markets and Manufacture in Early Industrial Europe
(London, 1991), pp. 57–89 and 61.
43. Robin Reilly, Wedgewood, I (London, 1989), p. 76.
44. Hilary Young, English Porcelain, p. 74.
45. J. Mallet, ‘European Ceramics and Influence of Japan’, in U. Ayers, O. Impey, J. Mallet,
eds., Porcelain for Palaces (London, 1990), pp. 35–55; W. Bemrose, Bow, Chelsea and Derby
Porcelain (London, 1989), p. 35.
46. Robin Reilly, Wedgwood, I, p. 184. For a broader treatment see Maxine Berg, ‘From Imi-
tation to Invention: Creating Commodities in Eighteenth-centery Britain’, Economic
History Review, 55, 2002, pp. 1–30.
Plates
38. Skirt and frock of cotton, handpainted in India.
39. Chintz overdress, painted and dyed cotton.
40. Chinese octagonal plate, c. 1736, with European Delft tile, used as a pattern, c. 1745.
41. Saucer and cup with handle, c. 1720.
Index
Adam, Robert 152, 156, 197 garden buildings Plate 14, 136, 137,
Ruins of the Palace of Emperor Diocletian 138–9
152 Montagu House 197–201
Addison, Joseph 191 picturesque 141–2, 146
‘Pleasures of the Imagination’ 123, 129 primitivism 137–8, 146
aesthetics 3, 85n, 132n rusticity 137, 138
debate 19 villas 144
and human body Plate 12, 119, 126–7, see also cottages; landscape architecture
130 Aristotle 45
moral-sense paradigm 121–2 Nicomachean Ethics 8
picturesque 141–2, 146 artisans see craftsmen
serpentine (Hogarth) 120, 124–5, 130–1 arts and crafts movement (1880s) 231
see also taste Asia
agricultural reform 139–40, 142, 147 interregional trade 232, 233–4
America 145 moral debate on luxury in 7–8
agriculture see also China; India; Japan
balance with manufacturing 22 aspiration(s)
threatened by urban consumption 33–4 and economic development 44, 55n
see also cottage(s) and luxury 9
Agriculture, Board of 140 in modern consumer society 23
Alexander the Great, and Roxane 176n plebeian 103, 105, 111–12
amber 8 social 128
American colonies 151 assemblies 1, 7
architectural comfort (cottages) 144–6 Athens, classical 152, 230
Amsterdam 50, 51–2, 232, 240 Auslander, Leora 72
silk industry 52 Austen, Jane, Sense and Sensibility 135
Anglomania, in Europe 19 Authentic and Interesting Memoirs of Miss
Anhui, Chinese ink production 209 Ann Sheldon 183, 186
Anti-Gallican Society 14 authenticity
Antigua 221–2 Christian 46, 47
antiques, classical 152 and performance 168, 169
Apparudai, Arjun 214 prostitute memoirs 181, 182
appearances, culture of 46–7, 48 Authentick Memoirs . . . of the Celebrated Sally
appetite (desire) Salisbury 178–80, 181, 182, 183–4, 187
for esteem 128, 131 Avant Coureur (Parisian weekly) 80, 82
indulgence 2, 129–30 avarice, Mandeville on 30, 32–3, 45
male 128
in materialist psychology 119, 120–1, Bacon, Francis 173
127–8, 131 Bacon, John, sculptor 156
see also moral-sense paradigm Bamford, Samuel 112–13
Appleby, Joyce 48 banks and banking
Arabia, cultivation of 11, 76 Paris pawnshop 98–100, 102n
archaeology 152 role of pedlars 91, 93
architecture Barbauld, Anna 192, 193
Baroque 138 Barbon, Nicholas 9, 31, 127
for basic comfort 140–1 baroque style 85n, 138, 231
‘Chinese’ 137 Barrington, James 199
classical style 137, 138, 152 Batavia (Indonesia) 234
245
246 Index
Bath, architecture 139 Brown, Tom, Letters from the Dead . . . 180
Bath, Earl of 192 Buffon, Comte de 222
bathhouses, garden 138 Burckhardt, Jacob 71
Baudeau, Nicolas 34 Burke, Edmund 192
Beattie, James 197 Burney, Frances (Fanny) 192, 195–6
beauty Byron, John 221
definition of 117 Byzantine Empire, luxury trade 8
Hogarth’s analysis 124–5
see also aesthetics Cadalso, José 220
Bengal, textiles from 230, 236 calicoes
Bentham, Jeremy 37 import prohibition 240
Bentley, Thomas 153, 154, 242 imported 229, 235
Berg, Maxine 83 printed 7, 240
Berkeley, George, on fashion 29 Calvin, John 45–6
Bermingham, Ann 142 influence of 46–7, 51
Berry, Christopher 129 Calvinism 51, 52
Betagh, William 220 cameo seals 159
Bewick, Thomas 105 Campbell, Colin 43
Bickerstaff, Isaac 17 The Romantic Ethic 23
Birmingham, Assay Office 160 Canton, porcelain production 212, 238
‘Blue John’ fluorspar Plate 20, 155 capitalism
‘bluestocking’ and luxury spending 42
defined 192–3, 203n see also commerce; trade
Elizabeth Montagu’s circle 199–200 Caraccioli, Louis-Antoine 75–6, 81–2
Blumenbach, Johann Friedrich 222 Caribbean, sumptuary laws 224
Bolingbroke, Lord 161n, 179, 188n Cartagena, Colombia 221
Bombay 232 Carter, Elizabeth 192, 193, 197, 199, 200
Bordley, John Beale 145 Castiglione (Lang Shining), Jesuit painter
Boswell, James 185, 192 215, 216
Boulle, André-Charles, ébéniste 80, 87n Catalonia 141
Boulton, Matthew 19, 151, 159–60 Cathcart, Lord 153
collaboration with Wedgwood 154–5, Catherine of Braganza, Queen 232
156–9 Catherine the Great, Empress of Russia 159
and Hamilton’s Antiquites 153–4 Caylus, comte de 20, 21
production process 155, 156–7, 158 Receuil d’Antiquites Egyptiennes . . . 152
Bourne, Henry 112 Chambers, William, architect 152, 156,
Bow, porcelain works 241 158
Bowood House, Wiltshire 153 chambrelans (unlicensed sellers) 93
Bradford, William, Governor of North Chapman, Johnny 105
America 144 Chapone, Hester 197
brass, ornamental 7 charity
Brazil Christian notion of 73
sumptuary laws 223 and industry 195–7, 201
trade with China 231 and self-interest 196
Brewer, John, and Roy Porter, Consumption Charles II, King, court of 166, 232
and the World of Goods 2 Charlesworth, Andrew 103
British Museum 156, 160 Charlotte, Queen 158, 199
brocanteurs (second-hand dealers) 94–5 Chelsea, porcelain works 241
Bronze Age 8 children, financial burden of 106–7
Brown, Rev. John, Estimate of the Manners Chile
and Principles of the Times 14 slave dress 221
Brown, Lancelot (Capability) 137 sumptuary laws 224
Brown, Maria, Genuine Memoirs 183, chimney sweeps, Elizabeth Montagu’s
184–5, 186–7 annual breakfast for 195–6
Index 247
China 3, 205, 208–9, 232 exports to China 215

