This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104 On: 28 Sep 2021 Access details: subscription number Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK

The Routledge Companion to Philanthropy

Tobias Jung, Susan D. Phillips, Jenny Harrow

The multi-layered history of Western philanthropy

Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315740324.ch2 Hugh Cunningham Published online on: 17 May 2016

How to cite :- Hugh Cunningham. 17 May 2016, The multi-layered history of Western philanthropy from: The Routledge Companion to Philanthropy Routledge Accessed on: 28 Sep 2021 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315740324.ch2

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT

Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms

This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 12:05 28 Sep 2021; For: 9781315740324, chapter2, 10.4324/9781315740324.ch2 the wordsofRoger Crisp,‘isunlikelytostirhimself tohelpthevulnerable’(Aristotle, 2000:xviii). how to achieve a mean between wastefulness and stinginess; for him the truly virtuous person, in is noteasy,buttoengageinithas thesanctionofancientwisdom.InfactAristotlewasexploring 2000: 35).Twenty-first-century philanthropistslovetoquotethis:philanthropy,itseems say, aim in view,and in the rightway – thatisnot something anyone can do,norisiteasy’ (Aristotle, wrote thattogivemoney‘tothe rightperson,intheamount,attime,with Excavators ofthefirststratumfocusonancientGreeceandseize onAristotle(384–322BCE),who First stratum:AncientGreece The strataofphilanthropy their influence,sometimesintheformofoutcropsfromearlier agesofgiving. layer. Thepresentaddsatopsoilofthelatestprojects,but lowerlayerscontinuetoexercise its buildings,legaldocuments,charitablegifts,assumptions andpractices,inlayerafter giving accumulatedontopofeachother.Thephilanthropy thepastleavesitsmaterialrecord, the clockatanytime,say1850inEurope,andyouwillfind strata,orlayers,ofphilanthropic philanthropy. on touch others, and these, All society. civil taxation, and wealth welfare, and relief poor missions, and religion empire, and identity national gender, class, history: of branches other many with engagement close into it brings This relationship. the of sides various the examine to us it requires rich; the by only giving of one less far giving, of ahistory simply not however, is philanthropy, of history The for example,describesphilanthropyas Historians increasinglywriteaboutphilanthropyasagiftrelationship.AlanKidd(1996:184), 42 In thissynopsis,Iarguethathistoriansofphilanthropyneedtothinklikegeologists.Stop individuals orgroupssuchassolidarity,dependence,legitimacy,andreputability. dered in forms that are culturally meaningful and that generate moral relationships between non-commercial socialtransfersofwealth,materialobjectsornon-materialassistanceren- The multi-layered history of The multi-layeredhistory Western philanthropy Hugh Cunningham 2 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 12:05 28 Sep 2021; For: 9781315740324, chapter2, 10.4324/9781315740324.ch2 disappeared fromviewbeforere-emerginginthelateeighteenthcentury. (Finn, 2006:215).PhilanthropywasgivenanewtwistbyearlyChristians,but,asterm,itsoon who hasameandwelling,andscarcelyleaveshishousethroughwearinesslackofleisure’ for example, thought it ‘ridiculous … to attest to love of mankind in a weaver or a carpenter a castofmindasmuchtheconferringgift.ThefourthcenturyphilosopherThemistius, 1968: 35–7;80).Often,itreferredtoarelationshipbetweenwealthyindividuals,indicativeof form ofhonoursheapedonthedonor:itwasagiftexchange,quid-pro-quo(Hands, more generally.Itincorporatedthenotionofareturn,philanthropon,fromrecipientsin it cametobeappliedrulerswhoweregeneroustheirsubjects,andthenthewealthy in iuredivino’(c.1169),assertedthat discrimination. Earlysystematicteachingsofcanonlaw,asillustrated bytheSumma‘Elegantius year (Rubin,1987:249). and infirmmenfordistributionsoffoodto1,000poor peopleonthreeoccasionsevery her two husbandsand her parents, butin addition she provided for an almshouse for seven poor priory whichhadtomaintainfourregularcanonsprayfor Mary’ssoulandforthesoulsof 1972: 8).MaryofBassingbourn,forexample,gaveanendowment in1301toanAugustinian inequitable statusinthesocialhierarchyandtobuyprayers fortheirownsouls’(Rosenthal, expected togivethechurchandpoor,duringlife andatdeath,bothtojustifytheir the degreeofsufferingtobeundergone,couldlessenedby prayer:‘[m]enofpropertywere most peoplewouldgo,andsuffer,afterdeath.Thelengthoftimetobespentinpurgatory, ened by the growing belief from the later twelfth century in purgatory as the place where reciprocate by offeringprayers in return’(Rubin,1987:83).Thepressure to give was height- in the mid-twelfth century, ‘that in alms they receive the sins of men, and also that they can Exeter pointedout:‘almsextinguishsins’(Rubin,1987:64).Thepoorshouldknow,itwassaid do penance’(Rubin,1987:62).Almsgivingwasitselfaformofpenance.AsBartholomew nor give alms, if he makes no amends by bread and water for an equivalent period, let him tential the obligationsofrich.InwordsRobertFlamborough’sthirteenthcenturypeni- throughout Europe,progressivelysimplifiedastheydescendedthesocialscale.Thestresswason intellectual activity in Paris, Rome and Bologna, ideas and teachings about giving circulated and beinggenerouswithfavours’(Finn,2006:236).IntheMiddleAges,fromcentresof pist, Christiansshouldimitate‘God’sphilanthropiabybothtakingpityandsharingthingsout the influentialtheologianBasilofCasesarea(329–379CE),ifGodwasgreatphilanthro- Christian Fathersarguedthatallpropertybelongedtomen.Accordingthepreachingsof of giving.Attheirrootwasasensejustice,thatthepoorshouldberelievedbyrich.The Fathers, oftheirinterpretationfromthetwelfthcenturyonwards,andmedievalworld The secondstratumismadeupoftheteachingsBibleandearlyChristian Second stratum:EarlyChristianity The Greekwordphilanthropiaoriginallyreferredtotherelationshipofgodshumans; If there was an obligation to give, it was also increasingly argued that it should be done with and thentotheunjust.Thatis orderedcharity. beggars, tothehave-notrather thantohimthathas,andamongsttheneedy,firstjust than tostrangers,thesickrather thantothehealthy,ashamedratheraggressive In almsgivingthereshouldbedistinction betweenpeople.Youhadbettergivetoyourown Liber Poenitentialis, ‘whoever does not receive guests in his home, as God has ordained, Layered historyofWesternphilanthropy (Rubin, 1987:(Rubin, 70) 43 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 12:05 28 Sep 2021; For: 9781315740324, chapter2, 10.4324/9781315740324.ch2 H. Cunningham the poor; affirm their own status; forward a career and a web of patronage; and promote one’s the labourmarket;stabilize socialorder;avertturmoil;reducetheriskofinfection;civilize of elites,andthesamemightalso besaidofthebourgeoisie,poorreliefcouldhelpto:regulate anthropic. MarcovanLeeuwen (1994)hasarguedthattherewasa‘logicofcharity’.Onthe part the publicbegan. Brussels asitspresident(Dekker,1998:133–4).Noonecould saywheretheprivateendedand (1828) wasfoundedbyprivateinitiative,subsidizedlocalgovernment, andhadthemayorof ity wereusedinterchangeably(Cavallo,1998:110).TheSociété PhilanthropiquedeBruxelles Act both,andnotcoincidentally,datefrom1601.InItaly,the wordsforpoorreliefandchar- pay forpoorreliefwassometimesdescribedascharity;thePoor LawandtheCharitableUses The innovationinEnglandatthebeginningofseventeenth centuryoftaxingpeopleto any private gifts and bequests were administered directly by local officials’ (McIntosh, 1988: 212). control inpoorreliefmeasures,drawsattentiontotheblurring ofboundaries.InEngland,‘[m] the phrase widely used by historians to describe both the source of funding and the agency of ing, sofundamentaltomodernthinking,madelittlesense. ‘The mixedeconomyofwelfare’, charity becameinextricablyboundupwiththem. ness, theirimmorality,whichimpresseditself.Extensivepoorreliefstrategieswereadopted,and than therichwaslessfrequentlyvoiced.Oncontrary,ittheiridleness,feckless- age. Infaceoftheendemicproblempoverty,beliefthatpoorwereclosertoChrist of widows,thesick,children.Ontopthis,therewaspovertyamongmenworking of thispovertywasakindprominentlyknowntotheMiddleAges:elderly, famines orepidemics,one-thirdofthepopulationmightrisetohalf(Pullan,1988:178).Some tional societiesofasizeableblockthepopulationlookingtocollectivitygetby’.In Laslett (1988:164)concludedthat‘EverythingpointstotheexistencewithinEuropeantradi- century Florence applied for public poor relief, a percentage similar to that in England, Peter proportion ofthepopulation.Findingthataboutone-thirdpopulationmid-eighteenth century. The socio-economic fact underlying it was the existence of poverty among a substantial The thirdstratumoriginatedinthelaterMiddleAgesandwasdominantuntillatenineteenth Third stratum:TheMiddleAges Monti diPietà,makingsmallloanstotheworthypoor(Pullan,1988). tutions withoverlappingmissions.Theyalsobegantodevelopthemicro-creditschemesknownas partly tobringsomecoherenceandorderacharitableworldwherethereweretoomanyinsti- five largeones.Inthemiddleyearsoffifteenthcentury,citiesbegantobuildgreathospitals, in thefourteenthandfifteenthcenturies.By1521,Venicehadatleast120smallconfraternities babies. Confraternities,perhapsbestseenasmutualaidself-helporganizations,begantoproliferate Genoa alone,somehousingandcaringfortheelderly,othersfoundlinghospitalsabandoned building hadtakenoffinthetwelfthandthirteenthcenturies.By1383,thereweretwenty-one was ‘chieflyintendedfortherespectable,innocent,andholy’(Pullan,1988:181).Hospital 1987). (Rubin, giving of act an to merit gave recipient, the of worthiness the as much however, as donor’s motives, The comfort. previous from poverty into fallen had who those poor, shame-faced the to giving in felt, it was merit, particular was there onwards century thirteenth the From place. in was it, of ahead history unfinished and along with poor, undeserving the and deserving the between distinction The 44 Poor reliefcouldbegrantedfor avarietyofreasons,somethemfarfromobviouslyphil - In theadministrationofpoorrelief,distinctionbetweenprivate donationsandstatefund- The experienceofItaliancitieshelpstocapturethescaleandreachlatemedievalcharity.It

