
Notes Introduction 1. Surrey History Centre, 3473/3/6, Female Case Book 1901–1902, 2424. 2. J. Tosh, A Man’s Place: Masculinity and the Middle-Class Home in Victorian England (London: Yale, 1999), pp. 104–119. 3. K. Jones, Asylums and After: A Revised History of the Mental Health Services (London: Athlone, 1993), p. 116. 4. J.R. de S Honey, ‘Tom Brown’s Universe: The Nature and Limits of the Victorian Public School Community’, in B. Simon and I. Bradley (eds), The Victorian Public School: Studies in the Development of an Educational Institution (Dublin: Gill and MacMillan, 1975), p. 182. 5. For a recent discussion see F. Neddam, ‘Constructing Masculinities under Thomas Arnold of Rugby (1828–1842): Gender, Educational Policy and School Life in an Early-Victorian Public School’, Gender and Education, 16 (2004), pp. 303–326. 6. C. Shrosbree, Public Schools and Private Education: The Clarendon Commission 1861–1864 and the Public Schools Acts (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1988). 7. Shrosbree, Public Schools, p. 1. 8. Although recent research has pointed to the diversity and vitality of new schools established in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. C. de Bellaigue, Educating Women: Schooling and Identity in England and France 1800–1867 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007); S. Skedd, ‘Women Teachers and the Expansion of Girls’ Schooling in England, c.1760–1820’, in H. Barker and E. Chalus (eds), Gender in Eighteenth-Century England: Roles, Representations and Responsibilities (Harlow: Longman, 1997), pp. 101–125. 9. An example of the growing prominence in print culture: on the British Library online database, 220 London periodicals published before 1910 feature home in the title. Of these, only ten came out before 1840. 10. Leonore Davidoff and Catherine Hall’s work still offers the definitive explanation of this. L. Davidoff and C. Hall, Family Fortunes: Men and Women of the English Middle Class, 1780–1850 (London: Routledge, 1997), pp. 180–192. 11. J. Ruskin, Sesame and Lilies (New York, John Wiley and Son., 1865), p. 91. 12. D. Cohen, Household Gods: The British and their Possessions (London: Yale, 2006), p. 30. 13. J. Gloag, Victorian Comfort: A Social History of Design from 1830–1900 (Newton Abbott: David & Charles, 1973), pp. 31–59. 14. On the role of the use of cutlery in creating civilisation see N. Elias, The Civilising Process: The History of Manners (Oxford: Blackwell, 1978). 15. J. A. H. Murray, A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1897), p. 594. 16. For example, in 1900, an article in the Girls Own Paper tried to keep single girls who lived away from the family home on the straight and narrow by urging them to sit down to regular meals and set the table correctly, stressing the necessity of butter knives. ‘Living in Lodgings’, The Girl’s Own Paper, April 16, 1900, p. 563. 170 Notes 171 17. For a useful discussion of the intersection of these see M. Doolittle, ‘Time, Space and Memories: The Father’s Chair and Grandfather Clocks in Victorian Working-Class Domestic Lives’, Home Cultures, 8 (2011), pp. 245–264; J-M. Strange, ‘Fatherhood, Furniture, and the Interpersonal Dynamics of Working-Class Homes, c. 1870–1914’, Urban History, 40 (2013), pp. 271–286. 18. See for example, M. L. Shanley, ‘“One Must Ride Behind”: Married Women’s Rights and the Divorce Act of 1857’, Victorian Studies, 25 (1982), pp. 355–376. 19. M. McCormack, The Independent Man: Citizenship and Gender Politics in Georgian England (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2005), p. 27; M. McCormack, ‘Introduction’, in M. McCormack, Public Men: Masculinity and Politics in Modern Britain (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), p. 8. 20. F. Driver, ‘Discipline Without Frontiers? Representations of the Mettray Reformatory Colony in Britain, 1840–1880’, Journal of Historical Sociology, 3 (1990), pp.272–293. 21. T. Ploszajska, ‘Moral Landscapes and Manipulated Spaces: Gender, Class and Space in Victorian Reformatory Schools’, Journal of Historical Geography, 20 (1994), pp. 416–417, 424. 22. K. Gleadle and S. Richardson, Women in British Politics, 1760–1860: The Power of the Petticoat (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2000); S. Morgan, A Victorian Woman’s Place: Public Culture in the Nineteenth Century (London: I.B. Tauris, 2007); K. Gleadle, Borderline Citizens: Women, Gender, and Political Culture in Britain 1815–1867 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). 23. For a later example of the influence of ideas on domesticity on industrial health see Vicky Long on ‘the homely factory’. V. Long, The Rise and Fall of the Healthy Factory: The Politics of Industrial Health in Britain, 1914–1960 (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), pp. 51, 53, 71. 24. M. Poovey, Making a Social Body: British Cultural Formation 1830–1864 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), pp.125–126. 25. J. Hamlett, Material Relations: Families and Domestic Interiors in England, 1850–1910 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2010), see Chapters 1 and 2 in particular. 