What do you think?
Rate this book
Puritans at Play: Leisure and Recreation in Colonial New England
'It is rare for a book to be both erudite and amusing at the same time, and this book has succeeded. It has changed the common but unacceptable image of the Puritans as dull, solemn, melancholy misanthropes' - Horton Davies, author of The Worship of the American Puritans For over four centuries, 'puritan' has been a synonym for dour, joyless, and repressed. In Puritans at Play, Bruce Daniels reappraises the accuracy of this grim portrait by examining leisure and recreation in colonial and revolutionary New England. Chapters on music, dinner parties, dancing, sex, alcohol, taverns, and sports are presented in a lively style making this book as entertaining as it is illuminating.
285 pages, Paperback
First published August 15, 1995
2 people are currently reading
81 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
April 11, 2019
I received this book in a book exchange. It is a humanizing-scholarly study into the Puritan to Colonial stories. Many of the names were familiar, but Bruce Daniels' research is impressive. But like so much history, the women are more of a side note. This is not a story, but a study of the colonizers of New England and a basis for so much of our history. This is a great read for a student of history.
January 26, 2026
Historian Bruce C. Daniels contributes to an important and often misunderstood aspect of colonial and Puritan history with his Puritans at Play: Leisure and Recreation in Colonial New England. Arguing against the extremes of scholarly and popular interpretations of the Puritans, Daniels claims that the Puritans were not gray, dour, prudes who constantly sucked the joys out of life, but neither were they actually fun-loving, jolly, colorful Englishmen who happened to live a devout life. Rather, a mediating position between these two extremes is closer to reality. The Puritans sought to live out a holistic worldview wherein all areas of life were consecrated to Christ, including areas of leisure and play. “The Puritan ethos embodied a holistic worldview in which everything — religion, family, government, the economy and entertainment — was tied together in one bundle. People who refused to call their place of worship a church because that suggested a separation between religious services and daily life were certainly not willing to separate entertainment and leisure from the central purpose of their lives” (49). Yet, because of the nature of leisure and play to simultaneously conform to and subvert the culture wherein it resides, Puritan teaching on the subject, so argues Daniels, displayed a constant “ambivalence” that is captured in the phrase “sober mirth.” The Puritans were never in principle anti-fun and anti-entertainment; their understanding of leisure and play was tempered by other central tenets of the life of piety and godliness. Puritan play, therefore, was always qualified and moderate. The most conservative understanding of Puritan play, however, was lived out in the first generation of New Englanders; over the decades and scores, strict moral codes and social mores shifted to looser and more diverse understandings. “To put the matter simply, Puritans believed in a strict code of Christian morality that became considerably relaxed over the course of the colonial period” (221). This is further captured by John Gardiner, a 18th century promoter of theaters, when he was asked about the Puritan prohibitive attitudes toward theater and said, “Sir, I really and truly venerate — I should rather say, I sincerely and almost enthusiastically admire — the many great and splendid virtues of our renowned Puritan ancestors but still sir, they were only men, and like all other men were fallible — liable to frailties, to prejudices and to error. Some errors and some unjust prejudices they undoubtedly had” (John Gardiner, quoted on 71).
Daniels demonstrates this claim by tracing the historical development of various forms of leisure and entertainment from the first generation of Puritans to the post-Revolutionary era. He addresses reading and literature, music and theater, social gatherings, dances and weddings, courtship and sex, drinking and taverns, and sports and games. Daniels embraces the method of a social historian, which self-consciously understands that what is said is not always what is done. In his own words, “I have tried to make sense of the confusion and ambiguity that swirls around the Puritans’ attitudes toward pleasure and relaxation by describing what New Englanders said and what they did between 1620 and 1790–to provide what the anthropologist Clifford Geerts called a ‘thick description’ that distinguished the meaningful from the meaningless, the general idiom from the idiosyncrasy” (xiii). In applying this method, the reader is able to detect the ambivalence that Daniels contends for (albeit not without issues; more on this below). From state militia being called to manage a mob against a theater play in Providence, Rhode Island, to Puritan ministers debating each other over the propriety of whigs, Daniels provides a fascinating and illuminating account of the complexities of New England life and thought, one that certainly puts to death the popular view of Puritans as dour and grave.