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 12:05 28 Sep 2021; For: 9781315740324, chapter2, 10.4324/9781315740324.ch2 ones. Induecourse, theboysmightbeapprenticed, anddowriespaidfor thegirls.Thiswas measures to improve discipline enacted, usually with the provision of education for the brighter institutions. Sometimesexisting hospitalsforpoororabandonedchildrenweretakenover and (Cunningham, 2005:116).The perceivedsolutiontotheproblemwasplacethesechildren in up, they[mothers]andtheir sons lyingoutsidethechurchesorwanderingroundbegging’ his secondvolumeVivesnoted how‘Theyoungchildrenofthepoorarevillainouslybrought guidance onhowtoapproachsuchreform(Spicker,2010).For example,inthefirstchapterof taneously providedanacceptabletheologicalgroundingfor hisargument,aswellpractical secular authoritiesinwelfarereformchallengedtheauthority oftheChurch,tractsimul- Bruges, butsoonenjoyedEurope-widerenown.WhileVives’ argumentforastrongerrole the privateandpublicreliefofpovertywasinitiallyaddressed totheConsulsandSenateof Pauperum. Writtenin1526bytheSpanishhumanistJuanLuisVives, this two-volumetracton of a number of ‘new philanthropies’. The central text of this new approach was 200), whilestressingcontinuityfromthepast,hasdescribedthis asa‘new philanthropy’, thefirst to establishnewcharities,whichthey,andnottheChurch,would control’.BrianPullan(1988: every majortowninWesternEuropebeganthelatefifteenth andearlysixteenthcenturies (Jordan, 1959:17).AsCissieFairchilds(1976:21)hasexpressed it,‘themerchantsofalmost secular needsofhumanity’,andthatlaymenwereconspicuousinitsfundingorganization of charity,rather,thatcharityshifteditsfocusfromgivingtoreligiouscausesattending‘the the dominantforce.ThisdidnotmeanthatChristianityceasedtobeavitalforceinworld shift fromcharitableactioninitiatedandcontrolledbythechurchtoonewherelaymenwere Europe (Davis,1987:51–2).Aspartofthis,andfundamentalimportance,therewasadecisive 160). 2004: (Hindle, charity of hand the lift to not tempted be might who those to threatening mildly time same the at and moving boxes: right the It ticked Joan Young,applyingforadmissiontothealmshouseatBrutoninSomerset,describedherselfas for entrytoalmshouses,aletter-writerperhapsemployedundertakethetask.Forexample, adopt specialformsofwordsandbodylanguageiftheywantedhelp.Lettershadtobewritten weaker party but not without some bargaining strength. The poor knew that they needed to preference. turning tocharitywasbynomeansthefirstavenuetheyexplored,nordiditeverenjoyexclusive tion, begging,prostitution,crime,revolt,formationofmutualsocietiesandacceptingpoorrelief; direction ofcharity.Thepoorhadtousearangesurvivalstrategies,includingpawning,migra- and power blocs. Need, in any kind of objective measurement, did not determine the level or notion ofsocialorder,andgivingwasmarkedbymuchrivalrybetweeninstitutions,actors accompanied giving,therewasahighquotientofsymbolicactionthatreinforcedparticular emphasis onconfiningeligibilityforcharity to thoseborn in aparticular city. In the ritualsthat almost indistinguishable’ (Henderson, 1994: 424).Itwasnoaccidentthatthereincreasing There was nothing new in this. In fifteenth century Florence, ‘charity and patronage became often awayofdeepeningthetiesfamilyandpatronage,therebyexercisingpower. own salvation.SandraCavallo(1991)hasstressed,withspecialreferencetoTurin,thatgivingwas From around1520,aninternationalmovementforwelfarereformcanbeidentifiedacross Charity, then,wasasitewherepowerexercisedandnegotiated,thepoorbeing [who] unlesssupportedbythehandofcharitywillnecessarilyperish. unable togetapennytowardshersubsistencewidowedwithnothingbutmiseryandsadness a veryindigentdisconsolatewidowfullofyearsandnecessitiesalmostblindimpotent Layered historyofWesternphilanthropy (Hindle, 2004: 160) 2004: (Hindle, De Subventione 45

