ne wiiiaar he 1 + et . 4 ; P re SePegete artorlilhen beable Aah? -pmteet Ad vie tao atte POY | i PaUbenEDURTRe gay : \ { oes eae Re " Bye: we es vee ’ We fee eeu eae! ipetptel tetera \ bebe ea ee bs! a one a8 oe X0060955 19 { fjLIBRARY OF THE GIFT OF HARCOURT PARRISH, B.A. ’20 IN MEMORY OF HIs MOTHER FANNIE HARCOURT PARRISH+o. r -9* enek, oe te Sporee tee | P= t oe i ‘ » OF ~- 1 /~ &, eV a : Pe . . a ee en oe ae i 4 7 ” J id 7 jb eee ee ee Pe. C7 - as a a ue J sw td Se) 9 ca ee - i cd r) - - - Fes Pt oe aT 4 a7 w a ad ~~ ~ ~ < — el - 7 Gon a > nd dee ‘ ‘ . r o : ‘ , 7 o gt ys rl oy 4 a - he. < ay o 7 b 4 Ed F a. 2 °7 ry 7. ; fi i . PF al . ps se, : aa : ‘2 cj , + a a i +, Fy P ; d 7 . ‘ “* . “ ‘ F . . ' at She » aT ‘ ees £59 . @. 4 aie’ F ‘ ieee as a ' a’ Vania 7 : i- 4 ; ‘ ad * cs ‘s ad GG : ts ‘ . . . 7 Nat aw S. * " 4 x ie ’ is A _ ew ; he Ee te Oe Mae *. Pa a F F , * 7s ’ 4 . oe) : ; LL * . " "a he mJ ar! ae « ei Lg e ' A f ' A . See - i" , ri * \ 5 te aa a ; ro a : ie * 7 a e a S Fe : a. a _ ‘ a | f a & a - 7. “se " i .' 7 ; F mr Pe - 7 ed ae 4 2 xt 7 a La a, ~ “a “Reha ly , 4 » “ re m ¥ ov ae id ' a Pe as ae” ’ ; a > a pot b - a = 4 oes , Pao 4 F when, el j » a. al un ae ~~ en * : i * 7 ~ £ WT. : é * aonwe Feel *, et, tt »* ae" .- ~ - ~. J = ~~ »* _———————— cree ag s Pe. . a am Sa ge eg + a d aa 3 “yf be tw = -,” tA eed 3 , = <° "> ms > " a y “er 7 J : » cand os Se dal mee a = 7 . «+ 2 ns a —_— a # fi sc ae « A. o ¥ . “S oe ~~. — Se ae ia a ii, Ue odlied =. — *%?; : os og : a oe So ts ae eee OA — > , me a? Tee . * 4 FP % f a t \ . *\ a aie ad Ge “Vs | A. Dea oy ae ee ~~ ‘ f . a / e ' ot had” a x? al A > Sn at | : —_. —?* e- ee ad a es — il a es oe ' gor 4 ab ue *ivu-y “ * BRP. i _ Pa aa ~~ oe ete. anarateie Y a ee > ge . ¢ — 7. ws “ie te a - - a Se 6 eee es ee - F a a a ed OM prs - oe Fe éis- f a a i el ee ee ell ee a he Slt diin? i eas ee 4 in, A ae a ee i ee ee ed . A a neal ry —- Se a a ra a7 Pe is SS i ee | vs mai F cic oe ee a * -~ a ' a cd a : “ ao Co gc te A ie om Cao a a ee — . <4 .. a ee net «i ‘ e " ‘ _ pmo TC AEE PN aa Sees SR a ee wa ‘ +? bs vate et of thn, a te ' Hy i Le So al fe te ee Fae | dort fa: Roe e tee ; ore Ri , ; eT = ee cab ie? | Peete oso Cannan. oe es ne , hos car FERRY)The Theory of the Leisure Class An Economic Study of Institutions By THORSTEIN VEBLEN New YorK VANGUARD PRESS MCMXXVII Semr™ Le f > ~ fy > 4 2 VFR $4 ql - ~~ = Copyright, 1 899, I912 By THE MACMILLAN COMPANY All rights reserved Published February, 1899. Reprinted May, 1902: October, 1905; August, 1908; December, 1911. New edition February, 1912. New edition published by B. w. Huebsch, July, 1918. Reprinted September, 1919 Reprinted October, 1922THE MAN: Thorstein Veblen, a Westerner of Scandinavian stock, is one of the foremost economists of our age and generation. He graduated from Carleton Col- lege, Minnesota, in 1880, continued his studies at Johns Hopkins, and obtained the degree of Ph.D. at Yale, in 1884. Urbanity of manners, executive abil- ity and an innate gift of shedding light upon difficult economic complexities, made him a lecturer and editor of enduring popularity in the field of political economy. His life-story as a university teacher is a long record of skillful, even-tempered resistance against encroachments upon academic freedom. He taught his specialty for more than a quarter of a century, first at the University of Chicago, then at Leland Stanford, and finally at the University of Missouri. THE BOOK (1899): American capitalism has established a larger num- ber of boots of actual or potential leisure than can be found anywhere else on the face of the habitable globe. The Theory of the Leisure Class is a thor- oughly readable inquiry into their mode of life, their views and their habits of expenditure, enlivened by an undercurrent of polite sarcasm that forms the main characteristic of Veblen’s writings. The book has gone through several editions; its pertinent, in- cisive criticism of the mentality of the average run of well-to-do people is as fresh and as vital now as at the time of first publication.BOOKS BY THORSTEIN VEBLEN THE THEORY OF THE LEISURE CLASS THE THEORY OF BUSINESS ENTERPRISE THE INSTINCT OF WORKMANSHIP IMPERIAL GERMANY AND THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION THE NATURE OF PEACE AND THE TERMS OF ITS PERPETUATION THE HIGHER LEARNING IN AMERICA THE VESTED INTERESTS AND THE COMMON MAN THE PLACE OF SCIENCE IN MODERN CIVILISATION THE ENGINEERS AND THE PRICE SYSTEM ABSENTEE OWNERSHIP AND BUSINESS ENTERPRISE IN RECENT TIMESPREFACE It is the purpose of this inquiry to discuss the place and value of the leisure class as an economic factor ‘1 modern life, but it has been found impracticable to confine the discussion strictly within the limits so marked out. Some attention is perforce given to the origin and the line of derivation of the institution, as well as to features of social life that are not commonly classed as economic. At some points the discussion proceeds on grounds of economic theory or ethnological generalisation that may be in some degree unfamiliar. The introductory chap- ter indicates the nature of these theoretical premises sufficiently, it is hoped, to avoid obscurity. A more explicit statement of the theoretical position involved ‘< made in a series of papers published in Volume IV of the American Journal of Sociology, on “ The Instinct of Workmanship and the Irksomeness of Labour,” “ The Beginnings of Ownership, ” and “The Barbarian Status of Women.” But the argument does not rest on these — in part novel — generalisations in such a way that it would altogether lose its possible value as a detail of economic theory in case these novel generalisations should, in the reader’s apprehension, fall away through being insufficiently backed by authority or data. \ Vvv1 Preface Partly for reasons of convenience, and partly because there is less chance of misapprehending the sense of phenomena that are familiar to all men, the data employed to illustrate or enforce the argument have by preference been drawn from everyday life, by direct observation or through common notoriety, rather than from more recondite sources at a farther remove. It is hoped that no one will find his sense of literary or scientific fitness offended by this recourse to homely facts, or by what may at times appear to be a callous freedom in handling vulgar phenomena or phenomena whose intimate place in men’s life has sometimes shielded them from the impact of economic discussion. Such premises and corroborative evidence as are drawn from remoter sources, as well as whatever articles of theory or inference are borrowed from ethnological Science, are also of the more familiar and accessible kind and should be readily traceable to their source by fairly well-read persons. The usage of citing sources and authorities has therefore not been observed. Like- wise the few quotations that have been introduced, chiefly by way of illustration, are also such as will commonly be recognised with sufficient facility without the guidance of citation.CONTENTS CHAPTER Il PAGE INTRODUCTORY ; : ; : i : 3 ; I CHAPTER II PECUNIARY EMULATION i 3 : : ; : Pune CHAPTER III CoNsPICUOUS LEISURE . : ; ; 2 : of Z5 CHAPTER IV CONSPICUOUS CONSUMPTION .- . ; ° ° ° - 68 CHAPTER V THE PECUNIARY STANDARD OF LIVING : ° ° 21 5OZ CHAPTER VI PECUNIARY CANONS OF TASTE - . : ; ‘ - 15 CHAPTER VII DRESS AS AN EXPRESSION OF THE PECUNIARY CULTURE 167 CHAPTER VIII 183 INDUSTRIAL EXEMPTION AND CONSERVATISM , . Vil o. a)Vill Contents CHAPTER IX THE CONSERVATION OF ARCHAIC TRAITS . CHAPTER X MODERN SURVIVALS OF PROWESS CHAPTER AI THE BELIEF IN LUCK . . : ; ; CHAPTER XII ' DEVOUT OBSERVANCES . CHAPTER AIil SURVIVALS OF THE NON-INVIDIOUS INTEREST CHAPTER XAIV THE HIGHER LEARNING AS AN EXPRESSION OF IARY CULTURE THE PECUN- PAGE 212 246 276 293 332 363THE - THEORY OF LAE: LEISURE. Geass CHAPTER 4 INTRODUCTORY THE institution of a leisure class is found in its best development at the _highe aves ¢ barbaria) culture; as, for instance, in feudal Europe or feudal Japan. In such communities the distinction between classes is very rigorously observed; and the feature of most striking economic significance in these class differences is the distinction maintained between the employments proper to the several classes. The upper classes are by custom exempt or excluded from indus- trial occupations, and are reserved for certain employ- ments to which a degree of honour attaches. Chief among the honourable employments in any feudal com- munity is warfare; and priestly service 1s commonly second to warfare. If the barbarian community is not notably warlike, the priestly office may take the prece- dence, with that of the warrior second. But the rule holds with but slight exceptions that, whether warriors or priests, the upper classes are exempt from industrial employments, and this exemption is the economic ex- pression of their superior rank. Brahmin India affords B t2 The Theory of the Letsure Class a fair illustration of the industrial exemption of both these classes. In the communities belonging to the higher barbarian culture there is a considerable differ- entiation of sub-classes within what may be compre- hensively called the leisure class; and there is a corresponding differentiation of employments between these sub-classes. The leisure class as a whole com- prises the noble and the priestly classes, together with much of their retinue. The occupations of the class are correspondingly diversified; but they have the common economic characteristic of being non-industrial. These non-industrial upper-class occupations may be roughly comprised under government, warfare, religious observances, and sports. At an earlier, but not the earliest, stage of barbarism, the leisure class is found in a less differentiated form. Neither the class distinctions nor the distinctions be- tween leisure-class occupations are so minute and intri- cate. The Polynesian islanders generally show this stage of the development in good form, with the exception that, owing to the absence of large game, hunting does not hold the usual place of honour in their scheme of life. The Icelandic community in the time of the Sagas also affords a fair instance. In such a community there is a rigorous distinction between classes and between the occupations peculiar to each class. Manual labour, industry, whatever has to do directly with the everyday work of getting a livelihood, is the exclusive occupation of the inferior class. This inferior class includes slaves and other dependents, and ordinarily also all the women. If there are severalIntroductory 3 grades of aristocracy, the women of high rank are com- monly exempt from industrial employment, or at least from the more vulgar kinds of manual labour. The men of the upper classes are not only exempt, but by pre- scriptive custom they are debarred, from