bureaucracy 208, 209 sold by pedlars 91–2
domestic porcelain market 207–8, 209, clothing
233 accessories 109, 114n
European exports to 215–16 in China 213–14
Hong merchants 238 to classify race (Spanish America)
imperial collections 211 219–24
influence on Europe 229 ‘decent’ and ‘best’ 111–12
intraregional trade 208–9, 212, 213, and fashion 77
233–4 footwear 109
luxury consumption 213–15, 232–3 and increased status 10, 29, 111, 112
Qing dynasty 208, 209, 212 plebeian expenditure on 104, 107–11
Roman trade with 8 second-hand trade in (revendeurs) 94, 97
scholar officials 209, 214, 215, 232 see also fabrics; silk; sumptuary laws
silk imperial robes for rituals Plate 36, clubs and societies 192
213 Clunas, Craig 214
Song period 207, 211 coffee 1
trade with 8, 228–9 coffee houses 1, 7
see also porcelain; silk Coke, Thomas William 139
chinoiserie 77, 79, 231, 238–9 Colbert, Jean Baptiste 98
chintzes collectors
European patterns for 238 of antiquities 153, 159
trade in 234, 235–6 of curios 94–5, 101n
chocolate 1 colonialism
choice, consumer 50–1 in America 144
Christian ethics, Mandeville on 28, 33 European 76
Christian knowledge 46–7 see also Mexico; Peru; Spain
Cibber, Theophilus 186 Colquhoun, Patrick 110
Cipriani, Giambattista 198 comfort
civilisation 74, 132 architectural designs for 140–1, 143–4,
classical (Golden Age) 151, 152 145–6
and emulation 42 as characteristic of Dutch luxury 51–3
origins of 34–5 luxury as 85n, 136
civility 20 origin of term 135, 147n
class physical 117, 135–6, 146–7
and consumption 3 and size of houses 145
cultural stereotypes of 104–5 spiritual 135
and range of luxury goods 89–90, 236 commerce
social status in Elizabeth Montagu’s salon and culture 20
194 dictionaries of 89, 96, 230
and sumptuary laws 8–9 and liberty 30
see also middle class; working class and luxury 9, 10, 11, 76, 191
class ambivalence, in Oriental Woman 169 and second-hand trade 78
class mobility 166 as social behaviour 13, 14
Classicism 151, 152, 230 and virtuous individual 47–8
architecture 137, 138, 152 see also trade
equated with aristocracy 20, 53 connoisseurs 80, 131
Cleland, John 183 Constantinople 8
Memoirs of A Woman of Pleasure 185 consumer society 2, 41, 50–1
Clifford, Helen 83 China 214–15, 232–3
Clio, or, a Secret History of . . . Mrs. in France 72
S[a]n[so]m 183 India 233
clocks Japan 233
Dutch 52 modern 23, 37–8
248 Index
consumption culture
Dutch theory 45–8, 53 of appearances 46–7, 48
emulative 30–2, 58 commerce and 20
of foreign luxury 7, 198–9 France 71–2
gendered as feminine 18, 82–3, 178–9 and language 18
and productive industry 43–4, 151 and luxury 196
varied patterns of plebeian 104, 105 of opulence 29–30
see also fashion see also court cultures
cornucopia Plate 13, 130 Cumberland, Richard 194
corruption 14, 16 ‘curieux’ (collectors of curios) 94–5
luxury and 220 Curzon, Sir Nathaniel, Kedleston Hall
moral 21 152, 153
satire on 179 custom, and plebeian consumption 104
see also morality
Costerman, Cornelius 55n dairies, garden 138–9
Costes de la Calprenèdes, Gauthier de, dancing
Cassandra (1652) 172, 173 aesthetics of 122–3, 127, 134n
cottage(s) 136, 137–8 intricacy in country dances 123, 124,
American Plate 17, 144–6 128
designs for Plate 16, 136, 139–40 Dartmouth, Earl of 158
orné (ornamented) 144 Davenant, William, The Siege of Rhodes
philanthropic model Plate 15, 139–41 166–7, 170–1
picturesque 141–2 Davies, Rev. David, ‘Case of the Labourers
for prosperous comfort 135, 143–4 in Husbandry’ (1795) 106
cotton goods 1, 7, 213, 240 Davis, Alexander Jackson 146
for African slave trade 235 De la Court, Johan and Pieter 47
East India Company imports 48, 55n, debts, gambling 95–6
206, 235–6 Defoe, Daniel 129
from India 234 differential qualities of luxury goods 13
see also calicoes; muslins Moll Flanders 178, 180
court cultures Roxana; or, The Fortunate Mistress Plate
France 84n 23, 166, 168–9
luxury defined by 42, 53 on trade 19, 165–6
and patronage 43, 56n, 72 Dehua, China, porcelain production 212
and retainers 9, 12, 13 Delft, tapestry works 52
courtiers (brokers) 95, 96 Delftware 52, 236–7, 241
courtship, importance of clothing for Dennis, John, An Essay upon Publick Spirit 1
111–12, 113 Denton Colliery 195
Coward, John, woodcarver 156 d’Entrecolles, Father 230
Cowper, William 204n Devonshire, Georgiana, Duchess of 105
poem on Elizabeth Montagu’s feather d’Hancarville, baron 21, 153
screens 199 d’Houdetot, Elisabeth 35–6
Cox, James, exhibition 159 Diderot, Denis 11
craft production and definition of luxury 75
Netherlands 52–3 Encyclopédie 28, 36, 73, 90, 230
Paris ébénistes 80–1, 87n Dilettanti, Society of 152
craftsmen distribution
demand for 80–1 of luxury goods 89
Paris 78 pedlars’ networks 91–3
for Wedgwood and Boulton’s vases 156 division of labour 9, 12, 136, 229, 238
work on Montagu House 198 d’Orbigny, Alcides, racial classification
credit 224
pawning 97–100 Downing, Andrew Jackson 146
role of luxury goods in obtaining 95–100 Dresden, porcelain 241
Index 249
Duesbury, William, Derby china 159 esteem, luxury goods as marks of 10