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 12:05 28 Sep 2021; For: 9781315740324, chapter2, 10.4324/9781315740324.ch2 H. Cunningham as Ariès (1981: 165–8) put it, ‘specialists in death’; in Castile, the Colleges of the Niños de la la de Niños the of Colleges the Castile, in death’; in (1981: ‘specialists it, put 165–8) Ariès as were, institutions key the of children the Paris, In display. of sites major the became countries, Catholic in certainly Funerals, display. public on reputation and funds for dependent was which world aphilanthropic in enmeshed became they institutions, of inmates became children, their particularly and poor, the Once poor. rural the to help much offered century, enteenth sev the of beginning the from law poor parish-based its with England, –only countryside the from migrate to poor the to inducement an It was city. or town any of adornment an as Reformation andCounter-Reformation tributing foodtothedeserving.GrellandCunningham(2002: 3)haveconcludedthatinthe nuns setaboutthetaskofpromotingpublicmorality,Christianizing themasses,andofdis- problems tothoseincountriesthathadturnedProtestant,numerousordersofmonksand Reformation itembodied,theleadwastakenbyChurch.Facedwithverysimilarsocial to atleastthree-quartersofallgiving. directly, or indirectly by promoting education or schemes of social rehabilitation; it amounted revised downwards,thereisnodenyingthescaleofgiving,noritsfocusonpoorrelief,either levels ofgivinginProtestantEnglandupto1660.Althoughhisfigureshavesubsequentlybeen benefactors (Archer,2002;Ben-Amos,2008).Forexample,Jordan(1959:250–1)celebratedthe responded inpartbytheirapproachtogiving,ceremoniesofextravagantpraisefor 246–7). SensitivetocriticismthattheyhaddismantledCatholicformsofcharity,Protestants contribute tosalvation,butshouldbeseenasasignofthankfulnessGod(Ben-Amos,2008: (Grell andCunningham,1997:9). widely admiredbythosewithintheChurchofEnglandwhohadlittlesympathyforCalvinism’ Dutch Reformedandotherchurchesbecame‘notonlyamodelforEnglishPuritans,butwere moreover, spreadrapidlyacrossnationalboundaries,oftencarriedbyrefugees.InLondon,the mark ofProtestantthinkingandaction(Grell,1997:45–9).aboutthepoor, begging andtomakeacleardistinctionbetweenthedeservingundeservingallbear Germany had already poor reliefreformsin place inthe early 1520s. The attempt toeliminate poverty displacedattentionfromtherealofpoor.Nurembergandothertownsin particularly criticalofCatholicmendicantordersandreligiousconfraternitieswhosevoluntary it isargued,precededVivesinproposingradicalreformstheadministrationofrelief.Hewas Protestant attitudesandactionsofCounter-Reformationresponses,hasbeenurged.Luther, social crisisthatpre-datedtheReformation.Recently,however,distinctiveness,bothof responses betweenProtestantsandCatholicstowhatwasseenasanextendedeconomic the focusofattention.Thereafter,socialhistoriansdownplayeddivide,pointingtosimilar tury. Inthehistoriographyofphilanthropy,Protestant/Catholicdividewasuntil1960s 2005: 116–17). controlled, butsuffusedwithareligiousethos,whetherProtestantorCatholic(Cunningham, Christian humanisminaction,instillingdiscipline,offeringthepossibilityofadvancement,lay- 46 Early modern charity was proud to be in the public eye. It was urban and it was promoted promoted it was and urban It eye. was public the in be to proud was charity modern Early In Catholiccountries,followingtheCouncilofTrentandidealsCounter- In Protestantcountries,thepredominant catechism madeitclearthatgoodworksdidnot This thirdstratumisoftenassociatedwiththeProtestantReformationofsixteenthcen- and clericalordersdedicatedtothepoorsick. particular witnesseda reinvigoration of confessional institutions and the creationof new lay initiated bylocalandcentralgovernments,whilethesouthern, Catholic,partsofEuropein The Northern,Protestant,countriescametobecharacterised byschemespredominantly -

