Comments on: Book Review: Almshouses in Early Modern England

By: Dr. Otis

Dr. Otis — Thu, 03 Mar 2022 16:23:31 +0000

In reply to Edward Kirsch. Just a quick note, since conventions vary in different contexts, but in an academic context denying a woman her doctoral title and calling her "Ms." instead of "Dr." is fighting words.

By: Anna Ciambotti

Anna Ciambotti — Thu, 03 Mar 2022 03:21:23 +0000

Matthew, I agree with your commentary on Nicholl’s books. Especially the fact that she tended to leave readers in the dark about the broader context of poverty in Early Modern England. This book was definitely meant for academics, so she might have been assuming that people already knew about the economic situation in England at this time. Although, I think it would have helped if she spent like half a chapter to provide readers some context as to what the state of the economy was like. I think she did a very good job providing a more diverse view of Almshouses than other historians. She showed overall that most almshouses were different, non-judgemental, and often built of funded for a variety of social and economic reasons. I also enjoyed how she introduced readers to a variety of people involved in the activity of the Almshouses. It allowed readers to envision the social classes/structure that may have existed at the time.

By: Tyler Thompson

Tyler Thompson — Thu, 03 Mar 2022 01:25:37 +0000

Matthew

I agree with your assessment of Almshouses in Early Modern England. Before reading this book I did not understand how central poor relief was in England during this period. Even with many pieces of legislation being passed during this period different types of almshouses still existed. Even the motives for individuals to create almshouses were varied. Nicholls shows that the closer you got to London the more almshouses one encountered. As one got closer to the center of government the more uniform almshouses were. Another thing that I learned from this book was that Almshouse positions were practically a placement for life. Very few residents were expelled from the almshouses. Positions in the houses were also a status symbol for their owners. People who lived inside of the houses were enjoyed a certain level of respect from others who did not live in almshouses. One thing that I enjoyed about the book was her section about how flexible almshouses were. Depending on the local needs, almshouses could be structured to support the community in the best way possible.

By: Vincent Cervone

Vincent Cervone — Thu, 03 Mar 2022 01:13:29 +0000

I think that the reviewers did a good job getting the main points of Nicholl’s book and also summarizing it. Bill points out a good observation in the other review that counties like Kent had more almhouses and the questions that he raised. I believe that the answer to both questions is that there were more people in Kent, both poor and rich but since the rich people were so rich, it kinda balanced everything out. In this review, I concur with Ed that I wish that the author went into more detail about religion and secular topics but overall I thought that Nicholl’s did a strong job and I enjoyed the book. What I like about Matthew’s review is that he points out all the flaws of the book and raises questions that I think will be great discussion points for class tomorrow.

By: Edward Kirsch

Edward Kirsch — Tue, 01 Mar 2022 01:16:49 +0000

I concur with Mathew that Ms. Nicholls “shows that the founders of almshouses were inspired by an array of diverse motivations, often founding almshouses in order to display their wealth, status, and virtue.” However, I found myself wanting from Nicholls far more development of the diverse motives of benefactors. Nicolls seemed to unfairly reduce the pre-Reformation motives of founders and benefactors to that of prayers for the dead for release from purgatory. (61-62) Although she does concede that “it is possible . . . that there has been an overemphasis on the importance of Purgatory and prayers for the dead” as many benefactors did not request such prayers. (63) She seems to miss that traditional Catholics believed in “good works” (and not just for release from purgatory) rather than faith alone. Traditional believers were most likely also prone to seek notoriety, status, reputation, favor, and other so-called “secular” motives as well. It seems anachronistic to attempt to make a hard distinction between religious and secular motives, at least during the sixteenth century. Nicholls mentions the “emergence of civic humanism in the early sixteenth century “has also been credited with influencing attitudes to the poor.” (64) However, this should not be left to imply that humanism displaced religion as a motive even for given individuals. Peter Marshall’s assertion that there was a “post-Reformation emphasis on individual memorialization, through tombs, monuments, sermons, that was “distinctly Protestant” is interesting. (66) One example Nicholl’s provides is of Robert Dudley insisting that his almspeople wear black cloaks with his insignia as they processed to church on Sundays in territory connected to his family. (67) While seeking favor with Elizabeth I and impressing local people with his charity, and status were undoubtedly motives for Dudley, he was also a radical Puritan who likely thought his charity confirmed his status as one of the elect. (81, 83) It seems no hard distinction can be made between the secular and religious as in most people these were deeply intertwined at least in the sixteenth century. I found myself wanting Nicholls to dive deeper on these topics.