Explorations in Economic History 13,1-12 (1976)

Health, Work, and Leisure before the Industrial Revolution*

HERMAN FREUDENBERGER AND GAYLORD CUMMINS
Tulane University

One of the most remarkable, or at least most remarked upon, features of

the Industrial Revolution was the extensive length of the work week. The
usual explanation for the decrease in working time since then has been that
people today choose to spend part of their higher real incomes for the en-
joyment of leisure time. Recent discussion of the allocation of time suggests
that most of what we had been calling “leisure time” is spent in less and less
leisurely ways (Becker, 1965; Linder, 1970). As we become more abun-
dantly supplied with commodities we also become more and more pressed
for time in which to consume them. With economic development, time,
instead of becoming more free, becomes increasingly scarce. From this
point of view benefits of economic progress appear more ambiguous than
they had before.
As remarkable as the decrease in working time since the end of what
Deane (1970) has called the First Industrial Revolution in the middle of the
19th century, but less often examined, was the increase in working time that
apparently preceded it. As we shall show below, the work week, when
averaged over a year, may have been in the vicinity of 30 hours
(Freudenberger, 1974), as is also observed in many underdeveloped areas
today. If we were to follow the traditional practice of classifying uses of
time as work or leisure, we would probably have to conclude that in their
supply of leisure time, at least, people before the Industrial Revolution were
better off than we are today. We would have to acknowledge not only that
nonworking time was at least as plentiful then, but that it was also more
nearly free.
The small number of hours worked 100 years before the Industrial Revo-
lution can, however, be interpreted differently. Instead of a man’s non-
working time being spent in the leisurely enjoyment of the fruits of his
labor-from his point of view, perhaps all too leisurely enjoyment of too lit-
tle fruit-it may have been spent chiefly for recuperation necessary to sus-
tain him for the work he was doing, little as that may have been. The short
work week before the Industrial Revolution may have been one aspect of an
equilibrium situation determined partly by a high prevalence of debilitating
disease and by low and unpredictable supplies of food. If so, the abundance
*We wish to thank A. W. Coats and the participants in the Workshop in Economic History
at the University of Chicago and in the Horizons of Knowledge Series at Indiana University, to
whom this paper was presented, for helpful criticism.

Copyright o 1976 by Academic Press, Inc.

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
2 FREUDENBERGER AND CUMMINS

of nonworking time would have been due not to an extraordinary preference

for leisure, either for its own sake or for consumption, nor to involuntary
unemployment in any of its usual senses. It would instead have been a
feature of the kind of allocation of time we would expect from people to
whom energy was scarce. The welfare significance of this interpretation is
so obvious that there is no need to dwell on it. We propose rather to discuss
the nature of the equilibrium just mentioned, its consistency with available
evidence, and how a disturbance of it may have contributed to a dramatic
increase in the work week during the Industrial Revolution. This increase
may have been accompanied by a greater intensity of work and may have
persisted despite the labor-saving purpose of the major technological
changes of that time.
If people’s activities were in fact severely constrained by poor health and
nutrition this might be the key to understanding the otherwise puzzling in-
crease in the supply of effort in the face of rising real incomes. In suggesting
that better health and nutrition may have contributed to a growth in hours
worked, and hence to the Industrial Revolution itself, we do not mean to say
that other factors were not also at work. Changes in the social organization
of work were clearly important. In the 1930’s, Gilboy (1932), pointed to the
rising afauence of Englishmen as a stimulus to internal demand for
consumer goods and thus to the growth of industry with its longer work
week. During the past 15 years Coleman (1955), Eversley (1967), John
(1968), and other economic historians have further investigated the internal
market for consumer goods and have supported the Gilboy thesis. It is even

Goods

u'
A'

