Public Mixing in the Eighteenth Century London - Essay Example

Public Mixing in the eighteenth century London as depicted in literature The pleasure gardens had a variety of clientele in the eighteenth century. The variety in the clientele is due to the fact that the gardens were also used for a variety of functions. Around the same time, it is documented that the use of the gardens was not to show the fun that it was intended to deliver but the mix of class was imminent. In many occasions, the gardens served as the clients with different purposes of different nature. In some cases, the use of the gardens provided the wealthy with the possibility of dealing with the social relationships. The rich would come to the gardens with the intention of meeting performing business of even just relaxing and having fun. This divide in the nature of the clients also inform the nature of the relationship that the women had in the attendance of these events. To most men, the fairs implied the variety in the selection of the women that they could meet or have sexual relations (Ogborn, 122). To some, the gardens visitation of the pleasure gardens and even fairs implied that they would be exposed to a high level of transgression. The transgression would result from the relation of the different members of the society and class. Within this paper, an examination of the different relations of class and behaviour during the same time in the pleasure gardens, theatres and fairs is examined. Specifically, the use of the eighteenth century literature is derived to give the form and consequences of the public interaction at the time in London. Class and social stratification was evident at the time. To the carnival goers, the role of the class would not be as evident as it would be in some other setting. According to (Stallybrass and White, 104), the upper class engaged in the similar activities just like the common people. This was achieved through masquerade. The upper class were able to engage in the transgressions that was a common phenomenon of the poor or commoners at the events. This idea shows two sides of the events. First, for the common people, it was a normal public opportunity for transgression. Secondly to the upper class, the carnival offered them the chance to engage in the same transgressions that the common people did engage in through masquerade. The picture given to public engagement at the events is given as a unifying one. In the case where a crime like transgression is involved, the result and nature of the public relation is similar regardless of the side that one was in terms of class. It is also possible that in the public engagement, societal stratification in terms of wealth did not play any significant role in the encounters. Instead, the engagement of the public was strictly or limited to the entertainment and pleasures that they would derive from the theatres and pleasure gardens. Malcomson (78) also notes that the fairs provided exactly the same benefits that the noble people in the society received. It states that “Many fairs provided for the common people what masquerades afforded to the gentry and nobility” This perspective would qualify the idea that at the fairs or the events, the interaction was left at a peer level and there was no superiority derived from social class. It is also possible that the engagement meant that there was no single social class taking advantage of the other in the fairs. Equality is the main idea that the carnivals and fairs promoted. Through these events, it is possible to have a more cohesive society in which social class does not impact on the daily lives of the people. Despite this high level of respect and decorum in public engagement, it is still possible that the rich have the allusion of their superiority. This was still evident even in the masquerades in London during the eighteenth century. The role of class segregation still underpinned the events and public mixing at the time. In some instances, the subordinate classes were the subject of stare. The people looked at them in awe as they tried to fit in the mood of the events (Stallybrass and White, 42). In case where the participation often required a level of complexity or nobleness, the subordinate classes were required to be observers and not participants. However, the desire to participate in the events and the actualisation of the participation made them the subject of awe by the upper classes in the society (Fair, 229). The mix of business and pleasure at the events was a common phenomenon. According to the literature available at the time, the most common purpose of the events that were organised by the stakeholders ended up in the patronage either attending to business or just pleasure. The business implied that they would meet their counterparts at the events or maybe organise new deals at the functions. As the functions brought many together, the possibility of creating business at these sites was highly likely. The possibility of assembling a high number of people who are potential market is the driving force behind this position. In this case, the public encounters at the pleasure gardens theatres and fairs not only served as the place to derive pleasure but also to make money. Many potential business ideas and existing business are brought to life by the large assembly. The move to mix business and pleasure at the carnivals is a direct economic consequence of the events. It implies that in a gathering of a huge number of people like at the fairs, the possibility of deriving economic gain is high. The fairs also provided the locals with an opportunity to change their socio-economic status and relations. A part from the economic gains that the local could have through these events, the