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 12:05 28 Sep 2021; For: 9781315740324, chapter2, 10.4324/9781315740324.ch2 providing medical relief in the home with domiciliary visits to the poor by doctors and other work. Poorreliefbegantoextend beyondpaupers(Lindemann,2002).Theemphasiswas on type ofphilanthropy’,onethat wasresponsivetotheneedgetworkerswhofellillback into dependent ontheupsanddowns ofglobaltrade,required,‘arestructuringcharity’, new 138). AgrowingcitylikeHamburg, itspopulationswollenbymigrantswhoselivelihoodswere century Germany,putit,‘thecommon manearnstoolittletoliveon’(citedinLindemann,2002: a recognitionthat,asJohannGeorg Büsch (1801), a leadingpoliticaltheoristin late eighteenth against begging,itlookedforwaystogetpaupersbackintowork, butaboveallitwasmarkedby in 1788wastheoutcomeofovertwentyyearsreformingeffort. Itreinvigoratedthecampaign foundations of‘civilsociety’. from Poor Law Guardians who sent patients to them. They were, it can be argued, laying the accrued tothemwasoftenmorethanadequatecompensation. worked inthemdidsowithoutreceivinganyfee,though theprestigeandnetworkingthat pendent of both state and church, and they were run by unpaid volunteers. Even doctors who described themselvesas‘voluntary’.Theywerecarvingouta roleforthemselvesthatwasinde- by Hogarth,Hanwayamemorialin Westminster Abbey (Andrew,1989). The new hospitals they devotedthemselvestothepublicgood.Theyreceivedduerecognition,Coramaportrait Jonas Hanway,beingthemainspringbehindmanylaterinitiatives.Retiringearlyfrombusiness, nantly fromthemercantileclass,withmenlikeThomasCoramofFoundlingHospitalfameand described asthe‘voluntary’or‘nonprofit’sector.Thepromotersofalltheseeffortsweredomi- Towards aNationalReformationintheCommonPeoples’(Fissell,1991:84). Considered asSchoolsofChristianEducationfortheAdultPoor:andaMeansConducive are neatlyencapsulatedinthetitleofasermondelivered1746:‘HospitalsandInfirmaries prominence againstarange of otherpurposes,thatitwasthought a hospitalcouldserve.These of theeighteenthcentury:establishmenthospitals.Aconcernforhealthhadtofight seem primarilyconcernedwithsocialcontrol.Thesamecouldbesaidofakeydevelopment If, fromoneangle,theylooklikeanoutpouringoforganizedChristianzeal,another the buildingofworkhouses,andformationSocietiesforReformationManners. tury weretheestablishmentofcharityschools,provisionemployment,inpartthrough especially joint-stockcompanies.Thecausestheyweredrawntointhelateseventeenthcen- similarity tothecontemporaneousdevelopmentoffinancialinstitutionsinCityLondon, of the charity; they published annual reports. These initiatives in organizational form bore a through annualsubscriptionsfrommembers,thelatterhavingrighttoelectgovernors together topromoteacausetheybelievedin:formedsocieties,fundedthemselves lanthropy’. Insteadoftherebeingamultiplicityindividualone-offactsgiving,peoplecame centuries. Historiansintheearlytwentiethcenturydescribedwhathappenedas‘associatedphi- them. Thefirst,ourfourthstratum,originatedinEnglandthelateseventeenthandeighteenth were virtuallycoterminous,thereemergedthreedistinctivenewstratawithalonglifeaheadof Over thecourseofroughly350years(1520–1870)duringwhichcharityandpoorrelief Fourth stratum:Associations 1983). (Martz, money raising of ameans things, other amongst there, presence their processions, funeral accompany to them required also Christianity, in them instructed and writing, and reading them taught boys, poor fed and clothed housed, which Doctrina, Civil societywasalsoevidentinHamburgwheretheestablishment oftheGeneralPoorRelief More importantly,thehospitalsreceivednomoneydirectly fromthestate,thoughsome These newsubscriptioncharitableorganizationscanbeseenasinitiatingwhatisnowoften Layered historyofWesternphilanthropy 47

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 12:05 28 Sep 2021; For: 9781315740324, chapter2, 10.4324/9781315740324.ch2 H. Cunningham a unionofalltrades unionswascalled‘ThePhilanthropic Hercules’(Postgate, 1923:19,33). icated ‘upon all just occasions to assist and support each other’. In 1818, the first attempt to form House CarpentersandJoinersin Newcastlein1812,forexample,wasamutualaidsociety,ded - interchangeable’. Mutualistsocieties worethephilanthropiclabel.ThePhilanthropicSociety of (2003: 73) for whom ‘from the latter eighteenth century, reform and philanthropy were nearly Unitarian GeorgeDyer(1795: 35–6),echoedbythehistorianGrahamJohnBarker-Benfield on theleftofpoliticalspectrum.‘[E]veryphilanthropist shouldbeareformer’,wrotethe those indangerofbecomingso.Formanyyears,itlookedas ifphilanthropywouldbelocated was thereinstrumentalinfoundingthePhilanthropicSociety toreformyoungcriminalsor 1780s, too,thatRobertYoung,long-residentinFrance,returned tohisnativeEngland,and miles thathecalculatedhadtraveledthanforanymoney he mighthavegiven.Itwasinthe ‘John Howard,thephilanthropist’,seenasaloverofhumankind, morefamousforthe42,033 on, prisonsandsimilarinstitutionsinBritainEurope,urging reform.In1786,hebecame in EnglandtobedescribedasaphilanthropistwasJohnHoward whotoured,andreported be distinguishedfrom‘charity’. century momenteffectivelymarksthebeginningof‘philanthropy’ assomethingwhichmight nineteenth centurytherepositoryofconservativeattitudes.Nevertheless,thislateeighteenth The Société Philanthropique was not a total break with the past, far from it: it became in the a dutyincumbentonChristians.Nowitbecame,asremains,themarkoftruecitizenship. zen (Duprat,1993:68).Hitherto,charitablegivinghadbeenincitedbythebeliefthatitwas mark. Ina1787manifesto,itdeclaredthatphilanthropicactivitywasthemaindutyofciti- Philanthropique deParisin1780,thoughithadlittleimpactitsfirstfiveyears,wasaland- charities, andincreasingsocio-economicpressures(Jones,1982).ThefoundationoftheSociété restricted them. The background to it was a collapse in donations through wills to existing ordered societyhumanbeingswouldthrowoffthechains,bothphysicalandpsychical,that in Frenchsociety,astrongcritiqueofexistingcharities,andanoptimisticbeliefthatwell- Like the revolution to come, it was French, and it reflected a powerful strand of anti-clericalism men’, butthewordonlybecamewidelyusedwithEnlightenment(Sulek,2010:194–5). had equatedwhat‘theGrecianscallphilanthropiawith‘goodness…affectingoftheweal be anachronistictowriteabout‘philanthropy’.FrancisBaconintheearlyseventeenthcentury The fifthstratumbecomesidentifiabletowardstheendofeighteenthcentury:itceasesto Fifth stratum:Re-emergenceof‘philanthropy’ recipients andtheremovalofanyrighttorelief. of Hamburg model,dividingupthecityintowelfaredistricts,emphasizingpersonalsupervision and 1840s,theGermantownElberfeldfrommid-centuryonwards.Bothbuilton the ScottishcityofGlasgowunderreformingimpactThomasChalmersin1830s there wereothersequallyprominentinthenineteenthcentury.Notableexamplesincluded spread. IfHamburgprovidedatemplatefornewphilanthropyinthelateeighteenthcentury, mould ofnineteenthcenturyvoluntarycharity’(Woolf,1986:104).Initiativesinonetownsoon his 1820 examination ofcharitableactivity,LeVisiteurdu , Pauvre it was ‘adopted as the standard Given powerfulbackingbyFrenchphilanthropistandphilosopherJosephMariedeGérandoin crucial elementofphilanthropicactionthroughthenineteenthcentury(Lindemann,2002). led tomuchdebateonthemeritsofsystem,domiciliaryvisitingpoorremaineda generated inHamburgspreadtootherGermantowns,andalthoughtheescalatingexpense volunteers, themselvesinspiredbyhumanitarianismandaserviceethic.Theideaspractices 48 Philanthropy crossedtheChannelfromFrancetoEngland inthe1780s.Thefirstperson Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 12:05 28 Sep 2021; For: 9781315740324, chapter2, 10.4324/9781315740324.ch2 William Allen, another Quaker,wasacentral figureintheseinternationalnetworks, publishing were filledwithenthusiasmfor whatRushcalled‘theextensionoftheempirehumanity’. in theseexchangeshadwideinterests, extending,forexample,tooppositionslavery,and they Discipline, formedin1816,was openaboutitsindebtednesstoPhiladelphia.Themeninvolved selves informed of initiativeson the other.The London Societyfor the Improvement of Prison then founditswayintofriendly newspapers,reformersononesideoftheAtlantickeptthem - and theaforementionedprisonreformerJohnHoward.By personalcorrespondence,which concerns inEngland,notablytheQuakerdoctorandphilanthropist, JohnCoakleyLettsom, closely linkedthroughBenjaminRush,FoundingFatherof theUS,withpeoplesimilar The PhiladelphiaSocietyforAlleviatingtheMiseriesofPublic Prisons,formedin1786,was It wasafeatureofthisconcernwithcrimeandpunishment that itwasinternationalinnature. about thephilanthropicsideofthings;punishments,andthat kindofthing’(Eliot,1965:77). A Study of Provincial Life, set in the 1830s, it is said of Mr.Casaubon that ‘he doesn’t care much its preventionlayattheheartofmuchearlyphilanthropy:in GeorgeEliot’snovelMiddlemarch: the young,andinparticularonyoungmaleswhoseemedlikely togoastray.Criminalityand a beliefinthetransformativepowerofwell-runinstitutions, theyfocusedtheirattentionon parts ofitproclaimedconfidenceinwhattheyweredoing.Inheriting fromtheEnlightenment trying toemancipateitself. 454–5). Philanthropyseemedtobenobetterthanthecharityorbenevolencefromwhichitwas ‘a misguidedandsanguine philanthropy’, about philanthropy being ‘misdirected’ (Coats,1973: be alliesagainst‘thelazyshapeofcharity’.Bythe1860s,however,thereweremutteringsabout of truephilanthropy’(Coats,1973:88).Philanthropyandpoliticaleconomy,itseemed,wereto impulses … will castoff the lazy shapeof charity, and riseinto the attitude and assumethe garb drummed home:oncetheprinciplesofpoliticaleconomywerefirmlyestablished,‘ourkindly enlightened philanthropists’(Coats,1973:113).Thirtyyearslater,themessagewasstillbeing laws whichregulatewages’,itwassaid,‘…dependsinagreatmeasureupontheexertionsof economy couldsetboundstounlimitedcharity.Teachingthepoor‘theknowledgeof olence’. Inthe1820s,claimsweremadefor‘philanthropy’asmeansbywhichpolitical 1973: 121). (Coats, humane’ and charitable the of benevolence misplaced ‘the 1815, in than said it was harm, more did Nothing reflected ontheimpactthatpoliticaleconomyhadmade: undermined that,andpoliticaleconomistswerehardtoignore.InEnglandin1824,onewriter cessful economyandtopersonalmorality.Charityinitsoldforms,politicaleconomistsargued, be determinedbythemarket.Earningalivingthroughwageswasfundamentalbothtosuc- preached marketsolutionstosocialproblems.Theywereaboveallconcernedthatwagesshould dominant socialandeconomicideologyofthetime,politicaleconomy.Politicaleconomists If naggingdoubtshadenteredsomepartsofthephilanthropicworldbymid-century,other This was an attack on charity and on that much-heralded eighteenth century virtue, ‘benev- This radicalismofphilanthropysoondiedaway.Philanthropybegantoalignitselfwiththe evidently determinedbytherateofwages. condition ofthelabouringclasseswithregardtonecessariesandcomfortslife,is classes depends,allformerreasoningsonthesubjectofcharity…areinvalidated….The the circumstancesaremoregenerallyknown,onwhichconditionoflabouring sufficient toshewthattheobjectsrelievedwereinastateofrealdistress….Butnow, To convince the public, twenty or thirty years ago, of the goodness of a charity, it was Layered historyofWesternphilanthropy (Coats, 1973:(Coats, 99) 49