all industrial occupations. The range of employments open to them is rigidly defined. As on the higher plane already spoken of, these employments are government, warfare, religious observances, and sports. These four lines of activity govern the scheme of life of the upper classes, and for the highest rank—the kings or chieftains — these are the only kinds of activity that custom or the common sense of the community will allow. Indeed, where the scheme is well developed even sports are accounted doubtfully legitimate for the members of the ‘highest rank. To the lower grades of the leisure class certain other employments are open, but they are em- ployments that are subsidiary to one or another of these typical leisure-class occupations. Such are, for instance, the manufacture and care of arms and accoutrements and of war canoes, the dressing and handling of horses, dogs, and hawks, the preparation of sacred apparatus, etc. The lower classes are excluded from these second- ary honourable employments, except from such as are plainly of an industrial character and are only remotely related to the typical leisure-class occupations. If we go a step back of this exemplary barbarian culture, into the lower stages of barbarism, we no longer find the leisure class in fully developed form. _But this QO ener —— lower barbarism shows the usages, motives, and circum- REO ECO OO A IE tn ene Saat stances out of which the institution of a leisure class4 Lhe Theory of the Leisure Class has arisen, and indicates the steps of its early growth. Nomadic hunting tribes in various parts of the world illustrate these more primitive phases of the differentia- tion. Any one of the North American hunting tribes may be taken as a convenient illustration. These tribes can scarcely be said to have a defined leisure class. There is a differentiation of function, and there is a distinction between classes on the basis of this differ- ence of function, but the exemption of the superior class from work has not gone far enough to make the desig- nation “leisure class” altogether applicable. The tribes belonging on this economic level have carried the economic differentiation to the point at which a marked distinction is made between the occupations of men and women, and this distinction is of an invidious character. In nearly all these tribes the women are, by prescrip- tive custom, held to those employments out of which the industrial occupations proper develop at the next advance. The men are exempt from these vulgar em- ployments and are reserved for war, hunting, sports, and devout observances. A very nice discrimination is ordinarily shown in this matter. This division of labour coincides with the distinction sa —_ between the working and the leisure class as it appears GEoa a4 —— in the higher barbarian culture. As the diversification and _ specialisation of employments proceed, the line of demarcation so drawn comes to divide the industrial from the non-industrial employments. The man’s occu- pation as it stands at the earlier barbarian stage is not the original out of which any appreciable portion of later industry has developed. In the later development OS = =Introductory 5 it survives only in employments that are not classed as industrial, — war, politics, sports, learning, and _ the priestly office. The only notable exceptions are a ———— —— portion of the fishery industry and certain slight employments that are doubtiully to be classed as industry; such as the manufacture of arms, toys, and sporting goods. Virtually the whole range of industrial employments is an outgrowth of what is classed as woman’s work in the primitive barbarian community. The work of the men in the lower barbarian culture is no less indispensable to the life of the group than the a—<——— ee work done by the women. It may even be that the men’s work contributes as much to the food supply and the other necessary consumption of the group. Indeed, so obvious is this “ productive” character of the men's work that in the conventional economic writings the hunter’s work is taken as the type of primitive industry. But such is not the barbarian’s sense of the matter. In_his own eyes he is not a labourer, and he is not to be classed with the women in this respect; nor is his effort to be classed with the women’s drudgery, as labour or industry, in such a sense as to admit of its being con- founded with the latter. There_is in all barbarian com- munities a profound sense of the disparity betweep man’s and woman’s work. His work may conduce to —— So the maintenance of the group, but it is felt that it does so through an excellence and an efficacy of a kind that cannot without derogation be compared with the uneventful diligence of the women. At a farther step backward in the cultural scale —6 Ihe Theory of the Letsuve Class among savage groups —the differentiation of employ- ments is still less elaborate and the invidious distinction between classes and employments is less consistent and less rigorous. Unequivocal instances of a primitive savage culture are hard to find. Few of those groups or communities that are classed as “savage” show no traces of regression from a more advanced cultural stage. But there are groups—some of them appar- ently not the result of retrogression — which show the traits of primitive savagery with some fidelity. Their culture differs from that of the barbarian communities. ip the-absence c a leisure class and the absence, in great measure, of the animus or spiritual attitude on which the institution of a leisure class rests. These ee SS ee SS ee > de ce cert hate edna leet ae sa a3 ondessandonal me communities of primitive savages in which there is no hierarchy of economic classes make up but a small and inconspicuous fraction of the human race. As good an instance of this phase of culture as may be had is af- forded by the tribes of the Andamans, or by the Todas of the Nilgiri Hills. The scheme of life of these groups at the time of their earliest contact with Europeans seems to have been nearly typical, so far as regards the absence of a leisure class. As a further instance might be cited the Ainu of Yezo, and, more doubtfully, also some Bushman and Eskimo groups. Some Pueblo com- munities are less confidently to be included in the same class. Most, if not all, of the communities here cited may well be cases of degeneration from a higher barbarism, rather than bearers of a culture that has never risen above its present level. If so,.they are for the present purpose to be taken with allowance, but they may serveIntroductory 7 none the less as evidence to the same effect as if they were really “ primitive” populations. These communities that are without a defined leisure class resemble one another also i in certain other features ie of their social structure and_ manner of life. They are a em a — ——— — — oe ee Te —_ — — i me es Se eel | eee ae ee ie oe eee, small groups and of a simple (archaic) structure; they are commonly peaceable and. sedentary ; they are poor ; and individual ownership is not a dominant feature of their economic system. At the same time it does not 2 —_, i ~~ follow that these are the smallest of existing commugi- tructure is in all respects the least differentiated; nor does the class necessarily in- a ae — aa oe v-_T- —_ a? ore clude all pri rimitive communities which have no defined ——_— —_ ——— system of individual ownership. But it is to be noted a | Rg a ee ee ee ee that the’ class seems to include the most peaceable — perhaps all the characteristically peaceable — primitive groups of men. Indeed, the most notable trait commgn ee Dame to members of such communities is a certain amiable inefficiency when confronted with force or fraud. -— eee = SE —— eee ee ~s e eeee eee The evidence afforded by the usages and cultural traits of communities at a low stage of development indicates that the institution of a leisure class has ees = emerged gradually | during the transition from primitive savagery to barbarism; or more precisely, during the transition from a a peaceable. to a consistently warlik¢ habit_of life, The conditions apparently necessary to Delia —_— —s = —,* a its emergence in. a. _consistent form_are; (1) the com- munity must be st be of a_ predatory habit of life (war or the hunting of large game or both); that is tO say, the men, who constitute the inchoate te leisure | class i in these cases, ew - a tm, , “Past be habituated to the infliction o of injury by force A er ge re Ee Serr eae on8 Lhe Theory of the Letsure Class and stratagem ; (2) subsistence must be obtainable on 2 et Ow eae = <— oe sufficiently easy terms to admit of the exemption of a considerable portion of the the community from. steady application to a routine of labour. The institution of.a leisure class is the outgrowth of an early discrimination ee eerewenerenameemeeen 18 Pas A eae between employments, according to which some employ- ments are worthy and others unworthy. Under this —— Ss eto —_—-— ———— oa ot ancient distinction the worthy employments are those which may be classed as exploit; unworthy are those necessary everyday employments int into which _ no_appre- Se le clable element of exploit enters. | | This distinction has but little obvious significance in a modern industrial community, and it has, therefore, received but slight attention at the hands of economic writers. When viewed in the light of that modern common sense which has guided economic discussion, it seems formal and insubstantial. But it persists with great tenacity as a commonplace preconception even in modern life, as is shown, for instance, by our habitual aversion to menial employments. It i 1s a distinction of a personal kind — of superiority and inferiority. In_the ear arlier. stages « of culture, when the ersonal force e ly and obviously in shaping thee course oft events, the element of af counted for more in the everyday sche terest centred about this fact to a greater oe poneeauently a distinction proceeding on this ground seemed niore imperative and more definitive then than is the case to-day. Asa fact in the sequence of devel. opment, therefore, the distinction is a substantial one and rests on sufficiently valid and cogent grounds. =—_ 2 oe =e @ 8 ee. ee Fh A as) SE fe ie 8 em 6 ee eee ek ee eee, nna a ate RE RENTERIntroductory 9 The ground on which a discrimination between facts is habitually made changes as the interest from which the.facts are habitually viewed changes. Those feat- ures of the facts at hand are salient and substantial upon which the dominant interest of the time throws its light. Any given ground of distinction will seem ‘nsubstantial to any one who habitually apprehends the facts in question from a different point of view and values them for a different purpose. The habit of dis- uishing and classifying the various purposes and directions of activit revails of necessity always and ‘ywhere; for it is indispensable in reaching a _work- >_\oes a 2 ee ee we & 24% ing theory or scheme of life. The particular point of view, or the particular characteristic that is pitched upon as definitive in the classification of the facts of life de- pends upon the interest from which a discrimination of the facts is sought. The grounds of discrimination, and the norm of procedure in clas sifying the facts, therefore, progressively change as the growth of culture proceeds ; for the end for which the facts of life are ~ be By _—_—.