‘All of my remaining property I donate to the poor…’: institutions for the poor in Norwegian cities during the eighteenth century

Abstract

The eighteenth century saw a development of a stratified system of institutions for the poor in different social classes in Norwegian cities. This paper analyses its foundation through a cooperation of private donations and city authorities' management and it argues that donations to private almshouses aimed at safeguarding the social position of special groups in the city, while the city's poorhouse was responsible for the paupers from the lower classes. While charity to please God and secure a place in the afterlife was an old motive, the wish to protect the social group, relatives or personal servants is a striking phenomenon at the end of the eighteenth century. Citizens with burgher rights by virtue of their craft or commerce defended their position against non-skilled workers. Private gifts to supplement the public poorhouses helped securing this aim. The paper shows that donations to institutions in Trondheim fall into a general picture of social stratification, not only in society at large, but among the poorer parts of the population as well.

Keywords:

• almshouses
• poor relief
• social stratification
• Norwegian cities
• eighteenth century

Acknowledgements

This article started out as a paper for a conference in Haarlem, The Netherlands that took place from 7–9 September 2011, and was organised by Dr Henk Looijesteijn from the Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis, Amsterdam. Thanks to the organiser and participants at the conference, as well as to the anonymous referees of the journal.

Notes

¹ Nissen, Thomas Angells stiftelser (1967), 27–45. The citation in the headline is from Thomas Angell's will.

² Organisations established to deal with public purposes and the buildings they used.

³ Dyrvik, Oppdaginga (1983).

⁴ Seip, Sosialhjelpstaten (1984).

⁵ Carstens, Sykehusutvikling (2006); Bull, ‘Children’ (2008).

⁶ Bull, Handelshusene (1998), 262–82.

⁷ Engelhardt, Borgerskab (2010).

⁸ Krogh, ‘Fattigvæsen’ (1982); Henningsen, ‘Copenhagen poor relief’ (2008), 346.

⁹ Foucault, Folie (1961); Geremek, Poverty (1994), 218–28.

¹⁰ Lis, Social change (1986); Lis and Soly, Poverty (1979); Lindemann, Patriots (1990).

¹¹ Woolf, ‘Order’ (1992), 189–192; Cowan, Urban Europe (1998), 153.

¹² Engelhardt, Borgerskab (2010), 270–3.

¹³ Mikkelsen, ‘Poor relief’ (2008), 397.

¹⁴ Lindemann, Patriots (1990), 100, 160; Jütte, Poverty (1994), 109–10.

¹⁵ Rescripts 3. April 1789 and 13. August 1790.

¹⁶ McCants, Civic Charity (1997), 8–10, 22–3.

¹⁷ Continuity and Change (2012). Voss and Leeuwen (2012).

¹⁸ All Norwegian cities were small by European standards. The Norwegian realm was divided into four dioceses, where the main cities – Christiania, Bergen, Trondheim and Kristiansand – played a leading role. In the 1801 census, Bergen was the largest, with almost 20,000 inhabitants, Christiania had 9200, Trondheim had 8800, while Kristiansand was the smallest, at close to 5000 inhabitants.

¹⁹ Bull, Thomas Angell, (1992); Bull, Handelshusene, (1998); Collett/Frydenlund, Christianias handelspatrisiat (2008).

²⁰ Lis, Social change (1986). Teeuwen, ‘Collections’ (2012).

²¹ Bull, ‘Enkers levebrød’ (1986).

²² Regulations for the management of the social institutions were laid down in royal decrees from 1741 to 1790. Christiania/Akershus: 2 Dec. 1741; Bergen: 29 August 1755; Kristiansand: 5 May 1786; Trondheim: 3 April 1789.

²³ Daae, ‘Tugthuset’ (1908), 110–7; Sprauten, Byen ved festningen, (1992), 230–6.

²⁴ Fossen, Borgerskapets by (1979), 781–3.

²⁵ Supphellen, Innvandrernes by (1997), 144–7.

²⁶ Bøhmer, Katalog Stiftelser (1980), Fattighuset.

²⁷ Lie, Waisenhusstiftelsen (1935).