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 12:05 28 Sep 2021; For: 9781315740324, chapter2, 10.4324/9781315740324.ch2 H. Cunningham term, middle-class womenfoundinphilanthropy aspacewheretheyhaddegree ofautonomy professionally’ inphilanthropy (Prochaska,1980:224–5).Perhapsmoresignificantinthe long in 1893,itwasestimatedthathalf amillionwomeninEnglandworked‘continuouslyandsemi- simply thatwomenvastlyoutnumbered menincharitableactivity,importantthoughthat was: tive feminine forms of philanthropy had profound social and political consequences. It was not forms dominatedpublicityasthey domuchhistory,itwasneverthelessthecasethatdistinc - and systemsplannedbymensanctionedParliament’(Simey, 1992:78).Ifthesemasculine forms ofphilanthropy,thelattermarkedby‘largeandcomprehensive measures,organizations the workofScotwhoemigratedandmadeafortunein US,AndrewCarnegie. This beliefinthecivilizingimpactofculturalinstitutions,his caselibraries,reacheditsheightin working class that would have the distinct attraction of bringing the donor a five percent return. five percent philanthropy –aninvestment inbuildingnew apartment blocks for the respectable early exampleofwhatwenowcall‘socialenterprise’,theattempt torelievehousingproblemsby to thedonation.Itwaslinked,too,anothernoveltyofnineteenth centuryphilanthropy,an the censureofpoliticaleconomists;anotherthatbenefactor’s nameoftenbecameattached cert hallsandlibraries.Itwasoneoftheattractionsthisform ofphilanthropythatitescaped by providingtheircitieswithacivicinfrastructureofpublicparks,artgalleries,museums,con- not thewholeofit.Philanthropistsbegantothinkthattheycouldbestimprovetheirsocieties town orcity.Ofcourse,thepoorconstitutedalargepartofurban‘problem’,buttheywere the middle ofthe nineteenth century,thetargetofphilanthropy shifted from thepoor to the prime purposeandfunctionofphilanthropywastoshiftresourcesfromtherichpoor.By thropic changeinthenineteenthcentury.Untilthen,ithadbeenreasonablyassumedthat 148–52). to theMid-West,BritishchildrenshippedCanadaandlaterAustralia(Cunningham,2005: countryside oftenbeingontheothersideofworld:AmericanEastcoastchildrenweretaken neering, theemigrationofchildrenfromenvironmentcitytocountryside,that to organisethemonasmallerscale,butalsoinpartnewmajorexperimentsocialengi- 2005: 150). What followed in response were in part attempts to improve domestic institutions, describe achildwhowas‘mechanicalandhelplessfromtheeffectofasylumlife’(Cunningham, in whatcametobedescribedas‘barracks’.Americanscoinedtheword‘institutionalized’ the ensuingtwentyyears.Bythen,therewasacounter-blasttoplacingchildreninparticular private orphanagesof1851hadincreasedto613by1880,withafurther474foundedover institutions caringforchildreninNewYorkState.Inthecountryasawhole,seventy-seven building ofasylumsintheUSafter1830.By1850,thereweretwenty-sevenpublicandprivate (Dekker, 1998). there was‘afirmconvictionthattheirnationcouldbetransformedbymeansofphilanthropy’ half ofthenineteenthcentury.AcrossEurope,thoughindifferentformscountries, it. This‘philanthropictourism’(Dekker,1998),wasanotablefeatureofphilanthropyinthefirst Mettray, nearTours.Dutch,EnglishandBelgianphilanthropistsflockedtoMettraycopied Rauhes Haus, in its turn, inspired the foundation in France in 1840 of the agrarian colony of Hinrich Wichern in 1833. This was aimed at providing shelterand support for poor boys. The dimension withthefoundationofRauhesHaus,or‘roughhouse’,nearHamburgbyJohann and Burgoyne,1998). The Philanthropist,aperiodicaldesignedto‘stimulatevirtueandactivebenevolence’(Lloyd 50 In 1869, the English feminist, Josephine Butler, distinguished between feminine and masculine In 1869,theEnglishfeminist,JosephineButler,distinguishedbetween feminineandmasculine This belief, that children thrived only in the countryside, reflected another aspect of philan- The degreeoffaithinthereformingpotentialinstitutionsisbestexemplified This traditionofsharingexperienceandgoodpracticewasgivenaContinentalEuropean