Duport, Jean Baptiste 100n Evelyn, John 228–9
Dutch East India Company 48, 55n, 56n, excess 11, 42
229, 234
porcelain imports 238, 239 fabrics
textile trade 235, 236 European designs for 238–9
Dutch Reformed Church 45 printed 109, 114n
Dutch Republic 41, 45 see also calicoes; chintzes; cotton goods;
decline of 51, 53 muslins; silk
nature of luxury in 48–50, 51–3 fairs
paintings Plates 1–3, 49, 51, 52 ‘best’ clothes to wear at 112–13
theory of luxury consumption 45–8, 53 clothing bought at 113
see also Netherlands families, stages of expenditure in 106–7,
Duvaux, Lazare, Paris mercier 81, 82, 86n 108–9
dyestuffs 1 fantasy
and fashion 29–30
East India Company (English) 48, 55n, of identity 21, 24, 37
229, 235 fashion Plate 9, 29–30, 77
porcelain imports 238, 239, 241 and availability of Asian luxuries 231
textile imports 235–6 commercialised 37
ébénistes, Paris 77, 78, 80–1, 82 and morality 32, 55n
economy plebeian consciousness of 104, 231
aspiration as spur to 44, 55n Rousseau on 35–6
contribution of luxury to 12, 35, 136 and taste 81–2
‘natural’ (Smollett) 58, 64, 65, 66 see also vase mania
see also commerce; trade Faulkner, Miss, Genuine Memoirs 183
Eden, Frederick Morton, State of the Poor feast days, ‘best’ clothes for 112
(1797) 106 female desire 3
effeminacy 18, 21, 190 and fashion 30
see also femininity fear of 18–19, 190
effeminisation 3, 30, 190, 220 Female Tatler, The 17
elegance, use of term 143–4 femininity
Elias, Norbert, The Process of Civilization consumption and 18, 82–3, 178–9
42 of French culture 71–2
elites luxury and 165, 190
China 208–9, 215 Oriental 3, 163, 173–4
French aristocracy 73, 231 see also effeminacy; women
luxury consumption by 7, 41, 43 Ferguson, Adam 22
and patronage 43 Fielding, Henry 15, 32
weakened by excess 42 Fielding, Sarah 197
wealth displayed by 9, 12, 13, 29 Flaxman, John 156, 160
see also court cultures Florence, Renaissance 7
emulation foods 1, 13
and civilisation 42 basic 103
role of 29, 30–2, 36, 58 foreignness
sartorial (Spanish America) 221 luxury associated with 8–9, 165, 198,
transformative role of 222–3 205, 228–9
encyclopedists, French 73, 229 see also Oriental Woman
Enlightenment Fothergill, John 151
positive view of luxury 2, 74 Foucault, Michel 15
see also Scottish Enlightenment France 48, 71–2
equilibrium 122 associated with ‘foreign luxury’ 9, 165
as ideal state 129–30 import restrictions 240, 241
Erasmus, Desiderius 45 luxury debate 14, 20–1, 69, 73–5
250 Index
pedlar networks 91–3 Gouda, tapestry works 52

see also Paris grace, concept of 126, 134n
Frank, Robert, Luxury Fever 24 Great Britain
French colonies 80 trade with India 232
French Revolution 71, 72 see also East India Company; London
Frézier, Amédée 220 Greece, ancient
frugality 38 critiques of luxury 1, 8
Dutch 47, 49–50 study of 152, 153, 230
as myth 73 Grosley, M. 106
furniture Guangdong, silk production 213
French royal expenditure 86
specialised 78–9 Hall, Charles, The Effects of Civilisation 22
variety of styles 79 Hamilton, Sir William 159, 160
veneers 79–80 Antiquites, Etrusques, Grecques et Romaines
furniture-making, Paris 77–9, 80–1, 82 (1767–76) 21, 153
Han dynasty, China 214, 237
Gage, Thomas 220–1, 225 Harrache, luxury shop 154
Galiani, Ferdinando 11 Harris, James 198
Gallagher, Catherine 184 Hartley, David, Observations on Man (1749)
Galland, Antoine, Mille et Une Nuit 173 126
gambling debts 95–6 Hayek, Friedrich von 37
Garbutt, Dorothy, Quaker 113 Hays, Mary, Memoirs of Emma Courtney
garden buildings Plate 14, 136, 137, 138–9 175
picturesque 141–2 Haywood, Eliza, Anti-Pamela 183
see also cottage(s) Head, Richard, and Francis Kirkman, The
gardens, formal 137 English Rogue (1688) 166
Garrick, David 192 Heaton, Robert, servants’ clothing
‘gaudy’, use of term 222 expenditure 110–11
Gay, John hedonism 23
Polly (ballad opera) 182 condemned 47
Trivia (poem) 17–18 Heidelberg Catechism 46
Gee, James 105 Herculaneum 152
Genuine Memoirs of Miss Faulkner 183 Hoare’s bank (C. Hoare & Co.) 195
Genuine Memoirs of The Celebrated Miss Hobbes, Thomas 121
Maria Brown 183, 184–5, 186–7 Hogarth, William 19, 151, 191, 240
George III, King 105, 158 A Harlot’s Progress 186
George IV, as Prince of Wales 105 aesthetics of motion (dance) 122–3
Gerard, Alexander Analysis of Beauty Plate 12, Plate 13,
Essay on Taste (1759) 20, 121–2, 123–4, 119–32
125, 126 concept of intricacy 123–4, 128
ideal state of equilibrium 129 labyrinth metaphor 125
Germany serpentine aesthetics 120, 124–5, 130–1
craftsmen 80–1 Hong Lou Meng (novel) 212
textile printing 240 human body
glass aesthetics and Plate 12, 119, 126–7, 130
production in France 20–1, 78 dancing 122–3, 127
tinted window 138 humanitarianism 139, 146
Venetian 230 Hume, David 191, 240
Gobains, glassworks 20, 78 on aspirations 44, 230
Gobelins tapestry works 78 on luxury 10–11, 129
Godwin, William 22 ‘Of Commerce’ 11–12
golden mean, concept of 130 ‘Of Luxury’ 165
Goldsmith, Oliver, The Deserted Village 15, ‘Of Refinement in the Arts’ 18, 194
139 role of women 19
Index 251
Hundert, Edward, Enlightenment’s Fable 10 Japan