= - <= + Sa o-—— = ee ers 33 hens --- apprehended changes, and the point of view _conse- quently changes also. So that what are recognised as the salient and decisive features of a class of activities | 7 + - or of a social class at - one stage,of culture will not retajn the same relative importance for the purposes of classi- fication at any subsequent slags. Be BAT Be SS, ss - But the. change of. standards .and_paints of view is gradual only, and it seldom results in the subversion, or - Sper setae fe eae ene a er Ec CT LL TE srs - Pr —_—SeeO- oF. tin _—- a entire suppression of a standpoint once accepted. A. SFP OL SEE Pz —_eaears distinction is still habitually made between industrial —_- ae oe o> ewe ee * —_—~ 2 rn OE and non-industrial occupations ; and this modern_dis- Sree? wees et == dea Jaw eee el mF10 | The Theory of the Leisure Class tinction is a transmuted form of the barbarian distinc- tion. between _exploit and drudgery. Such employments SS "—=r as_warfare, politics, public worship, and_ public merry- making, are felt, in the popular apprehension, to differ intrinsically from the labour that has to do with elabo- rating the material means of life. The precise line of itt tii eit he demarcation is not the same as it was in the early barbarian scheme, but the broad distinction has not fallen into disuse. The tacit, common-sense distinction n to-day is, in ef- aes Oe o-_- &- =. ee c. fect, that any effort is to be acc counted industrial only BP yene e i so far as its ultimate purpose isthe utilisation.of_non- human things. The coercive utilisation of man by man is not felt to be an industrial function; but all effort TP a a - atin eae alae ee directed to enhance human life an life by taking advantage of the non-human environment is classed together as in- dustrial activity. By the economists who have best oe and RCab EES the classical tradition, man’s ‘power over nature” is currently postulated e aera tic fact of industrial productivity. Thisindus- trial power over nature is taken to include man's power over the life - of the beasts and over all the elemental forces, A line is in this way drawn between mankind and brute creation. In other times and among men imbued with a different body of preconceptions, this line is not drawn precisely as we draw it to-day. In the savage or the barbarian scheme of life it is drawn in a different place and in another way. In all communities under the barbarian culture there is an alert and pervading sense of antithe- sis between two comprehensive groups of phenomena, inIntroductory it one of which barbarian man includes himselt, and in the other, his victual. There is a felt antithesis between economic and non-economic phenomena, but it is not conceived in the modern fashion ; it lies not between man and brute creation, but between animate and inert things. It may be an excess of caution at this day to explain that the barbarian notion which it is here intended to convey by the term “animate “ 1s not the same as would be conveyed by the word “living.” The term does not cover all living things, and it does cover a great many others. Such a striking natural phenomenon as a storm, _ a_disease, a waterfall, are recognised _as “animate, ; while fruits and herbs, and even inconspicuous animals, such as house-flies, maggots, lemmings, sheep, are not epdteg pe i a ordinarily apprehended as “animate except when taken collectively. As here used the term does not neces- sarily imply an indwelling soul or spirit. The concept includes such things as in the apprehension of the ani- mistic savage or barbarian are formidable by virtue of a real or imputed habit of initiating action. This category comprises a large number and range of natural objects and phenomena. Such a distinction between the inert and the active is still present in the habits of thought of unreflecting persons, and it still profoundly affects the prevalent theory of human life and of natural pro- cesses; but it does not pervade our daily life to the extent or with the far-reaching practical consequences that are apparent at earlier stages of culture and belief. To the mind of the barbarian, the elaboration and utilisation of what is afforded by inert nature is activity12 The Theory of the Leisure Class on quite a different plane from his dealings with “ant. mate” things and forces. The line of demarcation may be vague and shifting, but the broad distinction is suffi- ciently real and cogent to influence the barbarian scheme of life. To the class of things apprehended as animate, A EL OS EE A TS ee As the barbarian fancy imputes an unfolding of activity _ directed to some end. It is this teleological unfolding of activity that constitutes any object or phenomenon an “animate” fact. Wherever the unsophisticated savage or barbarian meets with activity that is at all obtrusive, he construes it in the only terms that are ready to hand—the terms immediately given in his consciousness of his own actions. Activity is, therefore, assimilated to human action, and active objects are in so far assimilated to the human agent. Phenomena of this character— especially those whose behaviour is notably formidable or baffling —have to be met in a different spirit and with proficiency of a different kind from what is required in dealing with inert things. _To deal successfully with such phenomena is_a_work_of exploit rather than of industry. It_is an assertion of prowess, not of diligence. Under the guidance of this naive discrimination be- tween the inert and the animate, the activities of the primitive social group tend to fall into two classes, which would in modern phrase be called exploit and industry. Industry is effort that goes to create _a new SS were ee ee ee ae ae | thing, with a new purpose given it by the fashioning hand of its maker out of passive (‘‘ brute’) material ; while exploit, so far as it results in an outcome useful 0 eee ore ers Tr ARP NEL RRA EET CE ton Re oe emer to the agent, is the conversion to his own_ends of \ \Introductory 13 energies previously directed to some other end by an- other agent. We still speak of “brute matter” with something of the barbarian’s realisation of a profound significance in the term. The distinction between exploit and drudgery coin- cides with a difference between the sexes. The sexes differ, not only in stature and muscular force, but per- haps even more decisively in temperament, and this must early have given rise to a corresponding division of labour. The general range of activities that come under the head of exploit falls to the males as being the stouter, more massive, better capable of a sudden _and violent strain,.and more readily inclined to_self- assertion, active emulation, and aggression. The dif- ference in mass, in physiological character, and in temperament may be slight among the members of the primitive group; it appears, in fact, to be relatively slight and inconsequential in some of the more archaic communities with which we are acquainted —as for instance the tribes of the Andamans. But so soon as a differentiation of function has well begun on the lines marked out by this difference in physique and animus, the original difference between the sexes will itself widen. A cumulative process of selective adaptation Nera =s 1 SS a ee ee eee = ; EL PEON AEF eae ee “——s ® to the new distribution of employments will set in, especially if the habitat or the fauna with which the group is in contact is such as to call for a considerable exercise of the sturdier virtues. The habitual pursuit LS TT 3 —_ ss ——-— ee ee el of large game requires more of the manly qualities of massiveness, agility, and ferocity, and it can therefore ™ EE 5 Pe err ae rca 7. Pye ee ereeeer Ke scarcely fail to hasten and widen the differentiation of14 The Theory of the Letsure Class functions. between the sexes. And so soon as the group comes into hostile contact with other groups, the divergence of function will take on the developed form of a distinction between exploit and industry. ee pee eS een lal =< - eee i — ed — —24 ames eee ee ——_—— oo —s - SS ee SSeS = ee . . - a — see ie ee ll a 22a 2h SS. ~ ——sS _——— = ® In such a predatory group of hunters it comes to be the able-bodied men’s office to fight and hunt. The women do what other work there is to do — other mem- bers who are unfit for man’s work being for this purpose classed with the women. But the men’s hunting and fighting are both of the same general character. Both are of a predatory nature; the warrior and the hunter alike reap where they have not strewn. Their aggres- sive assertion of force and_sagacity differs obviously from the women’s assiduous and uneventful shaping, of materials ; it is not to be accounted productive labour, but rather an acquisition of substance by seizure. Such being the barbarian man’s work, in its best develop- ment and widest divergence from women’s work, any effort that does not involve an assertion of prowess eee owe B comes to be unworthy of the man. As the tradition gains consistency, the common sense of the community erects it into a canon of conduct; so that no employ- ment and no acquisition is morally possible to the self- respecting man at this cultural stage, except such as proceeds .on the basis of prowess—force or fraud. When the predatory habit of life has been settled upon the group by long habituation, it becomes the able- bodied man’s accredited office in the social economy to kill, to destroy such competitors in the struggle for existence as attempt to resist or elude him, to overcome and reduce to subservience those alien forces that assertIntroductory 1§ themselves refractorily in the environment. So tena- ciously and with such nicety is this theoretical dis- tinction between exploit and drudgery adhered to that in many hunting tribes the man must not bring home the game which he has killed, but must send his woman to perform that baser office. As has already been indicated, the distinction be- tween exploit and drudgery is an invidious distinction between employments. Those employments which are ———— li A A MT to be classed as exploit are worthy, honourable, noble ; ors Se ere other employments, which do not contain this element of exploit, and especially those which imply subserw- ence or submission, are unworthy, debasing,.ignoble. The concept