Nonetheless, there are at least two prevailing issues with the work. Daniels’s treatment on the ambivalence of fun and leisure in Puritan rhetoric seems to presuppose an understanding of fun and leisure antithetical to the Puritans; in other words, what Daniels sees as the ambivalent movement between two different extremes, the Puritans understand as a wise balancing (16–17, 56–57). Indeed, if the most theologically and ministerially noteworthy Puritans interpreted Daniels’s argument here, it is plausible to think that they would see Daniels as operating only in legalistic and antinomian categories for approaching fun. What Daniels interprets as a “giving and taking” is nothing but the nature of wisdom and its application to the various fields of human experience according to the Puritans. At the heart of Daniels’s project, then, there seems to be a fundamental methodological issue that pertains to his own interpretation of Puritan teaching.
Secondly, one of the strangest treatments in the book is found in Daniels’s 3.5 page treatment of the Puritan attitude towards funerals. It is strange for mostly two main reasons: 1) it is methodologically inconsistent with his overall method; this section is unique compared to all other issues in the book in that Daniels draws a direct line between what has been said and taught to what was actually done in the social manifestations of funerals; 2) Daniels argument seems to be demonstrably false.
Daniels argues that Puritans did not value and therefore promote and engage in funeral ceremonies because their affirmation of covenant theology led them to believe that no one could be certain or assured of their personal salvation. “Covenant theology allows no certitude. Indeed, belief in one’s salvation served as a sign that a person labored under a false set of beliefs and hence was likely to be damned. Excruciating uncertainty lay at the heart of the Puritan adaptation of Calvinist thought…. Nothing about the future [of the dead] could be ‘sure and certain’ — not even hope” (85). Daniels goes on:
“This uncertainty imparted a cruel ambivalence to Puritanism. Christian tradition prior to the Reformation emphasized death as a release of the soul from its earthly prison. People may have feared death as a practical matter, but intellectually most Christians died with the hope of salvation, believing that death began a new life of joy in paradise. Puritan ministers reminded their parishioners constantly of the falsity of this assurance. Death could release the soul to eternal happiness, but it could as easily cast it into eternal damnation. Since Puritans could never know the result in advance, death was as terrifying intellectually as it was practically” (85).
In addition to these claims, Daniels juxtaposes this theological understanding of death to the Roman Catholic Church, whose teachings of Purgatory actually could and did, according to Daniels, offer comforts for those who are dying and those who are dead. “Both the rejection of certitude and the rejection of the concept of Purgatory made Puritans in England contemptuous of funerals. Without assurance of salvation, mortal death should not be celebrated; and funerals smacked of Popish idolatry” (86). Daniels goes on to argue that Puritans in England affirmed these beliefs, but in practice still eventually recognized funeral traditions, beginning with the death of John Winthrop in 1640.
In critique of this argument, we note 1) Daniels draws a direct (and naive) line from theological positions to social practice, rather than incorporating economic, social, and geographical elements that bear on the issue as he does in other sections of his book. 2) Daniels consistently cites David E. Stannard’s The Puritan Way of Death: A Study in Religion, Culture, and Social Change in support of his argument. This work therefore deserves to be consulted to further evaluate Daniels’s arguments, but the lack of primary sources cited in this section is a red flag. 3) To say that Purgatory provided comfort in the face of death is at least an oversimplification. 4) Anyone basically familiar with the Reformed and Puritan covenant theology should recognize that the simple affirmation of covenant theology in no way implies the denial of the assurance of salvation. Many Puritan divines affirmed the perseverance of the saints and that assurance of one’s own salvation was not only obtainable but also that one ought to pursue the means of assurance. Puritan expositions of the Westminster Standards explicitly affirm these teachings, as is seen in John Flavel and Thomas Watson, for example. Daniels even cites an anonymous French critic of (English) Puritan funeral practices in 1649 — the same year the Cambridge Platform was published wherein New England Puritan leaders explicitly affirm the doctrinal content of the Westminster Standards, which includes the Reformed understanding of the preservation of the faith and assurance of salvation. Rather than drawing a direct (and naive) line from covenant theology to the denial of assurance of salvation, a more plausible and likely account would consider the high emphasis of introspection for true and genuine faith within the teaching of preparatory grace common to the Puritans and the practical impact that such teaching would have on the laity. In short, this section thoroughly demonstrates that Daniels is primarily a historian of early American history, not of church history and much less of church doctrine.