Hutcheson, Francis 33, 122, 126, 127 ceramics 217n, 234
An Inquiry into . . . Ideas of Beauty and domestic consumption 232, 233
Virtue (1726) 120, 121, 125 lacquer goods 231
ideal state of equilibrium 129 trade with 231, 234
Hutchinson, Alice, expenditure on clothing Jemmat, Catherine, Memoirs 183–4
110–11 Jesuits, in China 215, 216, 230
Hutton, William 105 jewellery, resale trade in 97
aspiration to good clothing 111–12 Jiangnan region, silk production 213
Huygens, Constantijn 49, 55n Jingdezhen, imperial porcelain kilns 208,
209, 211–12, 237, 238
identity Johnson, Samuel 192, 193
fantasies of 21, 24, 37 Jones, Jennifer 77
public 36 Juan, Jorge 219, 220
racial self-classification 223
self- 10 Kalm, P. 106
imitation Kames, Henry Home, Lord 152, 191
and import substitutes 240–2 Elements of Criticism 201, 202
of imported luxury goods 229–30, 238–9 taste and virtue 20
see also chinoiserie Kangxi, Chinese emperor 208, 210
import substitution 240–2 Kaufman, Angelica 198
‘Imports of Great Britain from France’, Kaye, F.B., translation of Mandeville 23,
‘The’ (1758) 14 37
improvement, ideology of 64, 65–6 Keats, John 151
incense 8 Kedleston Hall, Derbyshire 152, 153
India Keir, James 157
domestic consumption 233 Kendal, Duchess of 179
textile production 234, 235–6, 237–8 Kent, Nathaniel 139, 140
see also Bengal Kimball, J.H. 221–2
Indian Ocean, trade 8, 232 Klein, Naomi, No Logo 23
indigo 1 Knight, Richard Payne 141–2
indolence 2, 129–30 knives, Langres 92
Indonesia 234 Knolles, Richard, General Historie of the
indulgence 2, 165 Turkes Plate 24, 169
Industrial Revolution 230
industry lacquer 87n
and charity 195–7, 201 Chinese 79
contrasted with indolence 129–30 Japanese 79, 81
division of labour 9, 12, 136, 229, 238 vernis martin (French) 79
incentives to 15 lacquer goods 7, 229
and leisure 202 Japanese 231
see also manufacturing; production Lady Luxury, morality figure 178, 186–7
intaglio seals 159 Lancashire, textiles 240
intricacy 123–4, 128 landscape 123, 147
Iron Age 8 romanticised 142
ironmaking, China 232 landscape architecture 136–7, 141–2
ironware, ornamental 7 language, and culture 18
Italy Larpent, Anna 202n
Renaissance 7, 228, 230 Latham family, domestic expenditure
tin-glazed earthenware 236 107–10
ivory 8 Le Nôtre, André 137
Lee, Nathaniel, The Rival Queens (1677)
Jacobites 179 171–2, 173
Jansenism 47 Leibniz, Gottfried 229
252 Index
leisure paradox of 21–2, 190–1