of dignity, worth, or honour, as applied either to persons or conduct, is of first-rate comse- quence in the development of classes and of class dis- tinctions, and it is therefore necessary to say something of its derivation and meaning. Its psychological ground may be indicated in outline as follows. As a matter of selective necessity, man is an agent. — ~ a iil He is, in his own apprehension, a centre of unfolding impulsive activity — “ teleological ” activity. He 1s ap agent seeking in every, act the accomplishment of soms concrete, objective, impersonal end. By force of his _—- being such an agent he is possessed of _a_taste for effee- hb 0 ne ee Oe eee tive work, and _a_ distaste for futile effort. He has a — ee eee ae Oe =e * = sense of the merit of serviceability or efficiency and of the demerit of futility, waste, or incapacity. This apti- tude or propensity may be called the instinct of work- manship. Wherever the circumstances or traditions of | ow”16 The Theory of the Letsure Class life lead to an habitual comparison of one person with another in point of efficiency, the instinct of workman: ship works out in an emulative or invidious comparison of persons. The extent to which this result follows depends in some considerable degree on the tempera- ment of the population. In any community where such an invidious comparison of persons is habitually made, ora nga eaP Per -ew* CQ ya ea — a tw? —— i Ome ey ee ee visible success becomes an end sought for its own utility —_—_— Le a gat os le ee ee eS ee Se Se ES. ene OE as rere yet ea as a basis of esteem. Esteem is_gained and _dispraise i ae is avoided by putting one’s efficiency in evidence. The 2 = ee ee ee EO Oe eee OD eb ete oe we 6 ee 4 a eel Gees -_~ result is that the instinct of workmanship works out in an emulative demonstration of force. During that primitive phase of sociz ovelopment, when the community is still habitually peaceable, per- haps sedentary, and without a deyeloped system of indi- vidual ownership, the efficiency of the individual can be —— ee ee — — SS Fe SG 8 Oe ‘ i S —— we -~+ = Cie adn peeves no dew shown chiefly and most consistently in some employ- = ~~. * ment that goes to further the life of the group. What ae ———— + emulation of an economic kind there is between the members of such a group will be chiefly emulation in industrial serviceability. At the same time the incen- tive to emulation is not strong, nor is the scope for Cr owen Hee eae emulation large. When the community passes from peaceable savagery ewe -—s to a predatory phase of life, the conditions of emulation change. The opportunity and the incentive to emula- ne il tion increase greatly in scope and urgency. Ihe ac- tivity of the men more and more takes on the character ee . OL PT Ee TAL Pe ee en Pe oer soar of exploit ; and an invidious comparison of one hunter wt, Ss ee 2 ESO EST. BIO OS ae Lue we 9 or warrior with another grows continually easier and eo 6 ee OO See Le ee 2 ee Se Pt eee ee ee a ee ae. more habitual. Tangible evidences of prowess — tro- A _—_— —-—o a ee ote .Introductory 17 phies — find a place in men’s habits of thought as an essential feature of the paraphernalia of life. Booty, trophies of the chase or of the raid, come to be prized as evidence of preéminent force. Aggression becomes the accredited form of action, and booty serves as prima facie evidence of successful aggression. /\s_ accepted at this cultural stage, the accredited, worthy form of self-assertion is contest ; and useful articles or services obtained by seizure or compulsion, serve as a conven- tional evidence of successful contest. Therefore, by contrast, the obtaining of goods by other methods than seizure_comes to be accounted unworthy of man in his best_estate. The performance of productive work, or employment in personal service, falls under the samg odium for the same_reason. An invidious distinction in this way arises between exploit and acquisition by seizure on the one hand and industrial employment on the other hand. Labour acquires a character of irk- someness by virtue of the indignity imputed to it. With the primitive barbarian, before the simple con- tent of the notion has been obscured by its own ramifi- cations and by a secondary growth of cognate ideas, ‘‘honourable”’ seems to connote nothing else than asser- tion of superior force. ‘‘ Honourable”’ is ‘‘ formidable” ; “worthy” is “prepotent.” A_honorific_act_is_in_ the last analysis little if anything else than a recognised successful act of aggression; and_ where aggression means conflict with men and beasts, the activity which comes to be especially and primarily.honourable is_the assertion of the stron hand. The naive, archaic habit ee ROS LE OTR BPEL I POE Te ree a of construing all manifestations of force in terms of Cc . - - je eee 9 ee ee Ce - ee lil cm me a a ~ Se — ?- --») -_ ———_ --18 The Theory of the Leisure Class personality or “will power” greatly fortifies this con. ventional exaltation of the strong hand. MHonorific epi. thets, in vogue among barbarian tribes as well as among peoples of a more advanced culture, commonly bear the stamp of this unsophisticated sense of honour. Epithets and titles used in addressing chieftains, and in the pro- pitiation of kings and gods, very commonly impute a propensity for overbearing violence and an irresistible devastating force to the person who is to be propi- tiated. This holds true to an extent also in the more civilised communities of the present day. The predi- lection shown in heraldic devices for the more rapa- cious beasts and birds of prey goes to enforce the same view. Under this common-sense barbarian appreciation of PN CT ER A Et tt —_——-——— we worth o1 or. honour , the takine of life —the killing of formi- dable competitors, whether brute or human — is honour- —_ ~ Ce ks SS et oe oe oe eo able in the highest degree. And this high office of slaughter, as an expression of the slayer’s prepotence, casts a glamour of worth over every act of slaughter and over all the tools and accessories of the act. Arms are honourable, and the use of them, even in seeking the life of the meanest creatures of the fields, becomes a honorific employment. At the same time, employment in industry | becomes correspondingly odious, and, in the _ — — ee common-sense apprehension, the handling of the ¢ool]s and implements of industry falls beneath the dignity of able-bodied men. Labour becomes irksome, oem - - i a 2 ¢ 2. ee 4 ee —. It is here assumed that in the sequence of cultural evolution primitive groups of men have passed from anIntroductory 19 initial peaceable stage to a subsequent stage at which fighting is the avowed and characteristic employment of the group. But it is not implied that there has been. an abrupt transition from unbroken peace and good-will to a later or higher phase of life in which the fact of combat occurs for the first time. Neither is it implied that all peaceful industry disappears on the transition te the predatory phase of culture. Some fichting, it is safe to say, would be met with at any early stage of social development. Fights would occur with more or less frequency through sexual competition. The known habits of primitive groups, as well as the habits of the anthropoid apes, argue to that effect, and the evidence from the well-known promptings of human nature enforces the same view. It may therefore be objected that there can have been no such initial stage of peaceable lite as is here assumed. There is no point in cultural evolution prior to which fighting does not occur. But the point in question is not as to the occurrence of combat, occa- sional or sporadic, or even more OF less frequent and habitual; it is a question as to the occurrence of an habitual bellicose frame of mind —a prevalent habit of judging facts and events from the point of view of the ficht. The predatory phase of culture is attaince Olly attained on! when. the predatory, attitude has become. the habitual = eee and accredited spiritual attitude for the members of the group; when the ficht has become the dominant note in the current theory otf life; when the common-sense appreciation of men and things has come to be an appre- ciation with a view to combat.20 Lhe Theory of the Letsure Class The substantial difference between the peaceable and the predatory phase of culture, therefore, is a spiritual difference, not a mechanical one. The change in Spiritual attitude is the outgrowth of a change in the material facts of the life of the group, and it comes on gradually as the material circumstances favourable to a predatory attitude supervene. The inferior limit of the predatory culture is an industrial limit. Predation can- et Mi see tte ~tEC 2. 6 SOO Ee J od WL ar Se a eee ee come the habitual, conventional resource of any group or any class until industrial methods h een ee a Rae eee goes developed _to such a degree of efficiency as to leave Se tees lll te nl i ig ARSE TEI . a_ margin worth fighting for, above the subsistence of those engaged in getting a living. The transition from SS a et a ee eee ee peace to predation therefore depends on the growth of 7 ee ee GE a = - technical knowledge and the use of tools. A predatory culture is similarly impracticable in early times, until weapons have been developed to such a point as to make man a formidable animal. The early develop- ment of tools and of weapons is of course the same fact seen from two different points of view. The life of a given group would be characterised as peaceable so long as habitual recourse to combat has not brought the fight into the foreground in men’s every- day thoughts, as a dominant feature of the life of man. AA group may evidently attain such a predatory attitude with a greater or less degree of completeness, so that its scheme of life and canons of conduct may be con- trolled to a greater or less extent by the predatory animus. The predatory phase of culture is therefore conceived to come on gradually, through a cu growth of predatory aptitudes, habits, and traditions ; elit en ee LS - Sa - oer oo —-Introductory 21 this growth being due to a change in the circumstances | CD AT A a of the group’s life, of such a kind as to develo and 2 Se oe eee conserve those traits of human nature and those trad}- a a —— 2 — tions and norms of conduct that_make for a_ predatory rather than a peaceable life. The evidence for the hypothesis that there has been such a peaceable stage of primitive culture is in great part drawn from psychology rather than from ethnology, and cannot be detailed here. It will be recited in part in a later chapter, in discussing the survival of archaic traits of human nature under the modern culture.CHAPTER II PECUNIARY EMULATION In the sequence of cultural evolution the emergence | of a leisure class coincides with the beginning of owner- ship. This is necessarily the case, for these two