0 A B Leisure
Fig. 1.
 BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 3

possible that during a century (1540-1640) of increasing prosperity in more

urban England in the early 18th century (Hoskins, 1953), the effects of bet-
ter health would have complemented these other influences.
We suppose that the situation of an early 18th-century English household
was something like that illustrated abstractly in Fig. 1, a modification of
one of the conventional labor-leisure diagrams. For this purpose assume
that a household has OA hours per day available for work and leisure, this
being the excess of the total over some fixed amount required for rest. By
* working, this household could obtain one unit of “goods” per hour, which it
would then consume without further expenditure of time or energy. Thus
AA’ represents the household’s time limitation. The household also has
limited vitality which it must divide between work and leisure. We assume
work to be more physically demanding than leisure so that the energy limi-
tation, BB’, is flatter than AA’. In Fig. 1 the household’s best allocation of
time and energy is that indicated at M. There, energy is scarce and time
abundant, as shown by the fact that the MN hours per day spent at rest
serve only as a depository for surplus time.
Despite its oversimplifications, Fig. 1 does show that the response to
changes in health is economic. We emphasize this point because it has
sometimes led to unwarranted inferences. Reported days lost from work
” due to illness have been treated as if they necessarily caused equal decreases
in labor inputs (Denison, 1962, pp. 50-53), and increases in capacity to work
due to increased calorie intakes have been treated as if they necessarily
caused equivalent increases in productivity (Correa and Cummins, 1970).
An FAO Expert Committee on Calorie Requirements came close to stating
the problem correctly:
Experience shows that human beings have a remarkable capacity for adjustment to
calorie intakes. This is to some extent the result of physiological adjustments, for
example, in the form of low body weight and low basal metabolism rate. Social adjust-
ment is, however, perhaps even more important in such circumstances. The whole manner
of life is adapted to an insufficient supply of calories, with results that are socially unde-
sirable: lack of drive and initiative; avoidance of physical and mental effort; excessive rest.
[Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, 1957, p. 71
Foster investigated the effects of asymptomatic schistosomiasis on
working time in a group of African plantation workers. After failing to find
any such effects, he astutely suggested that “the length of time for which the
African dances to the drums at night may be a better measure of his vitality
than the amount of sugar cane he cuts for an employer by day.” (Foster,
1967) He thus not only recognized the economic nature of the problem but
also that an increase in vitality could even lead to a reduction in working
time. In the model of Fig. 1 this could happen only if “goods” were inferior,
but in that model we have arbitrarily restricted the scope for substitution. It
would be better to include the energy requirements of various possible
consumption and work activities. The effect of limited vitality would then be
4 FREUDENBERGER AND CUMMINS

to reduce the value of time, though not necessarily to zero as in Fig. 1, and
to induce substitution of time-intensive for energy-intensive activities. One
way of economizing on energy would be to expand both working time and
consumption activities in which market goods save energy, and this might
be done even if work itself were energy-intensive.
Thus the effect of vitality on the supply of effort cannot be predicted a
priori. Increased calorie intake, however, if not improved health generally,
does seem in fact to increase the supply of effort. (This also seems to be true
of proteins and some other nutrients.) Several episodes have been reported
in which reductions in calorie consumption led to reduced productivity
(Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, 1962), and we
know of no contrary cases. These episodes reveal a uniform pattern: When
well-fed workers are deprived of food their output falls relatively much
more than their intake of calories. The reason is simple: A well-fed worker
consumes perhaps 3000 calories per day, of which perhaps 1500 are spent
for basal metabolism and another 300 or so for activities such as dressing,
getting out of bed and shivering, which vary little with total intake. Thus
there is a fixed expenditure of roughly 1800 calories. A reduction of, say,
20% in total intake to 2500 implies a reduction of 500/(3000 - 1800) or
more than 40% in calories available for other activities, including:work. It
would be a stubborn man indeed who would not reduce his work activities
by more than 20%.
Cheapness of time due to limited vitality should not be confused with the
surplus labor posited in some of the development literature. Though time
would be used extravagantly in either case, only in the latter would addi-
tional labor be made available at constant wage rates. This is why we sug-
gest that improvement in health may have been necessary as well as
sufficient for the lengthening of the work week during the Industrial Revo-
lution.
To summarize, the effects of health on effort cannot be taken for granted.
In the special case of calorie intake, however, it is safe to assume a positive
effect. We shall present grounds for believing that conditions of health and
nutrition before the Industrial Revolution were such as to restrict seriously
people’s choices of activities; that subsequent improvements were such as to
widen significantly the range of choice; and that the special conditions of the
time made it likely that better health would have increased the supply of
effort. Moreover, we have reason to believe that the supply of effort could
not have increased as it did without improvements in health.
We know in a general way what must have happened to the public health
in England during the half-century or so beginning with the great plague of
1666. Fortuitously, the bubonic plague disappeared thereafter (Gale, 1959,
pp. 131-134) and the food supply increased (John, 1967). Since the popu-
lation did not grow significantly, if at all, during this period, the result of
 BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 5

this combination of circumstances could easily have been the basis for an
. .