creation of social ties was also significant. The social bond in the events could be extended through the use of courtship which was a common phenomenon at the stage (Malcomson, 54). The consequence of this public mixing is therefore seen as fostering the social relations that individuals could attain. The provision of a stage or opportunity to interact led to the people at the fairs linking up in courtships that could lead to marriages and societal development. Despite the English revolution, it was still possible that the main event at the functions involved a derivation of pleasure from eating. The writer of the letter in the champion describes this position as an unfortunate event or a place that should not even exist following the nature of the English people (Wroth, 288). Further criticism is afforded to the fact that the people who attended these events used a large portion of their estate to make merry or eat their delicious meals and forget their miseries. Forgetting their miseries in this case is symbolically used. The main intention of the author in this case is to develop the idea that this intention does not serve the required and valid societal norm. In the normalcy of the society, the main intention of the people would be to feed and not to starve at any point or season. The desire to reach this level is however curtailed by the level of the inadequacy that they encounter. In drowning this inadequacy, the author of this letter points at the possibility of the revellers using the occasion as a food field day. Here, the form given to public mixing at events is that there is a high level of consumption of food. Many people use occasions as times to eat special diet that is not part of their routine meals. The occasions and public mixing in this case would not be complete without the involvement of a special diet or food at the events. To some the aspect of carnival gave rise to an undesirable eating habit. During this time of the year, the members of the public engaged in slaughtering of pigs ad roasting meat that gave rise to an unpleasant smell. Some literature material point out to the fact that it was not necessary to have this kind of behaviour as it made no sense (Ward, 232). In this non-fictoinal book that discuses the lowlife of London in the eighteenth century, the persona states that ‘Odoriferous effluvias arose from the singeing of pigs, and burnt crackling of over-roasted pork we were forcd to remove from our quarters, and hazzard our...’this clearly is an indication that the persona did not like the scenes and the smells that were going on due to the carnival. The roasting of pork in this piece is also significant. The significance of the roasting is based on the reasoning that some people burnt the pork which again shows that the practice was not a daily happening. The people only got the chance to roast the pork in a season and this is the main reason for it to be poorly done or burnt. Apart from the food, the form and mixing of the time portrayed a high level of public consumption of alcohol and related beverages. In a town that was humble enough not to host this high level of people, the members of the high class that visited the events had to spend an evening doing some drinking at the local taverns. The letter by the gentleman to his friend in Paris is not only an indication of the same by a direct explanation of the first person participant in the fairs (Wroth 288). In the letter it says that a reveller would partake a drink at these joints and go away. At the time of the fairs or the visitation of the gardens, the clubs would be full to their maximum. In many instances, the author of the text on the Vauxhall gardens refers to these clubs as having the licence to sell liquor. Within the limits of the merry that they make daily includes special events like the fairs at the gardens. The fairs at the gardens provided an increased number of clients or patronage to these clubs. Prostitution is another factor that is related to the fairs at the London pleasure gardens. The association of prostitution to the fair gardens is derived mainly from events that transpired after the parades that were witnessed in the London pleasure garden. Most visitors would retire to clubs and taverns that sold beer as they were far off their home, the services of the prostitutes was inevitable (Hewitt, 27). The males would make merry in the evening and use the services of the prostitutes in the later part of the night. According to Miles ogborn, the gardens were places of mild fun. Most of their patronage engaged in polite fun activities. The politeness as used here implies that the level of decorum of the patronage was high enough. This decorum could however shift occasionally to expose the encounters as sexually dangerous (Ogborn, 122). In this perspective, the form of public mixing to some is depicted as ennobling and to other, the possibility of sexual exploit is highly likely. Decorum in their public engagement is not possible and they have to satisfy their appetite for sex regardless of the time and place. The display of fashion and pomp at the pleasure gardens was also an important aspect. To the patrons of the pleasure gardens, the need to showcase their luxuries was a motivating factor in taking the patronage of the gardens. The attendance was also meant to share the identity and consumption of novel brands of commodities. The testing of these commodities would be instigated in other individuals and as such the other individual at the gardens would be persuaded to buy them. The exchange of ideas especially in fashion and the resulting commercialisation of the novel commodities would therefore be the most important role of the pleasure gardens (Ogborn, 119). The importance of this