institu. tions result from the same set of economic forces. In the inchoate phase of their development they are but different aspects of the same general facts of social structure. It is as elements of social structure —conventional facts —that leisure and ownership are matters of inter- est for the purpose in hand. An habitual neglect of work does not constitute a leisure class; neither does the mechanical fact of use and consumption constitute ownership. The present inquiry, therefore, is not con- cerned with the beginning of indolence, nor with the beginning of the appropriation of useful articles to individual consumption. The point in question is the origin and nature of a conventional leisure class on the one hand and the beginnings of individual ownership as a conventional right or equitable claim on the other hand. The early differentiation out of which the distinction between a leisure and a working class arises is a divi- sion maintained between men’s and women’s work in the lower stages of barbarism. Likewise the earliest form of ownership is an ownership of the women by the able- 22Pecuniary Emulation 23 bodied men of the community. The facts may be ex- pressed in more general terms, and truer to the import of the barbarian theory of life, by saying that it is an ownership of the woman by the man. There was undoubtedly some appropriation of useful articles before the custom of appropriating women arose. | The usages of existing archaic communities in which there is no ownership of women is warrant for such a view, In all communities the members, both male and female, habitually appropriate to their individual use a variety of useful things; but these useful things are not thought of as owned by the person who appropriates and consumes them. The habitual appropriation and consumption of certain slight personal effects goes on without raising the question of ownership; that is to say, the question of a conventional, equitable claim to extraneous things. The ownership of women begins in the lower barba- rian stages of culture, apparently with the seizure of female captives. The original reason for the seizure and appropriation of women seems to have been their usefulness as trophies. The practice of seizing women from the enemy as trophies, gave rise to a form of ownership-marriage, resulting in a household with a male head. This was followed by an extension of slavery to other captives and inferiors, besides women, and by an extension of ownership-marriage to other women than those seized from the enemy. The out- come of emulation under the circumstances of a preda- tory life, therefore, has been on the one hand a form of marriage resting on coercion, and on the other hand24 Lhe Theory of the Leisure Class the custom of ownership. The two institutions are not distinguishable in the initial phase of their develop- ment; both arise from the desire of the successful men to put their prowess in evidence by exhibiting some durable result of their exploits. Both also minister to that propensity for mastery which pervades all predatory communities. From the ownership of women the con- cept of ownership extends itself to include the products of their industry, and so there arises the ownership of things as well as of persons. In this way a consistent system of property in goods is gradually installed. And although in the latest stages of the develunment, the serviceability of goods for con- sumption has come to be the most obtrusive element of their value, still, wealth has by no means yet lost its utility as a honorific evidence of the owner’s prepotence. Wherever the institution of private property is found, even in a slightly developed form, the economic process bears the character of a struggle between men for the possession of goods. It has been customary in eco- nomic theory, and especially among those economists who adhere with least faltering to the body of moder- nised classical doctrines, to construe this struggle for wealth as being substantially a struggle for subsistence. Such is, no doubt, its character in large part during the earlier and less efficient phases of industry.» Such is also its character in all cases where the “ niggardliness of nature” is so strict as to afford but a scanty liveli- hood to the community in return for strenuous and unremitting application to the business of getting thePecuniary Emulatton 25 means of subsistence. But in all progressing commu- nities an advance is presently made beyond this early stage of technological development. Industrial eff- ciency is presently carried to such a pitch as to afford something appreciably more than a bare livelihood to those engaged in the industrial process. It has not been unusual for economic theory to speak of the further struggle for wealth on this new industrial basis as a competition for an increase of the comforts of life, —primarily for an increase of the physical comforts which the consumption of goods affords. The end of acquisition and accumulation is conven- tionally held to be the consumption of the goods accu- mulated — whether it is consumption directly by the owner of the goods or by the household attached to him and for this purpose identified with him in theory. This is at least felt to be the economically legitimate end of acquisition, which alone it is incumbent on the theory to take account of. Such consumption may of course be conceived to serve the consumer’s physical wants —his physical comfort —or his so-called higher wants — spiritual, esthetic, intellectual, or what not; the latter class of wants being served indirectly by an expenditure of goods, after the fashion familiar to all economic readers. But it is only when taken in a sense far removed from its naive meaning that consumption of goods can be said to afford the incentive from which accumulation invariably proceeds. The motive that lies at the root of ownership is emulation; and the same motive of emulation continues activevin-the-further development ee = ” i — ee ——<— a — — —EEeE26 The Theory of the Letsure Class of the institution to which it has given rise and in the el Oe ee ae ee development of all those features of the social. struct- Sn ee eee oe oo a “ ure which this institution of. ownership touches. The al wee yt 28. Fe el possession of wealth confers honour; it is an invidious distinction. Nothing equally cogent can be said for the consumption of goods, nor for any other conceivable incentive to acquisition, and especially not for any in- centive to the accumulation of wealth. It is of course not to be overlooked that in a com- munity where nearly all goods are private property the necessity of earning a livelihood is a powerful and ever- present incentive for the poorer members of the com- munity. ‘The need of subsistence and of an increase of physical comfort may for a time be the dominant motive of acquisition for those classes who are habitually employed at manual labour, whose subsistence is on a precarious footing, who possess little and ordinarily accumulate little; but it will appear in the course of the discussion that even in the case of these impecuni- ous classes the predominance of the motive of physical want is not so decided as has sometimes been assumed. On the other hand, so far as regards those members and classes of the community who are chiefly concerned in the accumulation of wealth, the incentive of subsist- ence or of physical comfort never plays a considerable part. Ownership began and grew into a human insti- tution on grounds unrelated to the subsistence minimum. The dominant incentive was from the outset the invidi- ous distinction attaching to wealth, and, save tempora- rily and by exception, no other motive has usurped the primacy at any later stage of the development.Pecuniary Emulation 27 Property set out with being booty held as trophies of the successful raid. So long as the group had de- parted but little from the primitive communal organi- sation, and so long as it still stood in close contact with other hostile groups, the utility of things or per- sons owned lay chiefly in an invidious comparison between their possessor and the enemy from whom they were taken. The habit of distinguishing between the interests of the individual and those of the group to which he belongs is apparently a later growth. Invidious comparison between the possessor of the honorific booty and his less successful neighbours within the group was no doubt present early as an element of the utility of the things possessed, though this was not at the outset the chief element of their value. The man’s prowess was still primarily the group's prowess, and the possessor of the booty felt himself to be pri- marily the keeper of the honour of his group. This appreciation of exploit from the communal point of view is met with also at later stages of social growth, especially as regards the laurels of war. But so soon as the custom of individual ownership begins to gain consistency, the point of view taken in making the invidious comparison on which private property rests will begin to change. Indeed, the one change is but the reflex of the other. The initial phase of ownership, the phase of acquisition by naive seizure and conversion, begins to pass into the subsequent stage of an incipient organisation of industry on the basis of private property (in slaves); the horde develops into a more or less self-sufficing industrial community ;6 4 ener Quer rs: 28 The Theory of the Letsure Class possessions then come to be valued not so much as evidence of successful foray, but rather as evidence of the prepotence of the possessor of these goods over other individuals within the community. The invidious comparison now becomes primarily a comparison of the owner with the other members of the group. Property is still of the nature of trophy, but, with the cultural advance, it becomes more and more a trophy of successes scored in the game of ownership carried on between the members of the group under the quasi- peaceable methods of nomadic life. Gradually, as industrial activity further displaces predatory activity in the community’s everyday life and in men's habits of thought, accumulated property more and more replaces trophies of predatory exploit as es ae ee the conventional exponent of prepotence and success. wn ie * el Pel LS eee ee a Oo ee ere With the growth of settled industry, therefore, the pos- session of wealth gains in relative importance and effec- tiveness as a customary basis of repute and esteem. Not that esteem ceases to be awarded on the basis of other, more direct evidence of prowess; not that suc- cessful predatory aggression or warlike exploit ceases to call out the approval and admiration of the crowd, or to stir the envy of the less successful competitors ; but the opportunities for gaining distinction by means of this direct manifestation of superior