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 12:05 28 Sep 2021; For: 9781315740324, chapter2, 10.4324/9781315740324.ch2 global philanthropysetthemselvesupalongsidethemissionary ones. 1999: 244). Inthetwentiethcentury,particularly aftertheSecondWorldWar,secular versions of one. Missionswere‘divertingmuchof[Britain’s]charitytoreligiouscausesoverseas’(Porter, from theWest,theywereexpandingeducationandhealth,aswellproselytizing,isapowerful form nopartofphilanthropy,butthecounter-argument,thatoutfundscameprimarily the 1830swasmakingitsmark(Neill,1986:214,335–8).ItisarguablethatChristianmissions Church, batteredbytheassaultsonitinFrenchRevolution,wasslowerfield,but in other countries, Americans, Germans, Danes,Swedesand Norwegians. The Roman Catholic Missionary SocietywereinWestAfrica.TheBritishinitiativewassoontakenupbyProtestants Tongatapu and Marquesasin 1796, and,bythe end of the decade, the Methodists and the Church Society sentamissiontoIndiain1792,theLondonMissionarysetitselfupTahiti, simultaneously forginganempire,the1790swasimportantdecade:BaptistMissionary ‘the principalmembersofthegreathouseholdhumanity’(vanEijnatten,2000).InBritain, grounds andrulesofcivilization’knowledgeithadtobespreadbyProtestantEuropeans, and ofphilanthropy:theBible,accordingtoaDutchpamphlet1801,contained‘thetrue previously lackinglegitimacybyadoptingsomeoftheoptimisticlanguageEnlightenment much debated,butthatthetwowereintimatelyconnectedwasnotindoubt.Missionsgaineda civilization tothe‘heathen’overseas.Whichshouldcomefirst,Christianityorcivilization,was belief that therewas both an opportunity and aduty to bringthe benefits ofChristianityand be prioritized on those born and bred in the locality gave way, not without controversy, to a 2008) cameclosetobeingareality.Thelong-standingsensethatreliefthepoorshould it wasfromthelateeighteenthcenturyonwardsthat‘globalmissionaryphilanthropy’(Twells, this forms the sixth stratum. There were earlier forerunners, not least in Latin America, but nantly focusedtheirattentiononhomesoil,evangelicalChristianshadtheworldinsights: tinctive approachtotheaimofregeneratingsociety.Whereassecularphilanthropistspredomi- attracted totheambitionandoptimismthatinspiredphilanthropybroughttheirowndis- If philanthropyatitsoutsetwassecularinoutlook,thisnottolast.Christiansweresoon Sixth stratum:Globalmissionaryphilanthropy focused ontheneedsofwomenandchildrenratherthan,asinEurope,men. ‘parallel powerstructures’tothoseofmen.IntheUS,outcomewasthatwelfaremeasures and anabilitytoinfluenceoutcomes,creatingwhatKathleenMcCarthy(2003)hasdescribedas and industrialsociety. Manyrejectediton democratic andsocialistgrounds. Ifthepolitical in itsattitudesandwithinsufficient resourcesforthescaleofproblemsthrownupby urban serve of philanthropy. Philanthropy,itwasargued,patchy in itscoverage,condescending of thecenturywasthatstate waspoisedtointrudeintoareasthathadhithertobeenthe pre- British called‘grand-motherly legislation’ asmuchphilanthropy.Whatwas newbytheend a growth of both state and philanthropic initiatives. Neither was without criticism, what the in relationtothestate.Innineteenthcentury,mixed economyofwelfarehadallowed had topitchitselfinrelationpoliticaleconomy,bythetwentieth century,itwasdoingsoalso social andculturalproblemsthatbesetsomanylives.Ifphilanthropy inthenineteenthcentury began tobearguedwithincreasingforce,wasbetterplaced thanphilanthropytoresolvethe ally disconnectingtheintimacyoflinkbetweenphilanthropyandpoorrelief.The state,it A seventhstratuminthehistoryofphilanthropysurfaced laternineteenthcentury,eventu- Seventh stratum:Philanthropyasgapfiller Layered historyofWesternphilanthropy 51