Overall, this is a well-written, interesting read that clarifies popular misconceptions about the Puritans. Daniel humanizes them while also taking their mission and worldview seriously. Unfortunately, Daniels has questionable interpretations of the Puritan view of leisure and play, “sober mirth,” and presents a very dubious account of the Puritan view of death and funerals. The reader should keep a critical lens while reading, but the reader will ultimately come away with a better understanding of the Puritans and the development of leisure and play in colonial New England.
Daniels demonstrates this claim by tracing the historical development of various forms of leisure and entertainment from the first generation of Puritans to the post-Revolutionary era. He addresses reading and literature, music and theater, social gatherings, dances and weddings, courtship and sex, drinking and taverns, and sports and games. Daniels embraces the method of a social historian, which self-consciously understands that what is said is not always what is done. In his own words, “I have tried to make sense of the confusion and ambiguity that swirls around the Puritans’ attitudes toward pleasure and relaxation by describing what New Englanders said and what they did between 1620 and 1790–to provide what the anthropologist Clifford Geerts called a ‘thick description’ that distinguished the meaningful from the meaningless, the general idiom from the idiosyncrasy” (xiii). In applying this method, the reader is able to detect the ambivalence that Daniels contends for (albeit not without issues; more on this below). From state militia being called to manage a mob against a theater play in Providence, Rhode Island, to Puritan ministers debating each other over the propriety of whigs, Daniels provides a fascinating and illuminating account of the complexities of New England life and thought, one that certainly puts to death the popular view of Puritans as dour and grave.
Nonetheless, there are at least two prevailing issues with the work. Daniels’s treatment on the ambivalence of fun and leisure in Puritan rhetoric seems to presuppose an understanding of fun and leisure antithetical to the Puritans; in other words, what Daniels sees as the ambivalent movement between two different extremes, the Puritans understand as a wise balancing (16–17, 56–57). Indeed, if the most theologically and ministerially noteworthy Puritans interpreted Daniels’s argument here, it is plausible to think that they would see Daniels as operating only in legalistic and antinomian categories for approaching fun. What Daniels interprets as a “giving and taking” is nothing but the nature of wisdom and its application to the various fields of human experience according to the Puritans. At the heart of Daniels’s project, then, there seems to be a fundamental methodological issue that pertains to his own interpretation of Puritan teaching.
Secondly, one of the strangest treatments in the book is found in Daniels’s 3.5 page treatment of the Puritan attitude towards funerals. It is strange for mostly two main reasons: 1) it is methodologically inconsistent with his overall method; this section is unique compared to all other issues in the book in that Daniels draws a direct line between what has been said and taught to what was actually done in the social manifestations of funerals; 2) Daniels argument seems to be demonstrably false.
Daniels argues that Puritans did not value and therefore promote and engage in funeral ceremonies because their affirmation of covenant theology led them to believe that no one could be certain or assured of their personal salvation. “Covenant theology allows no certitude. Indeed, belief in one’s salvation served as a sign that a person labored under a false set of beliefs and hence was likely to be damned. Excruciating uncertainty lay at the heart of the Puritan adaptation of Calvinist thought…. Nothing about the future [of the dead] could be ‘sure and certain’ — not even hope” (85). Daniels goes on:
“This uncertainty imparted a cruel ambivalence to Puritanism. Christian tradition prior to the Reformation emphasized death as a release of the soul from its earthly prison. People may have feared death as a practical matter, but intellectually most Christians died with the hope of salvation, believing that death began a new life of joy in paradise. Puritan ministers reminded their parishioners constantly of the falsity of this assurance. Death could release the soul to eternal happiness, but it could as easily cast it into eternal damnation. Since Puritans could never know the result in advance, death was as terrifying intellectually as it was practically” (85).
In addition to these claims, Daniels juxtaposes this theological understanding of death to the Roman Catholic Church, whose teachings of Purgatory actually could and did, according to Daniels, offer comforts for those who are dying and those who are dead. “Both the rejection of certitude and the rejection of the concept of Purgatory made Puritans in England contemptuous of funerals. Without assurance of salvation, mortal death should not be celebrated; and funerals smacked of Popish idolatry” (86). Daniels goes on to argue that Puritans in England affirmed these beliefs, but in practice still eventually recognized funeral traditions, beginning with the death of John Winthrop in 1640.
