Were The Poor Passive Recipients Of Charity

TMA 02 - Were the poor passive recipients of charity in the early modern period

To answer, were the poor passive recipients to charity is a complex and difficult question. They were passive recipients in the sense that they would often desperately need and gladly receive any form of alms (charity) granted to them; even if this could potentially reduce their freedoms. However, many of the poor would in fact, have no choice but to be active in the search for aid. Whether this was support from family or friends, the procuring of credit, additional wage by the way of various make-shift work, migrating to find work, military service, begging, or by petty crime. Until the introduction of the English poor laws in 1601, many would expect some form

Their was a great divide between the wealthy and the poor; with a disproportionate amount of wealth between the nobility and peasantry. Many factors such as famine, pestilence or war could cause individuals to fall into temporary or possibly long term poverty. To allude to another aspect to the causes of poverty, ‘Many individuals fell into poverty due to a disability such as blindness, lame limbs or insanity. Such disabilities might have been there from birth, or might be a result of an accident or – perhaps most commonly – old age. Certain diseases, such as the pox (syphilis), incapacitated and impoverished thousands’ (Chapter 6) Such individuals, who did not have the physical ability to work or who had fallen victim to poverty, would have some (though limited) options for seeking support. One such option was assistance from family, friends or from the local community. This could be with receiving of alms, bed and board; with the undertaking of becoming an apprentice or by providing a service to the bearer, or an even more likely option, was by the giving of a loan. ‘one of the most common favours granted to the poor was credit. Small-scale loans were an essential part of the early modern economy, especially for those whose income was unreliable and irregular. When a misfortune such as disease or unemployment struck, small short-term loans from family or friends were often the only thing that kept the most vulnerable from going hungry’ (Chapter 6 pg.