role in public mixing would also see the commercialisation of some luxury brands throughout Europe around the same time. To some, the pleasure gardens were simply a collection or a rendezvous of fashion. Their attendance was either motivated by the need to display fashion or the need to show off their new fashion. From this perspective, the ability to awed or intrigued by the display gives on the notion that the public mixing at the time had a bearing on the fashion. Most people either derived the fashion that they adopted from the mingling at pleasure gardens or shared the fashion they had with the public. The role of public mixing at this time can be seen as that which influences the personality of the people. In this case, the taste of fashion is one area that the fashion is seen to be influencing. The display of gallantry at the pleasure gardens and the performances that showed heroism of the empire is another aspect that could influence personality (Wroth, 288). While all these performance are argued to be for entertainment or pleasure, the display would affect the notions of the pleasure gardens patronage. The public at the time is depicted as adoring the gallantry and thinking that it was fashionable. The depiction of the gallantry as fashionable implies that it could be easily adopted by the public or the goers of these pleasure gardens. In this case, the public mixing can be seen as influencing or interfering with the mindset of the people and their personality. It is possible that the gallantry displayed at the events could be copied by the patronage of the pleasure gardens. In this aspect, the events that transpire at the pleasure gardens could be important in influencing the direction of character and personality (Conlin, n.p). The influence of the novel goods and the gallantry displayed by the performances are a mix that could induce character in the people visiting these gardens. In conclusion, the available literature of the eighteenth century point to different aspects of life. In public mixing, the available literature point out the different aspects of social life back then. For instance, during social events live fairs and carnivals, the creation of social and economic ties was a norm. This fact can be explicitly demonstrated by the fact that at the fairs or events of the same nature, the people got the stage to do deals on business. The mixing enable the merchants at the time to make deals with peers and business and pleasure went down together perfectly. The large crowd that the events drew also accorded the traders and the locals alike to transform their economic capabilities. In social aspects, the idea of courtship was common at the events (Roulston, 74). Again in this case, the public mixing at this point provided the revellers with a chance to meet and court or gain sexual relations. In the pleasure gardens, the mixing of individuals was done with decorum. But behind this decorum, there is a possibility of sexual exploitation that could arise from the interaction albeit in isolated cases. Social stratification is also clearly indicated as still influencing the interactions. Despite the intention of the Londoners to enjoy the prevailing moods of the events, the literature points to the fact that the upper classes mingled freely with the subordinate classes. Even though this was a possibility, the upper classes still had the allusions of class. Social transgression which was a common aspect of the mixing provided the public with the temporary escape from the existence of an ordered system of social status. In some cases, the escape offered did not work. The result of the same was that the upper classes looked at the members of the subordinate classes with awe. The participation of the members of the subordinate class in some of these public events was not a norm. The food and drinks was a norm in public mixing or events. The available literature points to the fact that at the events, the people engage in special feast and meals that was different from the normal. This led to the air being filed with odour that emanated from cooking special food. The food however was not well done and this points out to the reason that it was not an everyday delicacy. In overall, the available literature on the eighteenth century London points to the fact that social upheaval was an important aspect (Kamrath and Sharon, 1). It also shows that public mixing ended up in promoting the social aspects of identity and relationships within the society. This aspects come together with the economic possibilities that were occasioned by the mingling of people. Works cited Conlin, Jonathan. The Pleasure Garden: From Vauxhall to Coney Island. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013. Internet resource. Fair, Bartholomew. An Heroic Commical poem, In representing London Course pack. 2006 print. Hewitt, Regina. Orthodoxy and Heresy in Eighteenth-Century Society: Essays from the Debartolo Conference. Lewisburg: Bucknell Univ. Press, 2002. Print. Kamrath, Mark, and Sharon M. Harris, eds. Periodical Literature in Eighteenth-Century America. Univ. of Tennessee Press, 2005. Malcolmson, Robert W. Popular recreations in English society 1700-1850. CUP Archive, 1979. Ogborn, Miles. Spaces of modernity: Londons geographies, 1680-1780. Guilford Press, 1998. Roulston, Christine. Narrating Marriage in Eighteenth-Century England and France. Farnham, Surrey, England: Ashgate Pub, 2010. Internet resource. Stallybrass, Peter, and Allon White. "The poetics and politics of transgression." London: Methuen (1986). Ward, Edward. The London Spy Compleat. J. How, and sold by E. Jaye, 1703. Wroth, Warwick William, and Arthur Edgar Wroth. The London pleasure gardens of the eighteenth century. Macmillan, 1896. Read More