and equilibrium 129 Persian 11, 43, 229
and industry 202 personified as feminine 165, 178–80,
public 1, 7, 20 186–7, 190
Leonard, Mme, revendeuse à la toilette 96 positive view of 2, 10–14, 165
Li Yu, Chinese writer 212 psychology of 9, 23, 121
Lima as public benefit 10, 11, 30–1, 165, 180
luxury fashion in 219, 220–1 remoralised 191, 200–1
mixed-race population 220–1 Smollett’s critique of 57–8, 62, 64, 65
sumptuary laws 223 urban society and 33–4, 43, 58
limits, concept of natural 130–1 see also comfort; luxury debate; luxury
linen, Bengal 230 goods; taste
lines, in Hogarth’s definition of beauty luxury debate
124–5 ancient Greece and Rome 1, 7–8
Linnaeus, Carl, racial classification 222 eighteenth-century 10–11, 44–5
literary salons 3, 192 France 14, 20–1, 69, 73–5
Elizabeth Montagu’s 192–4, 199–200 nineteenth-century 23
literature and race (Spanish America) 220
Chinese 210, 211, 212 Scottish Enlightenment 11–12
critique of corruption 16 Spain 220
see also novel; prostitute memoirs; satire see also aesthetics
Livy, on luxury imports 8 luxury goods
Locke, John 32, 120, 121 as alternative currency 90, 95–100
London categorised 13, 89–90
shops 154, 228 circulation of 89–90
synonymous with luxury 1, 17 as consumer durables 12
London Magazine 14 differential quality of 13, 52, 232–3,
London-Bawd, The 180 234–5
Loudon, John Claudius 141, 145–6 distribution of 90–5
Louis XIV, King of France 73, 77–8 for domestic comfort 51–3, 108
love of luxury 78, 84n, 86n imitation of oriental imported 230,
Louis XV, King of France 241 238–9
Louis XVI, King of France 241 pawned 97–100, 102n
luxe, Diderot’s use of 75 semi-luxury ware 235
luxury variety of styles 79
associated with foreignness 8–9, 165, see also second-hand trade; trade
198, 205, 228–9 Lyons, silk industry 78
changing concept of 3–4 Lyttleton, George, Lord 192, 200
classical sense of (Old luxury) 8, 9, 11,
15, 42–3 McKendrick, Neil 104
as comfort 85n, 239 mahogany 1, 80, 81, 87n
critique of modern 23–4 maiolica, Italian 230, 241
and culture 196 majolica, Dutch and English 241
definitions of 7, 9, 74–5 Malacca islands 231
in Dutch Republic 48–50, 51–3 Malcolmson, Robert 103
Dutch theory of 45–8, 53 Malthus, Thomas 22, 146
Hume’s definition 10–11, 129 Malton, James 141
linked with commerce 9, 10, 11, 76, 191 cottage designs 142–3
Mandeville’s definition 32–3 Manchu dynasty, China 208
as moral threat 2, 7–8, 21, 41–2, 44–5 Mandeville, Bernard 17, 55n
move to objectification 23, 198 on appetite 128, 131
and necessity 135–6 categories of luxury goods 13
negative views of 14–15 depiction of women 19, 30
origin of word 75, 165 on desire for luxuries 33, 127–8
Index 253
Essay on Charity and Charity Schools 196 merciers see marchand merciers
Fable of the Bees 2, 19, 28–9, 37, 121, 187 metal-working, Matthew Boulton’s Soho
‘The Grumbling Hive’ 2, 136 works 151, 153–4
luxury as public benefit 10, 30–1, 165, metals
180 precious 8
A Modest Defence of Public Stews 180, trade (China) 233
185, 187 Mexico
on origins of civilisation 34, 35, 132 sumptuary laws 223
social analysis of emulative consumption trade with China 231, 233
30–2 Mexico City, luxury clothing 220, 221
translations of 23, 73 middle class
on variety 129 differing qualities of luxury goods 13,
Manila, trade through 233–4 89–90, 232–3
Manley, Delarivier, The New Atalantis France 231
(1709) 170, 179 market for ceramics 159–60, 237, 242
manufacturing 12, 22, 231 market for new goods 7, 206, 236–7
glass (France) 20–1, 78 Middleton, Charles 141
for luxury consumption 43–4, 151 Millar, John 14
for mass market 206, 229, 240–2 Milton, John, Paradise Lost 130
mass production (Asia) 207, 229 Ming dynasty, China 208, 210, 215, 232,
productivity 157–8 233
separation of processes 157, 207, 238 mirrors 8, 20
see also porcelain moderation 33
Mar, Lady 166 recommended 45–6
marble, Derbyshire 155 modernity 119–20, 129
marchand merciers, Paris 77, 79, 81, 82, 85n equated with plutocracy 20, 131
marriage, age of 107 and infinite wants 130
materialism 119, 127–8 money-lending, informal 96
matter, Newtonian theories of 120, 125–6 Montagu, Elizabeth 152
Maza, Sarah 73–4 acts of charity 195–7
mechanisation 157 and Boulton 154, 155, 157
medallions, portrait 159 as coal-owner 192, 195, 197
Medick, Hans 104 Essay on Shakespeare 191, 194
Meissen, porcelain 241 financial acumen 197, 198
Melon, F., political economy and luxury as landowner 192
11, 13 Montagu House 197–201
memoirs remoralising of luxury 201–2
prostitute 178–81 as salon hostess 191–4, 199–200
scandalous 182–3 Montagu House, Portman Square Plates
Memoirs of the Celebrated Miss Fanny 27–31, 197–201
M[urray] 183, 185 feather screens 199
Memoirs of Mrs. Catherine Jemmat 183–4 Montesquieu, Charles, Baron de 11, 29,
mercantilism 9, 44 42, 230
merchants 13 Lettres Persanes 172
China 209, 213, 215, 218n, 238 on Persian luxury 11, 43
competition from pawnbrokers 99 Montfaucon, Bernard de, Antiquitée
control of public sales 94 Expliquée 152
itinerant 91 moral-sense paradigm 121–2, 125, 126,
marchand merciers (Paris) 77, 79, 81, 82, 131
85n morality
see also pedlars; shopkeepers and fashion 32, 55n
Mercier, Sébastien 21, 23, 89–90, 94 luxury remoralised 191, 200–2
on courtiers 96 luxury as threat to 2, 7–8, 21, 41–2,
on Paris pawnshop 98 44–5
254 Index
and portrayal of Oriental Woman 174–5 Oriental Woman

and satire 16–17 class ambivalence 169–70
and wealth 54 in moral tales 174–5
More, Hannah 192, 193–4 power of 170–2
Bas Bleu (poem) 199 Roxane/Roxana/Roxolana models of
Coelebs in Search of a Wife 174–5 166–72
Moritz, K.P. 106 Scheherezade model of 173–4
Morris, Robert 137 ormolu
motion to ornament vases Plate 20, 154, 155,
aesthetics of 122–3, 128–9, 134n 159
contrasted with indolence 129 used in Montagu House 198
museums 20 ostentation 11, 77
muslins 7, 234, 236 Ottoman Empire
representations of 165, 168–9
Nanjing, silk production 209 see also Persia
‘natural economy’, in Smollett 58, 64, 65,
66 paintings, Dutch Plates 1–3, 49, 51, 52
necessities Palladio, Andrea 137
as differing from luxuries 9, 33, 74, Pallavicino, Sforza, papal nuncio 51
135–6 pamphlets 1, 14
as social construct 136 pantomime 186
Necker, Jacques 98 paper goods, from East 7, 8, 213, 230
Netherlands Paris
craftsmen 80–1 fashion in 36, 78
textiles 236, 240 Faubourg Saint-Antoine 78, 81
trade with Asia 231 luxury goods market 78
see also Dutch East India Company; marchand merciers 77, 79, 81
Dutch Republic pawnshop 98–100, 102n
Neufforges, J.F., Receuil Elementaire population 100n
d’Architecture 152 pastoralism
Newton, Sir Isaac, theories of matter 120, architectural rusticity 137, 138
125–6 idealised 64, 66
Noah’s Ark, curiosity shop 228 patronage 43, 56n, 72, 158
Noël, Gilles, pedlar 100n pattern books
North, Sir Dudley 31, 44 architectural 136, 137, 142, 144, 146
Northumberland, Duke and Duchess of for chinoiserie 238–9
158 vases Plate 19, 153
novel pawning and Parisian pawnshop 97–100,
as cultural critique 15–16 102n
see also prostitute memoirs pedlars 90–3, 100n
novelty 1, 123 as bankers 91, 93
attraction of 19 networks of 91–2
Nussbaum, Felicity 182–3 prices 92, 100–1n
Pepys, Samuel 56n
objectification 198 performance
obsidian 8 and adoption of oriental dress 168–9
Ogée, Frédéric 130 in prostitute memoirs 186
opposition, political 48 performance art, postmodern 178
opulence Perkins, Harold, The Origin of Modern
culture of 29–30 English Society 42
Montagu House 198 Persia 11, 43, 229, 235
universal (Smith) 12 Peru
Oriental, equated with exotic 228–9 sumptuary laws 223
oriental dress, adoption of 166–8 see also Lima
Index 255
Peter the Great, of Russia 52 Water Margin dish Plate 33, 210
Petis de la Croix, François, Turkish Tales Yongzheng period 211–12
173–4 Port Royal philosophy 47
Petitot, E.A. 152 Portugal, trade with Asia 231–2
philanthropy 139 possessions, superfluous, symbolic power of
see also charity 36
Philippines 231 Postlethwayt, Malachy 13, 241–2
Phillips, Teresia Constantia, memoirs Universal Dictionary of Trade and
182 Commerce 230
physiocrats 73 pottery (ceramics)
picturesque, cottages 141–2, 146 ‘black basalt’ ware 155
pietra-dura 79, 80 creamwares (Wedgwood) 138–9, 153,
Pilkington, Laetitia, memoirs 182 242
Piranesi, Giambattista 152 Dutch (Delft) 52, 56n, 236–7
Plaw, John, architect 138, 141 fine earthenwares as import substitutes
pleasure 242
hunting metaphor 122, 129, 133n ‘jasper’ (Wedgwood) 160
pursuit of 120, 121 lead-glazed 242
pleasure gardens 1, 7, 20 ‘mottled ware’ 154
Pliny 8 to Persian Gulf 8
Pluquet, abbé 37 red ‘encaustic’ enamel for 155
Pocock, John 18 Staffordshire 242
political economy tin-glazed earthenwares 236–7, 241
French 11, 13 poverty 22, 106
and luxury debate 22 prehistory, status and precious objects 8
Pompadour, Madame de 79, 81 Price, Richard 22
Pompeii 152 production
Poni, Carlo 97 gendered as masculine 83, 165–6
porcelain 1, 7, 229, 241–2 see also craft production; manufacturing;
English manufactories 155, 157, 241 porcelain
hard-paste 241 productivity 43–4, 76, 151, 157–8
Japanese 234, 241 profligacy 2
Meissen 241 prostitute
Sèvres 81, 241 iconography of 3, Plate 26, 163, 181
soft-paste 241 Mandeville’s defence of 180, 185
see also porcelain, Chinese; pottery as model of luxury 163, 179–80
(ceramics) as trickster 180
porcelain, Chinese 138, 209, 210, 216n, prostitute memoirs 183–6
217n Sally Salisbury 178–80
armorial export ware Plate 32, 208, Tryal of Lady Allurea Luxury 180–1
239 protectionist laws 8–9, 240, 241
Asian trade in 233–4 Protestantism, Calvinist 45–6
blanc-de-chine 238 Prydden, Sarah see Salisbury, Sally
chinoiserie designs for 239 psychology
desirability of 236–7 of luxury 23
domestic market 205, 209–10, 211–12 moral 34
export tea and dinner services 239 sense-based 119
‘famille rose’ 210
imperial ware 207–8, 209, 233 Qianlong, Chinese emperor 208, 209,
Kangxi period 211 215–16
production methods 207–8, 216n, 237, Qing dynasty, China 208, 209, 212, 213,
238 232
‘secret colour’ greenwares 217nn Quakers, disapproval of fine clothing 112,
trade with Arabia 8, 234 113
256 Index
race Salisbury, Sally, Authentick Memoirs