force grow less available both in scope and frequency. At the same time opportunities for industrial aggression, and for the accumulation of property by the quasi-peaceable methods of nomadic industry, increase in scope and availability. And it is even more to the point that property nowPecuniary Emulation 29 becomes the most easily recognised evidence of a repu- table degree of success as distinguished from heroic or signal achievement. It therefore becomes the conven- whew tional basis of esteem. Its possession in some amount becomes necessary in order to any reputable standing in the community. It becomes indispensable to accu- mulate, to acquire property, in order to retain one’s good name. When accumulated goods have in this way once become the accepted badge of efficiency, the pos- session of wealth presently assumes the character of an independent and definitive basis of esteem. The pos- | session of goods, whether acquired aggressively by one’s Own exertion or passively by transmission through in- heritance from others, becomes a conventional basis of reputability. The possession of wealth, which was at the outset valued simply as an evidence of efficiency, becomes, in popular apprehension, itself a meritorious act. Wealth is now itself intrinsically honourable and confers honour on its possessor. By a further refine- ment, wealth acquired passively by transmission from ancestors or other antecedents presently becomes even more honorific than wealth acquired by the possessor’s own effort; but this distinction belongs at a later stage in the evolution of the pecuniary culture and will be spoken of in its place. Prowess and exploit may still remain the basis of award of the highest popular esteem, although the possession of wealth has become the basis of common- place reputability and of a blameless social standing. The predatory instinct and the consequent approbation of predatory efficiency are deeply ingrained in the babits | ; : f30 Lhe Theory of the Letsure Class of thought of those peoples who have passed under the discipline of a protracted predatory culture. According to popular award, the highest honours within human reach may, even yet, be those gained by an unfolding of extraordinary predatory efficiency in war, or by a quasi-predatory efficiency in statecraft; but for the purposes of a commonplace decent standing in the community these means of repute have been replaced by the acquisition and accumulation of goods. In order to stand well in the eyes of the community, it is necessary to come up to a certain, somewhat indefinite, conventional standard of wealth; just as in the earlier predatory stage it is necessary for the barbarian man to come up to the tribe's standard of physical endurance, cunning, and skillat arms. A certain standard of wealth in the one case, and of prowess in the other, is a neces- sary condition of reputability, and anything in excess of this normal amount is meritorious. Those members of the community who fall short of this, somewhat indefinite, normal degree of prowess or of property suffer in the esteem of their fellow-men; and consequently they suffer also in their own esteem, since the usual basis of self-respect is the respect ac- corded by one’s neighbours. Only individuals with an aberrant temperament can in the long run retain their self-esteem in the face of the disesteem of their fellows. Apparent exceptions to the rule are met with, especially among people with strong religious convictions. But these apparent exceptions are scarcely real exceptions, since such persons commonly fall back on the putative approbation of some supernatural witness of their deeds.Pecuniary Emulation 31 So soon as the possession of property becomes the basis of popular esteem, therefore, it becomes also a requisite to that complacency which we call self-respect. In any community where goods are held in severalty it is necessary, in order to his own peace of mind, that an individual should possess as large a portion of goods as others with whom he is accustomed to class himself ; and it is extremely gratifying to possess something more than others. But as fast as a person makes new acqul- sitions, and becomes accustomed to the resulting new standard of wealth, the new standard forthwith ceases to afford appreciably greater satisfaction than the earlier standard did. The tendency in any case is constantly to make the present pecuniary standard the point of departure for a fresh increase of wealth; and this in turn gives rise to a new standard of sufficiency and a new pecuniary classification of one’s self as compared with one’s neighbours. So far as concerns the present question, the end sought by accumulation is to rank high in comparison with the rest of the community in point of pecuniary strength. So long as the comparison is distinctly unfavourable to himself, the normal, average individual will live in chronic dissatisfaction with his present lot; and when he has reached what may be called the normal pecuniary standard of the community, or of his class in the community, this chronic dissatis- faction will give place to a restless straining to place a wider and ever-widening pecuniary interval between himself and this average standard. The invidious com- parison can never become so favourable to the individual making it that he would not gladly rate himself still32 Lhe Theory of the Leisure Class higher relatively to his competitors in the struggle for pecuniary reputability. In the nature of the case, the desire for wealth can scarcely be satiated in any individual instance, and evi- dently a satiation of the average or general desire for wealth is out of the question. However widely, or equally, or “fairly,” it may be distributed, no general increase of the community’s wealth can make any ap- proach to satiating this need, the ground of which is the desire of every one to excel every one else in the accumulation of goods. If, as is sometimes assumed, the incentive to accumulation were the want of sub. sistence or of physical comfort, then the aggregate economic wants of a community might conceivably be Satisfied at some point in the advance of industrial efficiency ; but since the strugele is substantially a race for reputability on the basis of an invidious comparison, no approach to a definitive attainment is possible. What has just been said must not be taken to mean that there are no other incentives to acquisition and accumulation than this desire to excel in pecuniary standing and so gain the esteem and envy of one’s fellow-men. The desire for added comfort and security from want is present as a motive at every stage of the process of accumulation in a modern industrial com- munity; although the standard of sufficiency in these respects is in turn greatly affected by the habit of pecuniary emulation. Toa great extent this emulation shapes the methods and selects the objects of expendi- ture for personal comfort and decent livelihood. Besides this, the power conferred by wealth alsePecuniary Emulation 33 affords a motive to accumulation. That propensity for purposeful activity and that repugnance to all futility of effort which belong to man by virtue of his character as an agent do not desert him when he emerges from the naive communal culture where the dominant note of life is the unanalysed and undifferentiated solidarity of the individual with the group with which his life is bound up. When he enters upon the predatory stage, where self-seeking in the narrower sense becomes the dominant note, this propensity goes with him still, as the per- vasive trait that shapes his scheme of life. The pro- pensity for achievement and the repugnance to futility remain the underlying economic motive. The pro- pensity changes only in the form of its expression and in the proximate objects to which it directs the mans activity. Under the régime of individual ownership the most available means of visibly achieving a purpose is that afforded by the acquisition and accumulation of goods; and as the self-regarding antithesis between man and man reaches fuller consciousness, the pro- pensity for achievement—the instinct of workman- ship— tends more and more to shape itself into a straining to excel others in pecuniary achievement. Relative success, tested by an invidious pecuniary com- parison with other men, becomes the conventional end of action. The currently accepted legitimate end of effort becomes the achievement of a favourable com- parison with other men; and therefore the repugnance to futility to a good extent coalesces with the incentive of emulation. It acts to accentuate the struggle for pecuniary reputability by visiting with a sharper dis- D34 Lhe Theory of the Leisure Class approval all shortcoming and all evidence of short- coming in point of pecuniary success. Purposeful effort comes tO mean, primarily, effort directed to or resulting In a morecreditable-showing of accumulated wealth. ~@ = - F i 7 oe ~ aww . Among the motives which lead men to accumulate wealth, the primacy, both in scope and intensity, there- fore, continues to belong to this motive of pecuniary . emulation. In making use of the term “invidious,” it may per- haps be unnecessary to remark, there is no intention to extol or depreciate, or to commend or deplore any of the phenomena which the word is used to characterise. The term is used in a technical sense as describing a comparison of persons with a view to rating and grading them in respect of relative worth or value—in an eesthetic or moral sense —and so awarding and defin- ing the relative degrees of complacency with which they may legitimately be contemplated by themselves and by others. An invidious comparison is a process of valuation of persons in respect of worth.CHAPTER III ConsPICUOUS LEISURE Ir its working were not disturbed by other economic forces or other features of the emulative process, the immediate effect of such a pecuniary struggle as has just been described in outline would be to make men industrious and frugal. This result’ actually follows, in some measure, so far as regards the lower classes, whose ordinary means of acquiring goods is productive labour. This is more especially true of the labouring classes in a sedentary community which is at an agricultural stage of industry, in which there: 1s..a considerable subdivision of property, and whose laws and customs secure to these classes a more or less definite share of the product of their industry. These lower classes can in any case not avoid labour, and the imputation of labour is therefore not ereatly derogatory to them, at least not within their class. Rather, since labour is their recognised and accepted mode of life, they take some emulative pride in a reputation for efficiency in their work, this being often the only line of emulation that is open to them. For those for whom acquisition and