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 12:05 28 Sep 2021; For: 9781315740324, chapter2, 10.4324/9781315740324.ch2 H. Cunningham of itspropagandists, lauding‘philanthrocapitalism’, sawitascapableofsolving theworld’smost role toplayandthemoneywith whichtoplayit.Another‘newphilanthropy’wasborn.Some of highnetworth(HNW)individuals gaveanewconfidencetophilanthropiststhatthey had a investment, risk-takingandhard work.Theresultingsuperfluityofreadymoneyinthepockets rich. Hightaxationlevelsdisappeared asentrepreneursarguedthattheywereadisincentive to onwards. It coincided with a marked increase in inequality, and in the relative wealth of the very of welfarestatesthatstartedinthe1970sandgrewwithexponential speedfromthe1980s The ninthandfinalstratuminthehistoryofphilanthropy to dateemergedwiththecriticism Ninth stratum:‘New’philanthropy be universitiesandresearchinstitutes,especiallyinthesocial sciences. and research,notingivingdirectlytothepoor.Thebeneficiaries oftheirlargessewerelikelyto progressive reformers,theybelievedthatthesolutiontodeep-rooted problemslayinscience were 27 foundations in the US by 1915, over 200 by 1930 (Zunz, 2011: 22). Linking up with were freetoaimattheeradicationofdiseaseorimprovement ofagriculturalyields.There approach fromhavingtograpplewithindividualpoverty,or indeedwithpovertyatall,they put it,ongivingwholesale,notretail(Sealander,2003:221).Emancipatedbytheirwholesale founded intheearlytwentiethcentury,allaiming,asFrederickGates,RockefellerSr.’sadvisor, Sr., theJohnD.RockefellerJr.,EdwardHarkness,RussellSageFoundationswereall words ofonethem‘fortheimprovementmankind’.TheCarnegie,JohnD.Rockefeller It wastheageoffoundations(Leat,Chapter18;Harrowetal.,19),established,in Across theAtlantic,fueledbyvastfortunes,anewkindofphilanthropywasborn,aneighthstratum. Eight stratum:Bigphilanthropicfoundations This waslargelyaEuropeandiscussionanddiagnosis. well-meaning butinsufficientattempttocopewithsocialproblemsthatwerebeyonditscapacity. history ofphilanthropywaswrittenasapreludetothewelfarestate,perhaps ‘new philanthropy’consistingofapartnershipbetweenstatutoryandvoluntaryservices.The whether it had any future role. Others, like Elizabeth Macadam in Britain (1934), talked up a the state,butitwasnot,andnolongeraspiredtobe,leadactor.Somepeoplebeganask state didnotcover,itmight,andincreasinglydid,runservicesonbehalfof,financedby, might pioneer new approaches for the state later to adopt, it might try to fill the gaps which the most of philanthropy’s centuries, now came to be thought of central importance. Philanthropy ondary to,andseparatefrom,thestate.Thepublic/privatedivide,impossibletodisentanglefor all contributed. Who paidfortheinsurancedifferedwidely,butnormallyemployees,employersandstate insurance couldbetakenouttomitigatethem.Legislationoftenmadecompulsary. risks associatedwithstagesofthelifecycle,unemploymentandill-healthcouldbecalculated, standing ofthecircumstancesthatproducedpovertyandameansdiminishingit.The striking astheexpandingroleofstate.Acrosswesternworld,therespreadanunder- poverty. Inretrospect,however,theemergenceofanewwaycopingwithpovertywasas strangling philanthropy,oratleastmanyformsofit. trum, thosewhochampionedtheroleofstatewereonleft.Apincermovementwas economists who had so scared philanthropists can be seen as on the right of the political spec- 52 The outcomewasthatphilanthropyasthesolutiontopovertyseenplayingarolesec- The intrusionofthestatedeeplyworriedmanywhowerecloselyengagedinrelief Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 12:05 28 Sep 2021; For: 9781315740324, chapter2, 10.4324/9781315740324.ch2 Bishop, M.andGreen,(2008) Philanthrocapitalism:HowtheRichCan SavetheWorldandWhyWeShould Ben-Amos, I.K.(2008)TheCultureofGiving:InformalSupport andGiftExchangeinEarlyModernEngland , the sometimescontentiousandcontendedunderstandingsofphilanthropyinWest. relationships thatcontinuetoexertinfluenceinnumerouswaysandacrossdifferentcontextson population. All these different strata, however, have one thing in common: they are all forms of gift philanthropy’, representedbyMarchoftheDimesinUS,smallgivingmass Christianity (Robbins,2006;Singer,2013).NorhaveIelaboratedonwhatZunz(2011)calls‘mass beliefs occurringwithin, and impactingupon,theWest which arederived from faiths other than 1980: 42–3).Ihavenotexploredtheinterrelationsbetweenphilanthropicimperativesandreligious the nineteenthcentury,wasmuchmoresignificantthanthatofrichtopoor(Prochaska, I havewrittennothingaboutgivingbythepoortowhich,itwaswidelyattestedin the periodsincethen,andhasneverbeenfixed.TheninestrataIhaveidentifiedcouldbeextended. gained currencyonlyinthelateeighteenthcentury,andwhatitsignifiedchangedconsiderably institutions helppeopleordotheysimplyinstitutionalizethem? each other. How do you distinguish between the deserving and undeserving? Can residential resolve povertyandtheproblemsassociatedwithit,theyarelikelytorecur,orrunalongside progressive and linear, not least becausethereis only a limited number of ways trying to reverting tooldmodelsandwaysofthinking.Itshistoryisasmuchcircularrepetitive attention tothewaysinwhichphilanthropyisconstantlyclaimingnovelty,whileoftenonly or approach.Itsuggeststhatstratalaiddowncenturiesagostillworktheirinfluence;itdraws a degreeofvanityandself-promotion.Ageologicalapproachhelpstofreeusfromtheeither/ reported asamalestory–over-optimistichopesofwhatcouldbeachieved,notunmixedwith to celebrateandtakeinspirationfrom,orasacautionarytaleofman’s–itisalmostentirely The historyofphilanthropyhastoooftenbeenwritteninaneither/orway.Eitherassomething Concluding remarks to diseaseandpoverty,highereducationthearts(BishopGreen,2008). deep-rooted problems, a happy marriage of capitalism’s efficiency and entrepreneurship applied Barker-Benfield, G.J.(2003)‘The OriginsofAnglo-AmericanSensibility,’inL.J.Friedman and Aristotle (2000)TheNicomacheanEthics,translatedandeditedbyRogerCrisp,Cambridge:Cambridge Ariès, P.(1981)TheHourofourDeath,London:AllenLane. Archer, I.W.(2002)‘TheCharityofEarlyModernLondon,’TransactionstheRoyalHistoricalSociety , D.T. (1989)PhilanthropyandPolice:LondonCharityintheEighteenthCentury,Princeton,NJ:Princeton Andrew, References and Philanthropy(CGAP),CassBusinessSchool,CityUniversityLondon. An earlierversionofthischapterwaspresentedasanOccasionalPaper attheCentreforCharitableGiving Notes Let Them,London:A&C Black. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. University Press,71–89. M. D.McGarvie(eds.)Charity,PhilanthropyandCivilityin AmericanHistory,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. 12: 223–44. University Press. A geological approach highlights the indeterminate boundaries of philanthropy. The word itself A geologicalapproachhighlightstheindeterminateboundariesofphilanthropy.Theworditself Layered historyofWesternphilanthropy 53