changing view of 221–2, 224–5 178–80, 181, 182, 183–4, 187
Enlightenment classification 222–3 salon culture 3, 192
role in luxury debate 220–1 salt merchants, China 215, 218n
and sartorial emulation 221–3 Saly, J.-F. 152
Racine, Jean, Bajazet 172, 173 Samarkand 8
Rambouillet, Hotel de 200 Samuel, Richard, Nine Living Muses
Randall, Adrian 103 (painting) 203n
Raynal, abbé 11, 76 sanitation 138, 141
refinement, Hume’s use of term 18 Santo Domingo, sumptuary laws 224
reform Sargentson, Carolyn 77, 89
agricultural 139–40, 142, 147 satire
humanitarian 139, 146 moral 16–17, 179
Repton, Humphry 136–7, 141, 143 political 185, 186
Republican theory, Dutch 47 sexual 178, 185
resale see second-hand trade Savary des Bruslons, Jacques, dictionary of
retainers, to display wealth 9, 12, 13 commerce 9, 89, 96
revendeuses à la toilette, and circulation of Scale, John 158
luxury goods 95–6 Schama, Simon 50–1
Revett, Nicholas, Antiquities of Athens (with Schor, Juliet, The Overspent American 24
Stuart) 152 Scott, Joan 83
Reynolds, Frances 192 Scott, Sarah 197, 198
Reynolds, Sir Joshua 19, 192, 193, 240 Scottish Enlightenment 11–12, 201
Riffant, Marie-Anne 96 Scudéry, Madeleine de, Ibrahim, or the
Robinson, Mary, Walsingham 174 illustrious Bassa 169–70
Roche, Daniel 73 second-hand trade 78, 86n, 90
Rochefort, Desbois de 99 ‘affaires’ 97
rococo 53, 85n, 231 in clothing (revendeurs) 94
associated with new wealth 20 and collectables 94–5
as degenerate 71–2 pawning 97–100
romance, and romantic 63–4 Sekora, John 130, 131, 165
Rome, ancient on Humphry Clinker 15, 57
critiques of luxury 1, 8 Luxury: the Concept in Western Thought
knowledge and study of 152–3 15–18
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques 14, 21, 22, 37, 38 self-identity 10
critique of modernity 28, 33–7, 73 self-improvement, as natural appetite
Discourse on the Arts 21 131
Discourse on the Origins of Inequality 34 self-interest
Discourse of Political Economy 34 in altruism 196
on progress of civilisation 34–5 and expansion of commerce 10, 30
Roxana/Roxane, as literary constructs and rationality 121
Plate 23, 165–76, 178 and self-love 47
Roxane, wife of Alexander the Great 176n self-love 47
Roxolana, wife of Suleyman the Sempere y Guarinos, José 220
Magnificent Plate 24, 166, 168, sensibility, language of 59–60, 61, 62, 63
169–70 sensuality 11, 19
Royal Academy 158 sentimentality 139
Rullier, Pierre, Savoyard pedlar 92–3, service, domestic 110
100–1n Seven Years’ War 14, 74
Sèvres, royal porcelain factory 81, 241
Saint Domingue, sumptuary laws 223 sexuality 18–19
Saint-Lambert, Jean-François de, definition Shaftesbury, 3rd Earl of 20, 121, 126–7
of luxury 11, 75, 85, 90 Shandong, silk production 213
sales, public 94, 158–9 Shelburne, Lady 158
Index 257
Shelburne, Lord, Bowood House 153 social behaviour