.
I
improvement of health (McKeown and Record, 1972). It seems a fair
assumption that the upper classes were supplied with a sufficient quantity of
foodstuffs even during times of general adversity so that any increase in
food supply would have to accrue to the benefit of at least some portion of
the rest of the population. We suggest that this progress may have permit-
ted Englishmen to exchange idleness essential to health for greater labor
which could raise their levels of living as well as those of their descendants:
We also know that something led Englishmen to break the cake of
custom according to which they had traditionally divided their days, weeks,
and longer periods of time. Let us now look more closely at what the “cake
of custom” was. This question was recently raised by Morgan (1971) in an
article about the great difficulties faced by the first Jamestown settlers.
Starvation, he found, was due less to an unfavorable environment than to
the habits the settlers had brought with them, where “idleness and hunger”
were often the rule. They came from a country where wages were so low, he
supposed, that undernourishment depressed the flow of energy, and they
were therefore accustomed to the long periods of idleness needed to main-
tain minimum levels of health. It was consequently responsible for the fact
that people in that age, when nature was still a powerful adversary, accepted
death and suffering without being roused to the sort of effort that necessity
is said to bring forth. And why not? Whether a person unthinkingly ac-
cepted the prevailing conditions of life or examined them rationally, he
would have come to the same conclusion. Had he been able to make a
careful list of harvest results in the 15th and 16th centuries, as Hoskins has
recently done (Hoskins, 1968; Abel, 1966, p. 66; and Wrigley, 1969, p. 66),
he would have found that the bulk of the population had been faced with
starvation or sever.e undernourishment nearly every fourth year, on the
average. And after each such harvest they had been faced with several fur-
ther years of low yields, since a poor harvest in one year reduced the seed
available for the next.
What were some of the other ingredients of the dismal cake of custom?
Communications and transportation were poor, nor was there much in the
way of storage facilities. The agricultural laborer faced seasonal fluctua-
tions in demand. To be sure, in the 17th century in England industrial work
in the cottages increasingly supplemented the worker’s income but the
market for manufactured goods was extremely narrow (Coleman, 1955). In
short, conditions did not favor an optimistic outlook on life.
Various institutional arrangements had previously developed to sweeten
the cake somewhat, and perhaps, as we suspect, in recognition of the limited
productive capacity of the working population. Foremost were the nu-
merous holidays and feast days. Even as late as 1750, on the eve of the In-
dustrial Revolution, there were still 40 or 50 officially observed church and
6 FREUDENBERGER AND CUMMINS

secular holidays that did not fall on Sundays (Millan, 1749, p. 15). Wakes
and observances for other stations in life also occupied nonworking time.
Last, and very important, there were the Saint Mondays and Saint Tues-
days (also called, in Central Europe, Blue Mondays and Gray Tuesdays),
which great entrepreneurs like Josiah Wedgewood wanted to unfrock, but
which continued largely unabated into the 19th century. Strong alcoholic
drink was customary on Sundays and holidays, and it would take several
days to overcome fully the deleterious effects.
Simple arithmetic is enough to show that on account of these social
practices alone, the worker of the 17th and 18th centuries worked a short
week indeed. At the outside, the average work week would have been about
58 hours, a figure that is obtained by assuming a 1Zhour day and deducting
only Sundays and official holidays, although this is a very conservative esti-
mate, resulting in somewhat more than 3000 hours worked per year. A 72-
hour week in a factory, on the other hand, would yield over 4000 hours. Of
course there is much room for error in both these numbers, but there is lit-
tle doubt that social practice greatly limited hours worked, or, as we would
like to put it, reflected substantial limitations on capacity to work. Other
factors caused, or served as pretexts for, idleness, including above all bad
weather, lack of meshing of work processes, and illness.
It may be important to note that while the hours worked before the In-
dustrial Revolution were probably much less than during it, they were com-
parable to, or even exceeded, average hours worked in backward societies
today. According to Clark and Haswell (1970), for example, the average
African works approximately 4 hours per working day in the field. Tawney
(1932, p. 53) reported that in some parts of China in the 1930’s, farm
workers worked about 100 days per year. And any number of similar state-
ments could be cited for other places.
We may now turn to the question of food. The natural starting point is
with available estimates of aggregate food consumption. Gregory Ring esti-
mated, for about 1695, a “year of moderate plenty,” a net production of
grain of 61 million bushels (Deane and Cole, 1969, p. 67), which would have
provided at most 2500 calories per person per day for England’s 5Ya million
inhabitants. (Net exports were small enough to be ignored.) We can get
some idea of what this means by using an FAO Expert Committee’s assess-
ment of calorie requirements (Food and Agricultural Organization of the
United Nations, 1957, Appendix I). These presuppose a population in which
the activities of members of an economically advanced society would be un-
restricted by calorie consumption. A 25-year-old man 65 kg in weight could,
for example, devote 8 hours per day to light, standing labor; 1ys hours each
to walking and to active recreation or domestic work; 1 hour to washing,
dressing, and the like; 4 hours to sitting activities; and 8 hours to sleep.
Recipes are given that permit adjustment for age, sex, temperature of the
 BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 7

external environment, and body weight. Application of these requirements

to the English population of 1695 yields 2400 calories per person per day, or
4% less than what, according to King, was available from grain.
If the Expert Committee’s figures are correct for the active population to
which they are meant to refer, they probably underestimate requirements
for fully active Englishmen in 1695. Women of that time, for example,
would probably have been more active than the Expert Committee
assumed. But some critics consider the Committee’s requirements to be on
the whole too generous even for fully active people (Clark and Haswell,
1970, Chap. I). Perhaps we can say that if King’s estimate of grain produc-
tion was close to the mark, then the food supply, appropriately distributed,
would not have been severely restrictive in years of “moderate plenty.”
Deane and Cole, on the other hand, estimate grain consumption (in-
cluding fodder) at the equivalent of from 3700 to 4200 calories per person
per day, which seems absurdly high. They use Charles Smith’s estimate
from the 1760’s of per capita grain consumption, rejecting King’s figure be-
cause, they believe, it implies implausibly low yields per acre. Yet Bennett’s
(1935) estimates of English wheat yields agree almost exactly with the figure
implied by King.
King’s estimate conforms rather well with those made of the diets in
children’s hospitals in the late 17th century. If the Englishman’s diet was
similar in quality and quantity to that reported for St. Bartholemew’s Hos-
pital, for example, he would have taken in about 2350 calories per day,
though he would not have been very well supplied with vitamins (Drum-
mond and Wilbraham, 1957, pp. 465-467). The records used for this kind of
exercise probably idealized institutional conditions; yet Fussell and others
believe, in addition, that “inmates of houses of industry were better fed than
those outside” (1927). It would nevertheless be imprudent to generalize
from reports of institutional regimens alone.
If we were to accept tentatively a per capita figure of 2500 calories from
grain in years of “moderate plenty,” we would not be finished. Spoilage, in
the circumstances of the time, may normally have been anywhere between
one-fourth and one-half of the crop. If, say, one-fourth of the crop became
unusable at any time, then even at modest levels of activity health would
have been in danger. And, because of the vagaries of the climate, poor
harvests were frequent. When this happened the population must indeed
have suffered and would have had to draw on reserves of body fat built up
over earlier, good years. An important aggravating factor was trans-
portation. Most of England’s people had to depend on the crops grown in
their districts. Hence, even in this small country areas of dearth and surplus
could exist at the same time. The near-famine in Colyton, for example,
seems not to have affected the neighboring villages (Laslett, 1965, p. 119).
Last, one must also consider the distribution of food among classes. There
8 FREUDENBERGER AND CUMMINS

is little doubt that the upper classes, making up perhaps 10% of the popu-
lation, could obtain disproportionate shares of the total. How else could
Gregory King have found that 50% of the population was below the
recognized poverty line?
We can learn something else from this finding of Gregory King’s. The
50% below the poverty line were, in his words, “decreasing the wealth of the
kingdom”-“labouring people and outservants, cottages and paupers, com-
mon soldiers and vagrants.” As Laslett (1965, p. 45) explains, King must
have been referring to those receiving income transfers; and since at that
time transfers would hardly have been made in order to equalize incomes,
they must have been needed for bare subsistence as defined by the far from
liberal standards of the late 17th century. Subsistence presumably did not
include “a food intake which enables people to lead an active life physically,
mentally and socially, and to be highly productive in their occupational pur-
suits” (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, 1957, p.
6), but something more like conditions in underdeveloped countries today
where many sizeable populations have been observed to maintain
themselves on as little as 1600 calories per day (Clark and Haswell, 1966, p.
49). This interpretation is consistent with the attitudes toward poverty
prevalent at the time, that idleness was due to laziness and not at all to poor
health, and that it would only be encouraged by higher incomes (Coleman,
1955).
Contemporary clinical observations are also instructive. The great 18th-
century physician, Johann Peter Frank, said of the Italian worker of his
day:
Starvation and sickness are pictured on the face of the entire laboring class. You recog-
nize it at first sight. And whoever has seen it will certainly not call any one of the people a
free man. . . . Before sunrise, after having eaten a little and always the same unfermented
bread that appeases his hunger only half-way, the farmer gets ready for hard work. With
emaciated body under the hot rays of the sun he plows a soil that is not his and cultivates a
vine that for him alone has no reward. His arms fall down, his dry tongue sticks to his
palate, hunger is consuming him. The poor man can look forward to only a few grains of
rice and a few beans soaked in water. And to this he can add only very sparingly the con-
diment which nature has provided mankind in such a liberal way. [Sigerist, 1956, pp. 5&
511
Frank was a reformer, and may have been interested in the effects of his
words as well as their accuracy. We may also wonder that, if “you recognize
it at first sight,” more of his contemporaries did not see the same thing.
Nevertheless we have the word of John Locke, likewise a practicing phy-
sician, whom Laslett judges “an exact recorder and very reliable witness”
(1965, pp. 109-l 10). In his diary he related a conversation with an elderly
farm woman which discloses a lifetime of effort to overcome hunger.
Finally, demographic evidence is pertinent. Mortality declined
throughout western Europe in the 18th century because, it seems, crises,
 BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 9

especially of plague and subsistence, diminished, though without altogether

vanishing (Helleiner, 1965). Excess mortality due to food scarcity must
have been accompanied by a much heavier burden of morbidity, and the two
must have declined together during the decades preceding the Industrial
Revolution.
The evidence is, of course, not conclusive. But perhaps it is strong enough
to justify further speculation. If we are right, then a large proportion of the
population, perhaps half, subsisted on inadequate diets. Thus their position
was similar to that observed in many underdeveloped areas today: a pattern
in which intense, seasonal activity with long hours of work alternates with
extensive periods of rest and recuperation. Such a situation could persist
even at levels of food consumption much lower than that implied by
Gregory King’s estimate of grain production. But if it had persisted, the
great social and economic changes of the late 18th and 19th centuries may
well have been impossible. As Jones (1970) has written, without increased
agricultural production the population would have continued to be
“regularly thinned by famine or alternatively growing equally fast as the
supply of food” expanded.
But in fact a breakthrough did occur in the 18th century. Improved
health may well have eased the process of innovation which had been pre-
pared by the “scientific revolution” of the 17th century so well described by
Merton (1970). Might the union of the Calvinist supply of mental
stimulation that Merton stresses and delayed effects of better health
brought forth by the agricultural revolution have been the necessary com-
bination for Britain’s greatness? Social change takes time; an optimal time
period may exist between phases of social change and a 150-year period in
England in the 17th and 18th centuries may have allowed the successful
playing-out of this drama. During this time an increase in food was provided
for at least a large portion of England’s population, if not for all. In part
this was brought about by the happy coincidence of fairly widespread adop-
tion of agricultural innovations with two decades of good weather from
1730 to 1760 (Wilson, 1965, p. 246). It might even be part of an explanation
for the wonder with which Drummond and Wilbraham (1939, p. 295)
reported the paradoxical improvement in the second half of the 18th
century in the Englishman’s health despite the reduction of his standard of
living compared with the previous 50 years. Even modest improvements in
health in the first half of the century may have had important effects on the
following generations, as suggested by estimates of intergenerational effects
in the United States (Popkin, 1972). Besides its immediate effect on output,
better nutrition might aIso result in healthier future populations with
greater ability to work and to acquire skills, a possibility at least worth
considering.
The condition of a newborn child depends on its genetic inheritance from
 10 FREUDENBERGER AND CUMMINS

its parents, the health of its mother, and the nutritional environment in
which it is forced to exist during its first 2 years. It is extremely vulnerable
during this time not only in its chances of survival but also in future ability,
as an adult, to ward off debilitating diseases such as tuberculosis; and
moreover, in the structure of its skeleton, its muscle, and even its brain. Ob-
servation of infants in Africa and Asia has suggested that irremediable
damage can result from severe malnutrition during the initial critical period
of life (Birch and GUSSOW, 1970; Frisch, 1971). In Uganda, for example, it
was found that even after such children began to receive all the correct nu-
trients, their body lengths continued reduced and their skeletal development
retarded in comparison to normal children. Listlessness, apathy, and slow
learning are regularly associated with anemia and protein deficiency. Would
it be unreasonable to impute these experiences to England and western
Europe of a few centuries ago? If useful in understanding the problems of
the disadvantaged children in America, in the lap of prosperity and
affluence, they should be even more apposite for populations that much
more frequently confronted famine and epidemic disease. Benefited by the
long absence of bubonic plague and aided by increased food, the parents of
English children in the first half of the 18th century were probably healthier
than those of previous generations. The health of parents, especially of
mothers, has a demonstrable effect on their offspring. Moreover, born in
towns, their parents were considerably better off than before because of the
falling ratio of grain prices to money wages. In the countryside there was an
agricultural depression because of low grain prices, but this need not have
affected seriously the nutritional intakes of rural people. If in fact improve-
ments in the health of one generation benefit successor generations as well,
it would become important indeed when even minor portions of cohorts
over some 30 years enjoyed greater well-being, whereas for centuries if not
millenia before, famine and plenty alternated with great frequency.
In summary, we have postulated a basic break with an ecological pat-
tern that kept populations from entering long-run rapid economic growth
and rising standard of living. Their biological quality had been such that
relatively few hours of labor were their regular lot so that they were
prevented from reaching higher levels of opulence. A decline in disease and
progress in agricultural output and its distribution over time and space then
initiated a process of improvement in the biological quality of the popu-
lation. This process eased the developments which we now call the In-
dustrial Revolution.

REFERENCES
Abel, W. (1966). Agrorkriien und Agrurkonjuktur. Hamburg/Berlin: Verlag Paul Parey.
Becker, G. S. (1965), “A Theory of the Allocation of Time.” Economic Journul75,493-517.
Bennett, M. K. (1935), “British Wheat Yield per Acre for Seven Centuries.” Economic His-
tory. III, 12-29
 BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 11

Birch, H. G., and Gussow, J. D. (1970), Disadvantaged Children. New York: Harcourt, Brace
and World.
Clark, C., and Haswell. M. (1966), The Economics of Subsisfence Agriculture, 2nd ed.
London: Macmillan.
Clark, C., and Haswell, M. (1970), The Economics of Subsistence Agriculture, 4th ed.
London: Macmillan.
Coleman, D. C. (1955), “Labour in the English Economy of the Seventeenth Century.” Eco-
nomic History Review, 2nd ser., 28&295.
Correa, H., and Cummins, G. (1970), “Contribution of Nutrition to Economic Growth.”
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, XXIII; 56565.
Deane, P., and Cole; W. A. (1969), British Economic Growth, 1688-1959. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Deane, P. (1970), The First Industrial Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Denison, E. H. (1962), The Sources of Economic Growth in the UnitedStates and the Alterna-
tives before Us. New York: Committee for Economic Development.
Drummond, J. C., and Wilbraham, A. (1939), The Englishman’s Food, lsted. London:
Jonathan Cape.
Drummond, J. C., and Wilbraham, A. (1957), The Englishman’s Food, 2nded. London:
Jonathan Cape.
Eversley, D. E. C. (1967), “The Home Market and Economic Growth in England, 175@1780.”
In E. Arnold, F. L. Jones, and G. E. Mingay (Eds.), Land, Labour and Population in the
Industrial Revolution. London: Edward Arnold. Pp. 206-259.
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (1957), Calorie Requirements.
FAO Nutritional Studies No. 15. Appendix I.
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (1962), Nutrition and Working
Eficiency. Freedom from Hunger Campaign Basic Study No. 5.
Foster, R. (1967), “Schistosomiasis on an Irrigated Estate in East Africa,” III: “Effects of
Asymptomatic Infection on Health and Industrial Efficiency.” Journal of Tropical
Medicine and Hygiene, LXX, 185-195.
Freudenberger, H. (1974), “Das Arbeitsjahr” in I. Bog., et al. (Ms.), Wirtschaftliche und
soziale Strukturen im saekularen Wandel. Hannover: Verlag M&H Schaper. Pp. 307-
320.
Frisch, R. E. (1971), “Does Malnutrition Cause Permanent Mental Retardation in Human Be-
ings?” Psychiatra, Neurologia Neurochirugia, LXXIV, 463479.
Fussel, G. E. (1927), “The Change in Farm Labourers’ Diet during Two Centuries.” Economic
History, II, 268-274.
Gale, A. H. (1959), Epidemic Diseases. Harmonsworth: Penguin.
Gilboy, E. W. (1932), ‘Demand as a Factor in the Industrial Revolution.” In Facts and Fac-
tors in Economic History. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Pp. 62&639.
Helleiner, K. F. (1965), “The Vital Revolution Reconsidered.” In Population in History.
Chicago: Aldine. Pp. 79-86.
Hoskins, W. G. (1953), “The Rebuilding of Rural England, 1540-1640.” Past and Present,
IV, 4459.
Hoskins, W. G. (1968), “Harvest Fluctuations and English Economic History.” In W. E.
Minchinton (Ed.) Essays in Agrarian History. Newton Abbot: David and Charles. Vol.
I,Pp.93-115.
John, A. H. (1967), “Agricultural Productivity and Economic Growth in England 170&1760.”
In Agriculture and Economic Growth in England 1650-1815. London: Methuen. Pp.
172-193.
Jones, E. L. (1970), Editor’s Introduction to Agriculture and Economic Growth in England.
rev. ed. New York: Harper and Row. Pp. l-48.
Laslett, P. (1965), The World We Have Lost. London: Methuen.
Liider, S. B. (1970), The Harried Leisure Class. New York: Columbia University Press.
12 FREUDENBERGER AND CUMMINS

McKeown, C. F., and Record, R. G. (1972), “Reasons for the Decline of Mortality in England
and Wales during the 19th Century.” In Europe and the Industrial Revolution.
Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman. Pp. 3055340.
Merton, R. K. (1970), Science, Technology and Society in Seventeenth-Century England. New
York: Harper and Row.
Millan, J. (1749), Coins, Weights and Measures of All Nations Reduced into English. London.
Morgan, E. S. (1971). “The Labor Problem at Jamestown, 1607-1618.” American Historical
Review, LXXVI, 595-6 11.
Popkin, B. M. (1972). “Economic Benefits from the Elimination of Hunger in America.”
Public Policy. XX, 133-154.
Sigerist, H. E. (1956), Landmarks in the History of Hygiene. London: Oxford University
Press.
Tawney, R. H. (1932), Land and Labor in China. London: Allen and Unwin.
Wilson, C. (1965), England’s Apprenticeship, 1663-f 763. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Wrigley, E. A. (1969), Population and History. New York: McGraw-Hill.