In critique of this argument, we note 1) Daniels draws a direct (and naive) line from theological positions to social practice, rather than incorporating economic, social, and geographical elements that bear on the issue as he does in other sections of his book. 2) Daniels consistently cites David E. Stannard’s The Puritan Way of Death: A Study in Religion, Culture, and Social Change in support of his argument. This work therefore deserves to be consulted to further evaluate Daniels’s arguments, but the lack of primary sources cited in this section is a red flag. 3) To say that Purgatory provided comfort in the face of death is at least an oversimplification. 4) Anyone basically familiar with the Reformed and Puritan covenant theology should recognize that the simple affirmation of covenant theology in no way implies the denial of the assurance of salvation. Many Puritan divines affirmed the perseverance of the saints and that assurance of one’s own salvation was not only obtainable but also that one ought to pursue the means of assurance. Puritan expositions of the Westminster Standards explicitly affirm these teachings, as is seen in John Flavel and Thomas Watson, for example. Daniels even cites an anonymous French critic of (English) Puritan funeral practices in 1649 — the same year the Cambridge Platform was published wherein New England Puritan leaders explicitly affirm the doctrinal content of the Westminster Standards, which includes the Reformed understanding of the preservation of the faith and assurance of salvation. Rather than drawing a direct (and naive) line from covenant theology to the denial of assurance of salvation, a more plausible and likely account would consider the high emphasis of introspection for true and genuine faith within the teaching of preparatory grace common to the Puritans and the practical impact that such teaching would have on the laity. In short, this section thoroughly demonstrates that Daniels is primarily a historian of early American history, not of church history and much less of church doctrine.
Overall, this is a well-written, interesting read that clarifies popular misconceptions about the Puritans. Daniel humanizes them while also taking their mission and worldview seriously. Unfortunately, Daniels has questionable interpretations of the Puritan view of leisure and play, “sober mirth,” and presents a very dubious account of the Puritan view of death and funerals. The reader should keep a critical lens while reading, but the reader will ultimately come away with a better understanding of the Puritans and the development of leisure and play in colonial New England.
November 24, 2011
Puritans at Play is a good, but not great, book. Daniels has read the literature, does not seem to like the Puritans all that much, and spends most of his time in the 18th century. Not all of it, but he obviously found more fun things to write about with those generations, the ones who had so fallen away from the ideals of their ancestors (my story of declension). If without deep revelation it was at least easy to read (though the type-face chosen for this edition was horrendous).
January 30, 2020
It is an often-repeated canard that the Puritans were no fun at all and this book does a good job at demonstrating how that is simply not the case. Admittedly, this argument is made a bit easier by the fact that the author looks at the evidence from colonial New England as being evidence that the Puritans weren't hostile to pleasure. Now, this certainly does help matters, as New England got more fun throughout the period of New England, but the fact that the Puritans were not hostile to leisure or recreation from the beginning is sufficient to prove the author's point that the Puritans have been unfairly slandered even if the expansion of the focus into the period long after the Puritan legacy was being undermined during the late colonial period was likely done to make the material enough for a book. Difficult tradeoffs are required when one writes books about the past, especially where documentation is limited as it is when it comes to the leisure and amusements of among the most serious peoples known to European history. Even so, this book does its purpose and is easy to recommend to those who study the Puritans and their culture.
This particular book is a bit more than 200 pages long and is divided into six sections and eleven chapters. The author opens with acknowledgements and a discussion of the sometimes complex relationship between Puritanism, play, and American culture. After that the author explores the question of whether Puritans liked fun (I) by examining their views of sober mirth and pleasant poisons and Puritan ambivalence to recreation in early New England history (1). After that the author discusses intellectual and cultural entertainment (II) by looking at Puritan views about reading for fun (2) and the struggle for legitimacy that music and theater faced up to the Revolutionary War (3). Then comes a look at gathering together (III), where the author discusses fellowship at church (4) as well as civic socializing where parties were undertaken for the common good (5). This leads to a discussion of the frolic that men and women had together (IV), which included dances, weddings, and dinner parties (6), sex and courtship (7), and drinking and socializing in places like taverns and alehouses (8). After that the author looks at special opportunities and barriers to fun (V), such as sport and games in a male-dominated public culture (9) and the fragmentation of social experience by age, sex, location, and class (10). Finally, the author discusses the Puritan legacy within the national experience of fun (VI, 11), after which there are abbreviations, endnotes, and an index.
