Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T00:07:00.130Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

POLITENESS AND THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BRITISH EIGHTEENTH CENTURY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 January 2003

LAWRENCE E. KLEIN
Affiliation:
Emmanuel College, Cambridge

Abstract

Politeness has assumed an important place in recent interpretations of eighteenth-century Britain by historians and historically minded scholars in other fields. The use of politeness as an analytic category has relied on varying assessments of the eighteenth-century semantic associations of the term, which included attentiveness to form, sociability, improvement, worldliness, and gentility. Scholars have used politeness in one or more of these senses to characterize distinctive aspects of eighteenth-century British culture: the comportment of the body in isolation and in social interaction; the material equipment of everyday life; the changing configurations and uses of domestic and public spaces; skills and aptitudes that both constituted personal accomplishment and shaped larger cultural enterprises such as religion, learning, the arts, and science; and important aspects of associational and institutional life. Thus, eighteenth-century Britain was polite in that a wide range of quite different activities have been identified as bearing the stamp of the eighteenth-century meanings of ‘politeness’. Furthermore, what made eighteenth-century Britain a polite society was not its horizontal division between polite and non-polite persons but rather the wide access of a range of persons to activities and competencies that contemporaries considered ‘polite’.

Type
Historiographical reviews
Copyright
© 2002 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Versions of this paper have been presented at the Early Modern Britain Seminar at Sheffield University, the British Seminar at the University of Kansas, the Intellectual History Seminar of the Triangle PhD Program in Intellectual History, Research Triangle, North Carolina, and the History Faculty Seminar at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. I am grateful for comments from the audiences at these gatherings as well from A. J. E. Bell, Gregory Brown, Michèle Cohen, V. A. C. Gatrell, Joanna Innes, Steven Schwartzberg, David Shields, Robert Shoemaker, Jay Smith, John Styles, David Tanenhaus, Amanda Vickery, William Weber, Elizabeth White, and Kathleen Wilson.