emulation is possible only within the field of productive efficiency and thrift, the struggle for pecuniary reputability will in some measure work 3536 Lhe Theory of the Leisure Class out in an increase of diligence and parsimony. But certain secondary features of the emulative process, yet to be spoken of, come in to very materially circum- scribe and modify emulation in these directions among the pecuniarily inferior classes as well as among the superior class. But it is otherwise with the superior pecuniary class, with which we are here immediately concerned. For this class also the incentive to diligence and thrift is not absent; but its action is so greatly qualified by the secondary demands of pecuniary emulation, that any inclination in this direction is practically overborne and any incentive to diligence tends to be of no effect. The most imperative of these secondary demands of emulation, as well as the one of widest scope, is the requirement of abstention from productive work. This is true in an especial degree for the barbarian stage of culture. During the predatory culture labour comes to be associated in men’s habits of thought with weak- ness and subjection toa master. It is therefore a mark of inferiority, and therefore comes to be accounted un- worthy of man in his best estate. By virtue of this tradition labour is felt to be debasing, and this tradition has never died out. On the contrary, with the advance of social differentiation it has acquired the axiomatic force due to ancient and unquestioned prescription. In order to gain and to hold the esteem of men it is not sufficient merely to possess wealth or power. The wealth or power must be put in evidence, for esteem is awarded only on evidence. And not only does the evidence of wealth serve to impress one’s importanceConspicuous Leisure 37 on others and to keep their sense of his importance alive and alert, but it is of scarcely less use in building up and preserving one’s self-complacency. In all but the lowest stages of culture the normally constituted man is comforted and upheld in his self-respect by ‘decent surroundings’ and by exemption from “menial offices.” Enforced departure from his habitual stand- ard of decency, either in the paraphernalia of life or in the kind and amount of his everyday activity, is felt to bea slight upon his human dignity, even apart from all conscious consideration of the approval or disapproval of his fellows. The archaic theoretical distinction between the base and the honourable in the manner of a man’s life retains very much of its ancient force even to-day. So much so that there are few of the better class who are not possessed of an instinctive repugnance for the vulgar forms of labour. We havea realising sense of ceremo- nial uncleanness attaching in an especial degree to the occupations which are associated in our habits of thought with menial service. It is felt by all persons of refined taste that a spiritual contamination is insep- arable from certain offices that are conventionally re- quired of servants. Vulgar surroundings, mean (that is to say, inexpensive) habitations, and vulgarly pro- ductive occupations are unhesitatingly condemned and avoided. They are incompatible with life on a satis- factory spiritual plane— with “high thinking.” From the days of the Greek philosophers to the present, a degree of leisure and of exemption from contact with such industrial processes as serve the immediate every-38 Lhe Lheory of the Letwsure Class day purposes of human life has ever been recognised by thoughtful men as a prerequisite to a worthy or beauti- ful, or even a blameless, human life. In itself and in its consequences the life of leisure is beautiful and enno- bling in all civilised men’s eyes. This direct, subjective value of leisure and of other evidences of wealth is no doubt in great part secondary and derivative. It is in part a reflex of the utility of leisure as a means of gaining the respect of others, and in part it is the result of a mental substitution. The performance of labour has been accepted as a con- ventional evidence of inferior force; therefore it comes itself, by a mental short-cut, to be regarded as intrin- sically base. During the predatory stage proper, and especially during the earlier stages of the quasi-peaceable develop- ment of industry that follows the predatory stage, a life of leisure is the readiest and most conclusive evi- dence of pecuniary strength, and therefore of superior force; provided always that the gentleman of leisure can live in manifest ease and comfort. At this stage wealth consists chiefly of slaves, and the benefits accru- ing from the possession of riches and power take the form chiefly of personal service and the immediate products of personal service. Conspicuous abstention from labour therefore becomes the conventional mark of superior pecuniary achievement and the conventional index of reputability ; and conversely, since application to productive labour is a mark of poverty and subjection, it becomes inconsistent with a reputable standing in the community. Habits of industry and thrift, therefore,Conspicuous Letsure 39 are not uniformly furthered by a prevailing pecuniary emulation. On the contrary, this kind of emulation indirectly discountenances participation in productive labour. Labour would unavoidably become dishonoura- ble, as being an evidence of poverty, even if it were not already accounted indecorous under the ancient tradi- tion handed down from an earlier cultural stage. The ancient tradition of the predatory culture is that pro- ductive effort is to be shunned as being unworthy of able-bodied men, and this tradition is reinforced rather than set aside in the passage from the predatory to the quasi-peaceable manner of life. Even if the institution of a leisure class had not come in with the first emergence of individual ownership, by force of the dishonour attaching to productive employ- ment, it would in any case have come in as one of the early consequences of ownership. And it is to be re- marked that while the leisure class existed in theory from the beginning of predatory culture, the institution takes on a new and fuller meaning with the transition from the predatory to the next succeeding pecuniary stage of culture. It is from this time forth a “leisure class ’ in fact as well as in theory. From this point dates the institution of the leisure class in its consummate form. During the predatory stage proper the distinction between the leisure and the labouring class is in some degree a ceremonial distinction only. The able-bodied men jealously stand aloof from whatever is, in their ap: prehension, menial drudgery ; but their activity in fact contributes appreciably to the sustenance of the group.40 Lhe Theory of the Leisure Class The subsequent stage of quasi-peaceable industry is usually characterised by an established chattel slavery, herds of cattle, and a servile class of herdsmen and shepherds ; industry has advanced so far that the com- munity is no longer dependent for its livelihood on the chase or on any other form of activity that can fairly be classed as exploit. From this point on, the character- istic feature of leisure-class life is a conspicuous exemp- tion from all useful employment. The normal and characteristic occupations of the class in this mature phase of its life history are in form very much the same as in its earlier days. These occupations are government, war, sports, and devout observances. Persons unduly given to difficult theo- retical niceties may hold that these occupations are still incidentally and indirectly “productive”: but it is to be noted as decisive of the question in hand that the ordinary and ostensible motive of the leisure class in engaging in these occupations is assuredly not an increase of wealth by productive effort. At this as at any other cultural stage, government and war are vat least in part, carried on for the pecuniary gain of those who engage in them; but it is gain obtained by the honourable method of seizure and conversion. These occupations are of the nature of predatory, not of pro; ductive, employment. Something similar may be said of the chase, but with a difference. As the community passes out of the hunting stage proper, hunting gradu- ally becomes differentiated into two distinct employ- ments. On the one hand it is a trade, carried on chiefly for gain; and from this the element of exploit is virtu-Conspicuous Leisure 4! ally absent, or it is at any rate not present in a suffi- cient degree to clear the pursuit of the imputation of gainful industry. On the other hand, the chase is also a sport —an exercise of the predatory impulse simply. As such it does not afford any appreciable pecuniary incentive, but it contains a more or less obvious element of exploit. It is this latter development of the chase — purged of all imputation of handicraft —that alone is meritorious and fairly belongs in the scheme of life of the developed leisure class. Abstention from labour is not only a honorific or meritorious act, but it presently comes to be a requisite of decency. The insistence on property as the basis of reputability is very naive and very imperious during the early stages of the accumulation of wealth. Abstention from labour is the conventional evidence of wealth and is therefore the conventional mark of social standing ; and this insistence on the meritoriousness of wealth leads to a more strenuous insistence on leisure. Vota note est nota vet ipstus. According to well-established laws of human nature, prescription presently seizes upon this conventional evidence of wealth and fixes it in men’s habits of thought as something that is in itself sub- stantially meritorious and ennobling; while productive labour at the same time and by a like process becomes in a double sense intrinsically unworthy. Prescription ends by making labour not only disreputable in the eyes of the community, but morally impossible to the noble, {reeborn man, and incompatible with a worthy life. This tabu on labour has a further consequence in the industrial differentiation of classes. As the population42 Lhe Theory of the Leisure Class increases in density and the predatory group grows inte a settled industrial community, the constituted authori- ties and the customs governing ownership gain in scope and consistency. It then presently becomes impracti- cable to accumulate wealth by simple seizure, and, in logical consistency, acquisition by industry is equally impossible for high-minded and impecunious men. The alternative open to them is beggary or privation. Wherever the canon of conspicuous leisure has a chance undisturbed to work out its tendency, there will there- fore emerge a secondary, and in a sense spurious, leisure class —abjectly poor and living a precarious life of want and discomfort, but morally unable to stoop to gainful pursuits. The decayed gentleman and the lady who has seen better days are by no means unfamiliar phe- nomena even now. This pervading sense of the indig- nity of the slightest manual labour is familiar to all civilised peoples, as well as to peoples of a less advanced pecuniary culture. In persons of delicate sensibility, who have long been habituated to gentle manners, the sense of the shamefulness of manual labour may become so strong that, at a critical juncture, it will even set aside the instinct of self-preservation. So, for in- stance, we are told of certain Polynesian chiefs, who, under the stress of good form, preferred to starve rather than carry their food to their mouths with their own hands. It is true, this conduct may have been due, at least in part, to an excessive sanctity or tabu attaching to the chief’s person. The tabu would have been communicated by the contact of his hands, and so would have made anything touched by him unfitConspicuous Leisure 43 for human food. But the tabu is itself a derivative of the unworthiness or moral incompatibility of labour ; so that even when construed in this sense the conduct of the Polynesian chiefs is truer to the canon of honorific leisure than would at first appear. INDEX (Prepared by H. P. Shilston) | (gy, ¥82| Chase -- + * = ak el LON sue Tt 7Fsthetic nause@ -. + = + : 178,| Cheapness, §<. 