Poverty, Charity, and Coercion in Elizabethan England

Abstract

Poverty, Charity, and Coercion in ElizabethanEngland Just as the Abrahamic religions shared a set of basic assumptions about poverty during medieval and early modern periods, so too did each faith wrestle with the question of how widely charity should extend. Difªculty arose less in the realm of theory-in which all three religions taught that although poverty could not be ended, giving to the needy was a pious act-but rather in the practical area: Which poor people should be helped, in what ways, and who should pay for this assistance? In making such decisions, communities had to decide upon the scope of their beneªcence. Should we help only our own poor, those people living among us and known to us individually, or does "our community" extend more widely to include those with whom we share a religious or other identity but have no personal ties? Even among our own local poor, does it matter why they are needy and what their moral conduct is? These questions were perhaps easiest to answer for minority groups whose constituency was clearly deªned and who did not qualify for whatever assistance was provided to members of the dominant population. But Jewish and Muslim communities were often prepared to offer assistance to their co-religionists who lived in other places or were travelers. Even in regions where nearly everyone shared a religion, as in much of Western Europe, decisions about the objects of charity were often contentious. 1

Charity and Philanthropy in South Asia: An introduction

“…), vol. 21 modalities of giving-dana as ritual gift, dakshina as ritual payment, and bhiksha as alms, for instance-as well as their obligatory or voluntary nature-for example, the annual obligation to give zakat as opposed to the voluntary nature of sadaqa. Whilst the boundaries between different forms of giving might be blurred-typically between dana and dakshina, or between zakat and sadaqa-such a vocabulary underscores the different religious genealogies of practices such as those evoked by the notions of dana and zakat.…”

The Gospel of Foreign Aid: A Theoretical Note

“…The document puts an end to the religious exclusivity of charity works and paves the way for secular charitable works as instrument of social construction. Subsequently, this and other Elizabethan poor laws become the foundation on which Britain, American colonies and other Western countries erect massive and elaborate structure of poor relief law (Harris, 2004;McIntosh, 2005).…”

Review of periodical literature published in 2005

“…She argues that, in practice, women often had greater legal and financial flexibility as traders when ‘hidden’ from the law as a femme couvert . McIntosh has two other significant articles: one, in the Journal of Family History , on the nature of women’s credit relationships (particularly with their families); and, in the Journal of Interdisciplinary History , a study of late medieval and Tudor precursors to institutional poor relief. Her study of female credit networks depicts them as ubiquitous, spun out from parental assets, money put out at interest before marriage, paternity payments for illegitimate children, exchanges made before marriage, involvement in husband’s business dealings, administering dower rights and husbands’ estates, and the management of children’s legacies.…”