It is interesting to ponder the question of what counts as play. While we live in a contemporary culture where playing games is common, this book reminds us that there are plenty of leisure and recreation activities that are wholeheartedly enjoyed even by those who are not very fond of games at all. One can take, for example, the reflection on reading for pleasure or the enjoyment of good music, or the enjoyment of congregational fellowship or dinner parties. Most of these activities would be found as fun by even the most serious of people. If one cannot enjoy good religious music, or good books, or the opportunity to fellowship with others of like beliefs and practices or enjoy good conversation or good food, there really is no hope for someone to be a good member of any kind of society at all. We might not even consider such things to be recreation because we take them for granted so much, but for those of us who live fairly serious lives, they are the sources of amusement and recreation that are the easiest to find and among the most lasting of pleasures.
This particular book is a bit more than 200 pages long and is divided into six sections and eleven chapters. The author opens with acknowledgements and a discussion of the sometimes complex relationship between Puritanism, play, and American culture. After that the author explores the question of whether Puritans liked fun (I) by examining their views of sober mirth and pleasant poisons and Puritan ambivalence to recreation in early New England history (1). After that the author discusses intellectual and cultural entertainment (II) by looking at Puritan views about reading for fun (2) and the struggle for legitimacy that music and theater faced up to the Revolutionary War (3). Then comes a look at gathering together (III), where the author discusses fellowship at church (4) as well as civic socializing where parties were undertaken for the common good (5). This leads to a discussion of the frolic that men and women had together (IV), which included dances, weddings, and dinner parties (6), sex and courtship (7), and drinking and socializing in places like taverns and alehouses (8). After that the author looks at special opportunities and barriers to fun (V), such as sport and games in a male-dominated public culture (9) and the fragmentation of social experience by age, sex, location, and class (10). Finally, the author discusses the Puritan legacy within the national experience of fun (VI, 11), after which there are abbreviations, endnotes, and an index.
It is interesting to ponder the question of what counts as play. While we live in a contemporary culture where playing games is common, this book reminds us that there are plenty of leisure and recreation activities that are wholeheartedly enjoyed even by those who are not very fond of games at all. One can take, for example, the reflection on reading for pleasure or the enjoyment of good music, or the enjoyment of congregational fellowship or dinner parties. Most of these activities would be found as fun by even the most serious of people. If one cannot enjoy good religious music, or good books, or the opportunity to fellowship with others of like beliefs and practices or enjoy good conversation or good food, there really is no hope for someone to be a good member of any kind of society at all. We might not even consider such things to be recreation because we take them for granted so much, but for those of us who live fairly serious lives, they are the sources of amusement and recreation that are the easiest to find and among the most lasting of pleasures.
May 22, 2021
I've been reading a lot of history on the Puritans and haven't even bothered to rate most of the books, as they are dry, albeit informative, and for my sake, pure research. But this book was not dry. It was well written and interesting and even had bits of humor from time to time. It gave a great overall picture into the minds of Puritans and how leisure (or lack thereof) can tell us so much about a society.
January 20, 2016
Full of easy to digest information and written in an accessible way. Layman readers won't have any issues with jargon, theory, or dense paragraphs of flowery writing. It didn't thrill me but I didn't expect it to (because of the subject matter). This is the first book focusing on Puritans that doesn't make me despise them. Daniels' research humanizes the New Englanders in a way you can relate to, leisure and play. We're a long ways away from where it all began, so it's interesting to see the very start (minus Virginia obviously).
This is the first of my Labor, Leisure, & Consumption comp book list.....here we go.
This is the first of my Labor, Leisure, & Consumption comp book list.....here we go.
November 28, 2024
An interesting look into how the Puritans viewed and practiced leisure and recreation. While they placed limits on play, they still had fun within those limits. And even as those limits expanded later in the colonial period, they continued to be influenced by the original principles of practicality and moral restraint.
November 11, 2008
Read for HIS 1043 U.S. History I. Broad and insightful viewpoints on the stereotypical Puritan of colonial New England and how the stereotype rarely matches up with the historical truth. Well-researched and documented.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews