Rules and Regulations in the Garden of Eden 

In the third chapter of John Thorn’s new book, Baseball in the Garden of Eden, the author asks a poignant question, one of many in his work. 

Thorn asks why in the 1830s and 1840s were the rules of the game and the expected conduct of the participants put to paper and codified. What was the driving force? After all, bat and ball games had been around for centuries and ones variously known by the terms “bat,” “ball” and “base” were played throughout America. 

Thorn points to our strained relationship with the motherland – in that we are at times compelled and repulsed (perhaps at the same time) by the British and their institutions. In an effort to separate ourselves from them were repelled cricket but then again we took from it what we found relevant, namely its organizational approach to matters and its formal, codified rules and standards. 

This may be but as Thorn points out cricket was played in the colonies as early as the 1750s, and probably earlier like all things were can’t definitely know in the 21^st century. 

For me perhaps the more relevant issues are self-preservation and self-justification. Some men, and it wasn’t a lot in the beginning, wanted to keep playing ball as they entered adulthood. They latched onto a rudimentary version of the game we know today as baseball, not cricket or wicket or rounders or a million other versions – for whatever reason. 

Enough of these likeminded individuals banged into each other – or perhaps were persuaded by a relative few – and set about to form a club. Several were formed during the 1830s and early 1840s in New York City – the New York Club, Gotham Club, Eagle Club, Magnolia Club and eventually the Knickerbocker Club most of us are familiar with. 

Thorn points out that there was perhaps an evolutionary process between these clubs, as members of earlier groups moved on or were left standing to form subsequent groups. This is how the Knickerbockers were formed. Today, we’re more familiar with the latter because, well, they survived the longest and latest and to the victor goes the spoils so to speak. But this is a digression. 

Clubs need a strong foundation to survive and bring in the only thing that a club really needs – a continued, and hopefully steady, stream of new members. One way for a club to legitimize itself is to publish or at least maintain a set of standards for members and their conduct and in this case rules and regulations for their main activity, their sport. (Though in truth, their main activity, as humans are prone to do, may have been socializing.) This is my self-preservation point – the rules were written to keep the club alive. 

My self-justification point stems from these adults justifying their actions, not only in playing a child’s game but in amassing in numbers to do so. Early newspapers articles are littered with this. The main justification for men playing a boys’ game was often given as the need for healthful exercise. I’m not saying that a justification was needed but apparently they felt so in the early to mid 19^th century. 

One way for men to justify their love of playing ball is to codify it. Codification and strict adherence to standards and regulations are adult concerns. Children aren’t as regimented unless forced to be so. Thus, this version of baseball is more serious and, well, manly. It’s an adult activity to be respected as such. 

Any thoughts?