321 Ainu of Yezo . ., 6 | City and country lite 3.4 2c ie Pa American aaa 3, 326 | Class distinctions . +« + «+ = 242 American farmers and city cousins 87 | Classics * 2 2°.) cbs, (SOAC SOS Andamans . =: -» ie 6. 13 | College sports): s:s75 tks 378 Animism . -. «+ = 283, 285, 285 Connoisseut’<' is ee ce 3 sae A DOALELY fet ysis Seat pti 172'|| Conscience”) is Ss (seer 221 Archaic structures. - - °- > + / Conservation of archaic traits . 212 ROH AIC TLAItS oii ie: fies vata toa Conservatism . -;: - . 188, Tor Architecture ey ta . 154, 349 Conspicuous consumption . - 68 Aristocratic virtues . + = ° 236 offsets to. - © « = = 91°95 Meticanvclasa 2 Sint of Ne katy es ees Conspicuous leisure e« + + > 35 Athletes and culture . + = > 297 | Conspicuous waste. + + + * 166 IATHICLICSiio ate eth: ee 8 268, 208,397 |. Corsets) +) ei) =r ash ae 172, 841 Courtesy. i. ie! caticeieneaenas 52 Banking*s. fe 6 os (ees 231 | Cows and effect +. - + © ° 134 Barbarian hunting. - > 7 4'| Creede cia) (6, 8 r) Geieasibas 302 Barbarian leisure class +. + + 3: 7 Barbarian notions of animate 11 | Devoutobservances - + + + 793 BaradKS se het oa) re oe nue senor 200 | Devoutness.. «2 9) e458 38 213 Beauty andfashion - + + ° 177 | Dignity, derivation of. . + «+ 15 and taste eS eT AO of priestly office. |. - Sans and use. - . 126-129 meaning Of >>. jeiies 8), eae neenes economic. « « : TET ORS. er meneame ene ii LAS of forms ).o) 6 juste 151 | Dolicho-blond temperament. .- Beliefs, economic useof - - > 287 133, 197, 225 Belief in luck : 276| Domestic pets - + + * * * 139 Hecuests | '54) of 0s teres es 348 | Domestic sphere |: 6: s!.. 9: 18. eee Birth-rate. . - _ gr3 | Dram drinking’.: + j« *) 248 8g Boys and fighting - , 280, 255 | Dress and taste . z CAT ay Boys’ brigades . |, 255, 300) Dress as an expression of pecu- Brahiminjindia ‘6. js 8) 8 I niary culture. . - + + * 167 Tivishmen ris so kt esi7, 8, Choe eae 6\Drunkenness. - + * * * ° 70 STyrels! Loh Sees he nc lee wiht cmray eae 307 Canons of taste. - -> 115 Caps and gowns. - + »° 372 Economicman . + + * * ° 2At Captains ofindustry - - - ° 230 | Economic value of beliefs . 287 Gata onan oy aos eu maaan 140 | Education and status . - - «= 23 Change and stability . - + 20%) 202 | Emulation and workmanship. . 16 Qharitvierss = 8 es tn 334 | Emulation, pecuniary . - «© + 14 2D 40!402 Lndex MSEUINO 1708 68 ie ie OSE na 6 Evolution, Social. . . . = 188, 219 assumption Of 3. 68 a. 8 CONLEINDOLAPY ee cutie. fae 2I5 Exaltation of the defective . . 162 Exclusiveness:. . . . 2 « 87, 112 Fashions) tien hh hea deve ss 173 seeming beauty of 177 BeudaliBurope va hie. ate ok I Nendalolapany. ricer ee 1] MIU ON POGUE! Sain < Me hire ek 158 Gambling .. midetiem vent. 1a eG SEMA rc alo apy Sie nlc et 133 LFENLCOIMOUE gst ye Mes ae 42, 76 RTENEIEIDIGOGGirae fo tees ees 55 ROAPURUNsjonrc Ieee Suc nee 250, 251 Good breeding, test of Seidel wai OrUCSES Say ety ee ue Wet lh step 75 Hepits change of 665) oo cee 195 of devout observance . . . 108 OLE A inet Nas” ck TOG. toes Habituation tolove. .... 109 Hand-made goods ..... 159 Hawaian mantles ..... 152 PACTECICALUY ake is healt ol oe 5 Elibnevelearoing i esc eo kl 363 FIQUARYST ie roe Se itd Mo ea 309 EAGMETIGHAIMER( 15525 os uly oe 54 FIOUOTINIC MALES ss fms ke, oe 17 Horses fase es - 26. 242-145 Housewife, middle class eihieeiece OE Humanitarian work. . . . . 316 Humanities, the . .. 371, 380, 3900 Iceland MEncidonr wy suriiadie Soe 2 Indicators, social . . . 288, 306, 356 Industrial communities. . 631, 331 Industrial eficiency. . . . . 227 Industrial exemption, and conser- vatism RUE h a eta tae OS DEER Industrial meaning of . . . . to Industrial versus pecuniary . . 220 Industry in primitive PTOUD wide ets indignity of . . . 17, 18, 36, 37 Insolation from neighbours 87, I12, 366 Instability of predatory emulation 270 Instinct of workmanship . . . 16 as Offset to predatory . . . 93 ‘Institutions . . ‘Introductory ... Invidious, definition o Kelmscott Press . . | Kindergartens ie nr Labour, division of . indignity of Lapwons sce Lady-in-waiting . EGA WIG Sire enc ate. Lawyers. . ., Leisure class, adaptability _ women, ownership of best development Shavowiy otnt kone a oe a I etisl tanto ae oils mete LO? eo Knowledge of Unknowable - es OO oiicox rel aval 17, 18 36, 37, oti eaaie tee a puted: ae jisve peas wae ors ome ae a sien crue eed Oe SRO Se I characteristic features . 40 complacency of souseran condition of emergence of. . 7 conspicuous Spe ee eee definition of saraar ten aa eS element of exploit jae 8 entrance to. ©. « 2355.230 function of ownership . 211 occupation of . secondary . vicarious : Like master like man Loud dress... Love of esteem of nature of romantic ., Luck, belief in Machine-made goods Mecenas relation Malthusian checks Manners SietNs Modern survivals of pr MOITISs stk. New Woman : Non-invidious instinct non-material productsof . . 4s 40 or Rai? Lentiesh, Gh: Ta - 50, 06, 81, 83 ay Pea oAs of tei ks Deeg intel Seb AO aN atthe eo < > 2 IOQ dn tet ie 20 . . + I59 ais 381 tena North American tribes . Novelty . owess. . 246 46 wie ee Negro and devout imagery 125, 322, 326 Syiel ie cet SO rir itp oh eae . 4 Het eknSIndex Occupations, non-industrial . - 2,3 Ownership and leisure . - + + 2? Patriotism . . - ey ean aay Peaceable phase of culture : 19 Pecuniary canons of taste. .- 115 Pecuniary culture and dress . 107 Pecuniary culture and learning . 363 Pecuniary emulation 22 Pecuniary worth versus industrial use. . : 230 Pecuniary standard af vine 102 Personal and honorific arts 18 Philanthropy 234, 310 Physiognomy and astuteness 275 Polynesian adzes . 152 Polynesian chiets . A2 Polynesian islanders . 3 Preternatural explanations Predatory habits, and barbarian 281-283, 285 STOUD ea toe ew eh eis Alea ne and emulation 16, 30 and love of esteem .. - 36 attainment of . 19 dependence on industry - - 20 Prescription . . AI, 105, 115 Priestly class 182 Priestly office . . E23 Priests , 310, 312 Printing trade . : ; 89 Progress, and sdaptation gor! 706. 203 change of direction of . 196 Property, bases of esteem. - 20 DIAVALE ci yee ies 117 subdivision of . 35 PEG WESS Ce oie ol ne bei ore nee 240 Public parks CEU aula dB Oy Sipe ge eae ey De DIOL kc) kee Dee ce PRE 6 Quasi-peaceable stage - + + > 63 Rafiles 300 Religion add morality (obedience to Decalogue) .-- + + + 320 RGHUCADLILY 8s ete ce ees 105 RAGETSION {| o. ehitel eireiel Se ce Ok Went ece. ee ey he ow SN OOOHOLS RSI anise) et cea er emery s 162 Sacred buildings . . - - 39, 120 Sagas, Icelandic . - - + + ° 2 | 403 Savage groups : oe 6 Scepticism of legitimacy of emu- lation? 17.) Sraie iis 340 Scholarly pursuits SMeparoa. 113 Science and learning. . 383-334, 399 Self-esteem. . - cei At) ee Serviceability and beauty . SR EEZO Servants ici > jot coteatsne 58, 60 CEevICeSi os ig al neh oe mine) Ai mead Settlements. . - « -« «+ 339; 344 Cex and industry . . « e« (js. a0, 23 Snobbery ie eee es aaa ey Social duties BAERS Ghat @ tale tte ee Social reform '.“¢)..6, («) 1) * tespeem eae Socia bility <0 en tet Macon anne 334 Spelling . cP Se eZOO Spiritual, use of word ee 37) 85, 86 Spiritual growth . : 254 Sports 25 et 270 and arrested development 265 apologetic tone of 267 COMlEGe 6 te eierenikey var eli aeies 378 Standard of living . - - = >» 106 StimtlantS «seen sso ens 70 Styles 174 Subservient habit iat ene 196 Survival of non-invidious in- stincts 332 of DrOWeSS) 3) fas) oo een 2406 Sympathy, 5. «5 <1. isnuen eae Tm liGinath 1 < Woukie ca ea waite ty eke mianee Taste tie ro cote sh opens NAS Temperaments. . «+ ; 226, 238 Theology ..- - ON. eae heer akg Time, consumption of ‘ie ei elie oT TOdAS fi oul iikek comer nantrentinenars 6 Toughness: . 26, 243 Uniforms 78 University Settlements . Rae: 341, 344 Utility and beauty . - +: - 127 Valuations . . AT SO Value of facts and Bhace af norm 9 Vicarious leisure . - - + = 81, 83404 Lndex Wrallkine-stick’s 1/3 \ bes eet, ot ee 268 LEAITNING he eee ye eee WYRE Mier iaen get e\ ete. ZOE MSTS non-invidious traits. . 338, 341 Waly CIA shim Sul oo rane he bet aA | position as index of culture . 353 WI RALER Re RR A ean eg hs en OP NVIMILIVE PTOUD! ec) ek sw LS Whatever is, is wrong .. . . 207 CUESHIONe as Mietire nn a rere, 6) oom Women, consumption of stimu- TIGUCS ae Pecan) eter tee IANED ene eenee eee he! hE SPRETO My oii ive Celi 'es) eee ie! uy) tS SA devout observances. . . . 323} StaCUScvcis a sokuel het been Sik zo CIES Pete tel deh atiners oe EES TIO SUE Rael) of Hien ancl CLARA WAS Goose SIGUIBED UO iemef cass sto he wiire ee RRR go Buia bly’ eases 299; 339 299, 339 Printed in the United States of America.r Pe i Did’ 7 * yf ! f ri3 ~~ 57% . hae “i + er bel Fo ¢ ean a ae > ' . er 6 ee —* « jo = ae a »™ te. ~~ .— om smn - .~ a oe a | > oe - kK “7 * ne ‘a hen a e 8 a oe en, oe % ; 5 t } ¢ . * «€ %* ¥ >" ake . yee buf pee - oanoe ae ee a ae 2a a = - : : be Bone * cs t se * e - : e*.*2.40 t ee ie, a - { » Tom 1 ee * i - s wm ed : ‘ : e bs ; ; » é > 7 ; a * : Pt ~~“ ~~ aft * * * *. eee Oe ’ #* » - <<".1 Pes! an Cre a { » ae eo > ed a : a ‘ oe ae hem) is f- vs oe ee v5. ys a * i Cas wo _ care y SO: i in ae : re a ~~ ? aeLEASE RETURN TO ALDERMAN LIBRARY. 4 ; | a i . ; a_ ’ ™ P , ~ ™ he el f at ¢ “ok ‘@ . * . = ‘ we 4 = ‘ ; ef “~~” y a ri . 4 x iad ae hice , ” ¢ * os . rs 4 q “ ; es a ad Mei ' > - is — aE sow we , a ae . 7 a ‘~%» 4 . a : cd i en 6 9 Ne peeregrger mg @eT TTT 7 ad ae Lily re ? a - — . z res . - 4 % e ’ nal Pi aA i es ri : ea PY =e 2 o _ : 4 ’ ad A a rd he ae » >) A ) wet oY . , = at ¢ . aot uP gy eaUN