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 12:05 28 Sep 2021; For: 9781315740324, chapter2, 10.4324/9781315740324.ch2 H. Cunningham Porter, A.(1999)‘Religion,Missionary Enthusiasm,and Empire,’ in A. Porter(ed.)TheOxfordHistory of the Neill, S.(1986)AHistoryofChristianMissions , London:Penguin. Martz, L.(1983)PovertyandWelfareinHabsburgSpain: TheExampleofToledo,Cambridge:Cambridge McIntosh, M.K.(1988)‘Localresponses tothepoorinlatemedievalandTudorEngland,’Continuity McCarthy, K.D.(2003)‘WomenandPoliticalCulture,’inL.J. Friedman andM.D.McGarvie(eds.) Macadam, E.(1934)TheNewPhilanthropy:AStudyoftheRelationBetweenStatutoryand VoluntarySocial Lloyd, K. and Burgoyne, C. (1998) ‘The Evolution of a Transatlantic Debate on Penal Reform, 1780– Lindemann, M.(2002)‘UrbanCharityandtheReliefofSick PoorinNorthernGermany,1750– Laslett, P.(1988)‘Family,KinshipandCollectivityasSystemsof SupportinPre-IndustrialEurope:A Kidd, A.J.(1996)‘Philanthropyandthe“SocialHistoryParadigm”,’ SocialHistory,21(2):180–92. Jordan, W.K.(1959)PhilanthropyinEngland1480–1660,London:GeorgeAllen&Unwin. Jones, C.(1982)CharityandBienfaisance:TheTreatmentofthePoorinMontpellierRegion1740–1815, Hindle, S.(2004)OntheParish?TheMicro-PoliticsofPoorReliefinRuralEnglandc.1550–1750,Oxford:Clarendon Henderson, J.(1994)PietyandCharityinLateMedievalFlorence,Oxford:ClarendonPress. Hands, A.R.(1968)CharitiesandSocialAidinGreeceRome,London:ThamesHudson. ——. (2002)‘HealthCareandPoorReliefin18th19thCenturyNorthernEurope,’O.P.Grell,A. Grell, O.P.andCunningham,A.(1997)‘TheReformationChangesinWelfareProvisionEarly and Grell, O.P.(1997)‘TheProtestantImperativeofChristianCareandNeighbourlyLove,’inGrell M.E.(1991)Patients,Power,andthePoorinEighteenth-CenturyBritain,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Fissell, R.(2006)AlmsgivingintheLaterRomanEmpire:ChristianPromotionandPractice313–450,Oxford:Oxford Finn, Fairchilds, C. C. (1976) Povertyand Charity in Aix-en-Provence 1640–1789, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Eliot, G.(1965)Middlemarch,Harmondsworth:Penguin. Dyer, G.(1795)ADissertationontheTheoryandPracticeofBenevolence,London,1795. Duprat, C.(1993)LeTempsdesPhilanthropes,Tome1,Paris:ÉditionsduT.H.S. Dekker, J.H.(1998)‘TransformingtheNationandChild:PhilanthropyinNetherlands,Belgium, Davis, N.Z.(1987)SocietyandCultureinEarlyModernFrance,Cambridge:Polity. Cunningham, H.(2005)ChildrenandChildhoodinWesternSocietySince1500,Harlow:Longman. Coats, A.W.(ed.)(1973)PovertyintheVictorianAge,Vol.III,Charity,Farnborough:GreggInternational Cavallo, S.(1998)‘CharityasBoundaryMaking:SocialStratification,GenderandtheFamilyinItalian Cavallo, S.(1991)‘TheMotivationsofBenefactors:AnOverviewApproachestotheStudyCharity,’ 54 British Empire,Vol.III.TheNineteenth Century,Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress, 222–46. University Press. Change, 3(2):209–45. Charity, PhilanthropyandCivilityinAmericanHistory,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,179–97. Services, London:GeorgeAllen&Unwin. Basingstoke: Macmillan,208–27. 1830,’ inH.CunninghamandJ.Innes(eds.)Charity,PhilanthropyReformFromthe1690sto1850 , Century NorthernEurope,Aldershot:Ashgate,136–54. 1850,’ inO.P.Grell,A.Cunningham,andR.Jütte(eds.)HealthCarePoorRelief18th19th Consideration ofthe“Nuclear-Hardship”Hypothesis,’ContinuityandChange , 3(2):153–75. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress. Press. Aldershot: Ashgate,3–14. Cunningham, and R. Jütte (eds.) Protestant Europe1500–1700,London:Routledge,1–42. Modern NorthernEurope,’inO.P.GrellandA.Cunningham(eds.)HealthCarePoorRelief 43–65. A. Cunningham(eds.)HealthCareandPoorReliefinProtestantEurope1500–1700,London:Routledge, Press. University Press. Press. Reform fromthe1690sto1850,Basingstoke:Macmillan,130–47. France and England, c. 1780-c.1850,’ in H. Cunningham and J. Innes (eds.) Publishers. and ReformFromthe1690sto1850,Basingstoke:Macmillan,108–29. States (Seventeenth-NineteenthCenturies),’inH.CunninghamandJ.Innes(eds.)Charity,Philanthropy in J.BarryandC.Jones(eds.)MedicineCharityBeforetheWelfareState,London:Routledge,46–62. Health Care and Poor Relief in 18th and 19th Century Northern Europe, Charity, Philanthropy and Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 12:05 28 Sep 2021; For: 9781315740324, chapter2, 10.4324/9781315740324.ch2 Zunz, O.(2011)PhilanthropyinAmerica:AHistory,Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress. Woolf, S.(1986)ThePoorinWesternEuropetheEighteenthandNineteenthCenturies,London:Methuen. van Leeuwen,M.H.D.(1994)‘LogicofCharity:PoorReliefinPreindustrialEurope,’Journal van Eijnatten, J. (2000) ‘Civilizing the Kingdom: Missionary Objectives and the Dutch Public Sphere Twells, A.(2008)TheCivilisingMissionandtheEnglishMiddleClass,1792–1850:“Heathen”atHome Sulek, M.(2010)‘OntheModernMeaningofPhilanthropy,’NonprofitandVoluntarySectorQuarterly, Spicker, P.(ed.)(2010)TheOriginsofModernWelfareReform,Oxford:PeterLang. M.(1992)CharityRediscovered:AStudyofPhilanthropicEffortinNineteenth-CenturyLiverpool,Liverpool: Simey, Singer. A.(2013)‘GivingPracticesinIslamicSocieties,’SocialResearch:AnInternationalQuarterly,80(2), Sealander, J. (2003) ‘Curing Evils at Their Source: The Arrival of Scientific Giving,’ in L. J. Friedman and Rubin, M.(1987)CharityandCommunityinMedievalCambridge,Cambridge:UniversityPress. Rosenthal, J.T.(1972)ThePurchaseofParadise,London:Routledge&KeganPaul. Robbins, K.C.(2006)‘TheNonprofitSectorinHistoricalPerspective,’R.SteinbergandW.Powell, Pullan, B.(1988)‘SupportandRedeem:CharityPoorReliefinItalianCitiesfromtheFourteenthto Prochaska, F.K.(1980)WomenandPhilanthropyinNineteenth-CenturyEngland,Oxford:ClarendonPress. Postgate, R. (1923) The Builders’ , History London: The National Federation of Building Trade Operatives. Interdisciplinary History,xxiv(4):589–613. Boydell Press,65–80. around 1800,’inP.N.HoltropandH.McLeod(eds.)MissionsMissionaries,Woodbridge:The and Overseas,Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan. 39(2): 193–212. Liverpool UniversityPress. 341–58. University Press,217–39. M. D.McGarvie(eds.)Charity,PhilanthropyandCivilityinAmericanHistory,Cambridge:Cambridge The NonprofitSector:AResearchHandbook,Yale:YaleUniversityPress,13–31. the SeventeenthCentury,’ContinuityandChange,3(2),177–208. Layered historyofWesternphilanthropy 55