26. A. Davin, Growing Up Poor: Home, School and Street in London, 1870–1914 (London: Rivers Oram Press, 1996), Chapter 3 ‘Close Quarters’, pp. 45–62; Doolittle, ‘Time’; Strange, ‘Fatherhood’. 27. A. Milne-Smith, ‘A Flight to Domesticity?: Making a Home in the Gentlemen’s Clubs of London, 1880–1914’, Journal of British Studies, 45 (2006), p. 802; Q. Colville, ‘Corporate Domesticity and Idealised Masculinity: Royal Naval Officers and Their Shipboard Homes, 1918–1939’, Gender & History, 21 (2009), pp. 501–505. 28. P. M. Lewis, ‘Mummy, Matron and the Maids: Feminine Presence and Absence in Institutions, 1934–1963’, in M. Roper and J. Tosh (eds), Manful Assertions: Masculinities in Britain since 1800 (London: Routledge, 1991), pp. 168–189. 29. Colville, ‘Corporate’, pp. 499–500; Milne-Smith, ‘Flight’, p. 798. 30. J. Hamlett, ‘“Nicely Feminine, yet Learned”: Student Rooms at Royal Holloway and the Oxbridge Colleges in Late Nineteenth-Century Britain’, Women’s History Review, 15 (2006), pp. 137–161. Jillian Gould’s contemporary study of a Jewish retirement home in Toronto reveals the way in which the establishment and continuation of domestic practices within institutional space was both empowering and pleasur- able for inmates. J. Gould, ‘A Nice Piece of Cake and A Kibitz: Reinventing Sabbath Hospitality in an Institutional Home’, Home Cultures, 10 (2013), pp. 189–206. 31. D. Hussey and M. Ponsonby, The Single Homemaker and Material Culture in the Long Eighteenth Century (Surrey: Ashgate, 2012), p. 197. 172 Notes 32. J. A.H. Murray (ed.), A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles, Vol.V, H-WY (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1901), p. 349. 33. Hamlett, Material Relations, Chapter 3. But as K. D. M. Snell has recently shown, the word was used by the poor in the first half of the nineteenth century to denote place of origin as well as abode. K.D.M. Snell, ‘Belonging and Community: Understandings of “Home” and “Friends” among the English Poor, 1750–1850’, Economic History Review, 65 (2012), p. 1. 34. A. Blunt and R. Dowling, Home (Abingdon: Routledge, 2006), p. 88. 35. P. Cloke, J. May and S. Johnson, Swept Up Lives? Re-Envisioning the Homeless City (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), p. 74. 36. Blunt and Dowling, Home, p. 89. 37. Material culture has long been a central area of interest to anthropologists and archaeologists. C. Tilley, ‘Introduction’, in C. Tilley et al. (eds), The Handbook of Material Culture (London: Sage, 2006), p.1. For a recent useful summary of historians’ approaches see K. Harvey (ed.), History and Material Culture: A Student’s Guide to Approaching Alternative Sources (Abingdon: Routledge, 2009). For alterna- tive approaches see F. Trentmann, ‘Materiality in the Future of History: Things, Practices, and Politics’, Journal of British Studies, 48 (2009), p. 290; C. Otter, ‘Locating Matter: The Place of Materiality in Urban History’, in P. Joyce and T. Bennett (eds), Material Powers: Cultural Studies, History and the Material Turn (London: Routledge, 2010), p. 43. 38. L.D. Smith, Cure, Comfort and Safe Custody: Public Lunatic Asylums in Early Nineteenth- Century England (London: Leicester University Press, 1999), p. 167. 39. F. Driver, Power and Pauperism: The Workhouse System, 1834–1884 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), p. 5. Although he also argues that surveillance went beyond space, p. 10. U. Henriques, ‘The Rise and Decline of the Separate System of Prison Discipline’, Past and Present, 54 (1972), pp. 61–93. 40. M. Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (London: Penguin, 1991, first translation published by Allen Lane 1977), p. 173. 41. These theories have been subject to considerable revision and debate. Architectural historians point out that in practical terms the influence of the panopticon was limited T.A. Markus, Buildings and Power: Freedom and Control in the Origin of Modern Building Types (London: Routledge, 1993), p. 123; J. Alber and F. Lauterbach, Stones of Law, Bricks of Shame: Narrating Imprisonment in the Victorian Age (London: University of Toronto Press, 2009), p. 10. Few asylums were based on this plan. L. Smith, ‘The Architecture of Confinement: Urban Public Asylums in England, 1750–1820’, in L. Topp, J.E. Moran and J. Andrews (eds), Madness, Architecture and the Built Environment: Psychiatric Spaces in Historical Context (London: Routledge, 2007), pp. 41–61, on p. 54. Yet others argue that it is the significance of surveillance as a means of inspiring a feeling of self-watching amongst inmates that remains crucial despite this. L. Topp and J. Moran, ‘Introduction’, in Topp, Moran and Andrews (eds), Madness, Architecture and the Built Environment, p. 3; C. Philo, ‘“Enough to Drive one Mad”: the Organization of Space in 19th-Century Lunatic Asylums’ in J. Wolch and M. Dear (eds), The Power of Geography: How Territory Shapes Social Life (London: Unwin Hyman, 1989), pp.
Details
-
File Typepdf
-
Upload Time-
-
Content LanguagesEnglish
-
Upload UserAnonymous/Not logged-in
-
File Pages56 Page
-
File Size-