Most recent work on the history of leisure in Europe has been based on the central hypothesis of a fundamental discontinuity between preindustrial and industrial soci-eties. According to this view, the modern idea of leisure did not exist in medieval and early modern Europe: the modern distinction between the categories of work and leisure was a product of industrial capitalism. Preindustrial societies had festivals (together with informal and irregular breaks from work), while industrial societies have leisure in the form of weekends and vacations. The emergence of leisure is there-fore part of the process of modernization. If this theory is correct, there is what Michel Foucault called a conceptual rupture between the two periods, and so the very idea of a history of leisure before the Industrial Revolution is an anachronism.

To reject the idea that leisure has had a continuous history from the Middle Ages to the present is not to deny that late medieval and early modern Europeans engaged in many pursuits that are now commonly considered leisure or sporting activities— jousting, hunting, tennis, card playing, travel, and so on—or that Europe in this period was dominated by a privileged class that engaged in these pursuits. What is involved in the discontinuity hypothesis is the recognition that the people of the Middle Ages and early modern Europe did not regard as belonging to a common category activities (hunting and gambling, for example) that are usually classified together today under the heading of leisure. Consider fencing: today it may be considered a “sport,” but for the gentleman of the Renaissance it was an art or science. Conversely, activities that today may be considered serious, notably warfare, were often described as pastimes.

Serious pitfalls, therefore, confront historians of leisure who assume continuity and who work with the modern concepts of leisure and sport, projecting them back onto the past without asking about the meanings contemporaries gave to their activities. However, the discontinuity hypothesis can pose problems of its own. Historians holding this view attempt to avoid anachronism by means of a simple dichotomy, cutting European history into two eras, preindustrial and industrial, setting up the binary opposition between a “festival culture” and a “leisure culture.” The dichotomy remains of use insofar as it reminds us that the rise of industrial capitalism was not purely a phenomenon of economic history, but had social and cultural preconditions and consequences. The dichotomy, however, leads to distortions when it reduces a great variety of medieval and early modern European ideas, assumptions, and practices to the simple formula implied by the phrase “festival culture.”

The primary purpose of the passage is to

A) refute the idea that the history of leisure is discontinuous
B) show why one of two approaches is more useful in studying the history of leisure
C) suggest the need for a new, more inclusive concept to replace the concept of leisure
D) trace the development of a theory about the history of leisure
E) point out the basis for, and the limits of, an approach to the history of leisure




2.The author of the passage asserts that the “dichotomy” (line 26) can lead to which of the following?

A) Reliance on only one of several equally valid theoretical approaches
B) The imposition of modern conceptions and meanings on past societies
C) Failure to take into account the complexity of certain features of European culture
D) Failure to utilize new conceptual categories in the study of the history of leisure
E) Failure to take account of the distinction between preindustrial and industrial societies




3. According to the passage, the “simple dichotomy” (line 26) is useful primarily because it serves as

A) a way of calling historians’ attention to certain facts about the Industrial Revolution
B) an antidote to the oversimplification encouraged by such terms as “festival culture”
C) a device for distinguishing between the work and the leisure activities of preindustrial Europeans
D) a way of understanding the privileged class of medieval Europe by viewing its activities in modern terms
E) a tool for separating social history, including the history of leisure, from economic history




4.Which of the following best describes the organization of the passage as a whole?

A) Two hypotheses are discussed, and evidence in support of one is presented.
B) A hypothesis is presented and discussed, and a limitation to the hypothesis is identified.
C) A hypothesis is proposed, its supposed advantages are shown to be real, and its supposed disadvantages are shown to be illusory.
D) A problem is identified, two hypotheses are advanced to resolve it, and both are rejected.
E) A problem is identified, two resolutions are proposed, and a solution combining elements of both is recommended.