Sheldon, Ann, Memoirs 183, 186 effect of conspicuous consumption on
shell, as precious material 8 31–2, 58
Sheriff, Mary 71 influence of women on 19
Sherwin, Will, textile printer 240 luxury and 13–14
shopkeepers social disorder 151
relations with customers 14 associated with luxury 73
relations with pedlars 91–2, 93 due to consumerism 14, 23–4, 73
shopping, as social behaviour 13–14 social distinctions
shops 1, 7, 90, 91, 154 luxury to define 15, 16
exotic Asian goods 228–9 see also class; sumptuary laws
Sichuan, silk production 213 social mobility, upward 61, 63, 64
silk 1, 7 Society of Artists 158
ceremonial and luxury articles (China) Society for the Encouragement of Arts,
Plates 34–6, 214 Manufactures and Commerce 14
Chinese trade in 233–4 Soho, Birmingham, Boulton’s manufactory
consumption in China 205, 210–11, at 151, 153, 156–7
217n, 232–3 Sombart, Werner, Luxury and Capitalism
Roman trade in 8, 229 19, 22–3, 42, 198
silk industry Sonenscher, Michael 78
China 208, 212–13, 215 Song dynasty, China 207, 211, 214, 230,
Dutch 52 232, 237
Lyons 78, 97 Souchal, Geneviève 82
silver, trade 233 South America see Spanish America
silverware 52, 160 Spain 8, 240
Simmel, George 19, 23, 37, 97 Spanish America 3, 205, 219–21
Sindibadnama cycle of Persian tales 173 clothing and racial identity 219–24
Sismondi, Jean Charles, Simonde de 22 slaves Plate 37, 221
slaves, Spanish America Plate 37, 221 sumptuary laws 205, 223–4
Smith, Adam 19, 240 Spence, Thomas 22
on Adam brothers 152 Spice Islands 233
contribution of luxury to economy 12, spice trade 8, 233, 234
21–2 Sprinkle, Annie 178, 187
old and modern luxury 43 status
on paradox of luxury 21, 54, 230 and clothing 10, 29, 111, 112
on public benefits 152, 196 prehistoric 8
review of Rousseau’s Inequality 35 see also class
Theory of Moral Sentiments 21–2 steam power, Boulton and Watt 160
Wealth of Nations 28, 136 Steuart, Sir James 44
Smith, Charlotte, The Old Manor House definitions of luxury 11, 43
175 Stillingfleet, Benjamin 192
Smollett, Tobias, Humphry Clinker Plate 4, Stone Age, precious materials 8
15–16, 57–66 Stuart, James
critique of luxury 57–8, 62, 64, 65 Antiquities of Athens (with Revett) 152
language of sensibility 59–60, 61, 62, and Montagu House Plate 27, 197–8
63 Stubbs, George, The Haymaker Plate 10
mixture in 59–60, 64, 65 Suleyman the Magnificent 166, 169–70
Soane, John 141 sumptuary laws 8, 15, 43
sociability China 214–15, 218n
as behavioural ideal 127, 131–2 England 8
in Dutch Republican theory 47, 48, 53 French demand for renewal 20
role of women in 19, 191, 200, 201 repealed 9
urban (mixed) 194 Rousseau’s support for 34
social anxiety, France 74, 76 Spanish America 205, 223–4
258 Index
Surat, India 234, 235–6 Trumbach, Randolph 181–2

Swedish East India Company 236 Trumpener, Katie 173
Switzerland, textile printing 240 Tryal of the Lady Allurea Luxury, The (play)
14, 180–1, 190–1
Taizong, Chinese emperor 211 Tull, Betty 199
Talbot, Catherine, Essay on the Importance
of Riches 196–7 Ulloa, Antonio de 219, 220
Tang dynasty, China 212 underconsumption, luxury and 22
Tang Ying, imperial porcelain supervisor uniformity, and equilibrium 122, 129
210 urban economy 12, 13, 78
Tangiers 232 see also London; Paris
tapestry works urban society, and ‘new’ luxury 33–4, 43,
Dutch 52 58
France 78 urban–rural oppositions 33–4, 57–9, 64–5
taste urns
concept of 19–20, 117, 122, 123–4 funerary 151
criterion of 77, 79 Greek 151
Elizabeth Montagu’s 193, 197–201, 202 Sicilian (Kedleston) 152
‘end of’ (purpose of) 125, 126 Utrecht, silk industry 52
and fashion 81–2 Utrecht, Peace of 240
female 191, 201
and imitation 240 van Effen, Justus 48
language of 20 Vane, Anne, Lady, memoirs 182
and virtue 20, 201 vanity 14, 30
see also aesthetics role in economic expansion 35
taxes, import 240 variety
tea 1, 213, 235, 240 in aesthetics 120, 123–4, 128, 129
tea-drinking 7 attraction of 19
technology labyrinth metaphor 125
Chinese 232, 237 of quality 13, 52, 232–3, 234–5
to imitate oriental luxuries 230 of styles 79
and import substitution 240–2 vase mania 117–18, 151–60
and mirrors 20–1 vases
in Wedgwood and Boulton’s adaptations 154, 156
manufactories 157 Apotheosis of Homer (Wedgwood) Plate
see also manufacturing 21, 160
Temple, Sir William 49 black Etruscan (Wedgwood) Plate 18, 155
theatre 1, 7, 20 ‘Etruscan’ 153
silk costumes (China) 213, 217n Portland Vase (Wedgwood) 160
Thelwall, John 22 published folios of 152–3
Thome, J.A. 221–2 Wedgwood’s inspiration for 153–4, 156
Thompson, Edward 103, 104 Veblen, Thorsten 23, 37
Toth, Karl 71–2 veneers (on furniture) 78, 79, 87nn
trade marquetry 79–80
Amsterdam 50 pietra-dura 79, 80
with Asia 44, 208, 231–2 Venice 30, 230
Asian interregional 232, 233–4 Verlet, Pierre 82
Defoe on 19, 165–6 Vesey, Mrs 200
early 8 Vetancurt, Agustín 221
global 3, 76, 80 Vickery, Amanda 83
volatility of 18–19 Vien, Joseph-Marie, Suite de Vases 153
see also second-hand trade Viera, Juan de 221
Trent, Council of (1562) 230 virtue
Trevoux, dictionary 96 discourse on 20
Index 259
and taste 20, 201 Winckelmann, J.J., History of Ancient Art

virtuous individual 47–8 152
Vitruvius Pollio, Marcus 137 Wollstonecraft, Mary 22
VOC see Dutch East India Company woman, as category 18–19, 163, 165, 191
Voltaire 194, 229 women
and luxury debate 73, 74–5 aspirations of plebeian 105
as chambrelans 93
Wailly, C. de 152 compared with volatile market 19
Wales, Dowager Princess of 158 as consumers 82–3
Walker, Captain Charles see Salisbury, domestic servants 110
Sally and fashion 35–6
Wallace, Lady Eglantine, ‘The Ton: or, letter-writing 79, 82
Follies of Fashion’ (1788) 14 and negative connotations of luxury
Walpole, Horace 158, 192 165, 187
Warwick, Earl of 157 as readers of prostitute memoirs 187
waste, and prosperity 18 as revendeuses 94
watches as revendeuses à la toilette 95–6
ownership of 90, 91, 99, 102n, 105 role in ‘old’ luxury 42
pawned 99 sociability of 19, 191, 200, 201
pedlars’ stocks 91–2 see also femininity; Oriental Woman;
prices 92–3, 100–1n prostitute
water closets, in garden buildings 138 Wood, John 139–40
Water Margin, The, Chinese novel 210 Plans for Cottages 140
Watt, James 160 Wood, Robert and James Dawkin, The
wealth Ruins of Palmyra 152
and charity 196–7 woods
in Dutch society 50, 51–2, 53 exotic 1, 80
elite display of 9, 12, 13, 29 mahogany 1, 80, 81, 87n
and modernity 20, 131 Worcester, porcelain works 241
and morality 54 working class Plate 10–11
productive and unproductive 76 aspirations 103, 105, 111–12
and virtue 202 expenditure on clothing 104, 107–11
Weaver, John, Anatomical and Mechanical use of pawnshop 97–8, 99
Lectures upon Dancing 123 Wortley Montagu, Lady Mary, Turkish dress
Weber, Max 23 Plate 25, 166, 167–8, 169
Protestant Ethic 45 Wraxall, Nathaniel 193
Wedgwood, Josiah 19, 151 writing desks
Burslem works 155, 156–7 bonheur-du-jour Plates 5–8, 82–3, 88n
collaboration with Boulton 154–5 moralised vision of 71, 83
creamware (Queen’s Ware) 138–9, 153, secrétaires en pente 86n
242 specialised demand 78–9
diversification 159–60 Wynn, Sir Watkin Williams 153
Etruria works 155, 157, 159
London sales 158 Yangzi region, China 215
Portland Vase 160 Yongzheng, Chinese emperor 208, 210
production processes 156–7 Young, Arthur 141
Wedgwood, Sarah 154 Yuan dynasty, China 215, 232, 237
Wenxin Zhai, Chinese potter 210 Yuan Mei, Chinese poet 212
West, Benjamin Plate 22, 160
Whore’s Rhetorick, The 180 Zeus, and Danaë (and the golden shower)
Wilkes, John 151, 158 179
Williams, Raymond, Keywords 18 Zhang Han, Ming official 214
Wilson, Edward 193 Zhejiang, silk production 213

Luxury in The Eighteenth Century: Edited by Maxine Berg and Elizabeth Eger

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Luxury in The Eighteenth Century: Edited by Maxine Berg and Elizabeth Eger

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Luxury in The Eighteenth Century: Edited by Maxine Berg and Elizabeth Eger

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Luxury in the Eighteenth

1. Luxury – History – 18th century. 2. Wealth – History – 18th century.

List of Plates vii

2 Mandeville, Rousseau and the Political Economy of Fantasy 28

3 Luxury in the Dutch Golden Age in Theory and Practice 41

4 Aestheticising the Critique of Luxury: Smollett’s Humphry Clinker 57

Part II Delectable Goods

6 The Circulation of Luxury Goods in Eighteenth-Century Paris: Social

7 Custom or Consumption? Plebeian Fashion in Eighteenth-Century

Part III Beauty, Taste and Sensibility

9 From Luxury to Comfort and Back Again: Landscape Architecture and

10 Vase Mania 151

Part IV The Female Vice? Women and Luxury

12 Luxury, Satire and Prostitute Narratives 178

13 Luxury, Industry and Charity: Bluestocking Culture Displayed 190

Part V Luxury and the Exotic

15 Luxury, Clothing and Race in Colonial Spanish America 219

16 Asian Luxuries and the Making of the European Consumer

c. 1700, diameter 20 cm. Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, EA X.3532 Mallett

Maxine Berg is Professor of History and Director of the Warwick Eighteenth-

John Crowley is George Munro Professor of History at Dalhousie University,

Rebecca Earle is Lecturer in Comparative American Studies, University of

Elizabeth Eger is Research Fellow in the Department of English, University of

Laurence Fontaine is Professor of History, The European University Institute, and

Dena Goodman is Professor of History at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,

Edward Hundert is Professor of History, University of British Columbia and

Michael McKeon is Professor of English at Rutgers University, New York. His

John Styles is Director of the MA in the History of Design, V&A/Royal College of

Jenny Uglow is Honorary Professor of the Department of English, University of

Shelagh Vainker is curator of Eastern Arts at the Ashmolean Museum Oxford

Jan de Vries is Professor of History and Economics, University of California,

confused and reinforced in different social, geographical and literary contexts, it

They developed no vocabulary or theory to discuss and to defend a republican

Bernard Mandeville, doctor and wide-ranging social and political essayist, a

uncertain signiﬁcance’, calling for greater precision in contemporary usage of the

sumption. Hume separated out ‘philosophical’ from economic questions. Luxury

actions of gesture and conversation which established an emotional relationship

as a genre of cultural critique, arguing that Humphry Clinker is most vigorous as a

Ditch, London’s notorious open sewer, articulates a strand of thought otherwise

market demand. Concepts of ‘commerce’, ‘intercourse’ and ‘conversation’ were

The luxury debates also turned on the development of a secular aesthetic

and Simmel in Germany and Veblen in America. Mandeville ﬁrst appeared in

11. The philosophical and theological framework of Mandeville’s thought is discussed in

67. Smith, ibid., Book IV, ch. 1, pp. 180–3.

Mandeville injected into public consciousness the question of what happens

a considerable Portion of what the Prosperity of London and Trade in general

Mandeville transformed the notion of female desire from a localised force

of the dramatically altered intersubjective conditions which had come to charac-

to virtue by disguising their own self-seeking, thereby commanding the respect

As Mandeville’s signiﬁcance has grown, Rousseau’s has diminished, so that he

The Old Luxury

Pre-commercial societies deployed a discourse of ‘luxury’ to discuss consumer

The New Luxury

The luxury debate

Steuart, over 70 years later, claimed that:

The Root of evil Avarice

Thus every part was full of Vice,

With this challenge to conventional wisdom, a sustained debate of consumer

Dutch luxury in theory