²⁸ Supphellen, Innvandrernes by (1997), 244–6.

²⁹ Supphellen, Innvandrernes by (1997), 340–9.

³⁰ Semmingsen, Oslo Hospital (1939), 95.

³¹ Lie/Tvete, Stiftelser (1923), 32–7.

³² Nissen, Thomas Angell's stiftelser (1967), additions to the testament 1763 and 1765: 38–9, 42–5.

³³ Grankvist, Nidaros kirkes spital (1982), 217–8.

³⁴ Nicolaysen, Norske Stiftelser (1858), vol. 2, 60 (Dankert Krohn's foundation, Bergen 1789), 298 (widows' house in Kristiansand 1805), 313 (Drøbak Hospital 1806).

³⁵ Nicolaysen, Norske Stiftelser (1858), vol. 1, 482 (Arendal Hospital 1755), 495 (Larvik Hospital 1762), 580–588 (Sander Kaae's foundation 1769, 1779, 1785); Nicolaysen, Norske Stiftelser (1858), vol. 2, 60 (Dankert Krohn 1789), 313 (Drøbak Hospital 1806); Lie/Tvete, Stiftelser og legater (1923), 17 (Trondhjem Hospital 1785).

³⁶ Nicolaysen, Norske Stiftelser (1858), vol. 1, 555.

³⁷ Nicolaysen, Norske stiftelser (1858), vol. 1, 565.

³⁸ Nicolaysen, Norske stiftelser (1858), vol. 1, 421.

³⁹ Bergkvist, Fattigdom (2008), 182.

⁴⁰ SAT, Trondheim stift og amt, Jz1 Kapitelstakster 1704–1914.

⁴¹ SAT, Privatarkiv 280 Hoë, 4.24. These prices are from the household accounts of a merchant's madam. The household bought staple goods in larger quantities, which makes it difficult to compare with the paupers' situation. Retail prices for the local market were not collected for the eighteenth century, and there are few possibilities to obtain them. Grytten, ‘Consumer price index’ (2004), gives few prices prior to 1835.

⁴² Nicolaysen, Norske stiftelser (1858), vol. 1, 478.

⁴³ Nicolaysen, Norske stiftelser (1858), vol. 1, 580.

⁴⁴ Carstens, Lokal sykehusutvikling (2006), 225–6.

⁴⁵ Bull, ‘Children’ (2008).

⁴⁶ Nicolaysen, Norske stiftelser (1858), vol. 1,704, 779.

⁴⁷ Bull, ‘Industriousness’ (2011).

⁴⁸ Heijden, Meerkeerk, Vermeesch and Burg, Serving (2009). Ben-Amos, Culture (2008).

⁴⁹ Smaller donations can sometimes be traced in private papers and accounts, as in the household's accounts of Madam Hoë in the 1770s, where she repeatedly noted small sums for paupers. SAT, privatarkiv 280 Hoë, 4.24. Such charity donations, as well as organized charity through collections, taxing and private societies are discussed in Bull, Handelshusene (1998), 262–282 and (briefly) in Bull, ‘Foreningsdannelse’ (2007). This kind of charity is also discussed in Teeuwen, ‘Collections’ (2012) for The Netherlands.

⁵⁰ Sprauten, Byen (1992), 226; Kirkeordinansen (1607/1985).

⁵¹ Semmingsen, Oslo Hospital (1939), 74–80.

⁵² Semmingsen, Oslo Hospital (1939), 70–71; Lie/Tvete, Stiftelser (1923), 17.

⁵³ Thomas Angells stiftelser, website: “Skogforvaltningen” (http://www.thomasangell.no/).

⁵⁴ Sprauten, Byen (1992), 236, 372–4.

⁵⁵ Sprauten, Byen (1992), 375.

⁵⁶ Fossen, Borgerskapets by (1979), 784–7.

⁵⁷ Bull, Thomas Angell (1992), 251–2.

⁵⁸ Nicolaysen, Norske stiftelser (1858), vol. 1, 484, 506, 542, 564.

⁵⁹ Nicolaysen, Norske stiftelser (1858), vol. 1, 735; Lie/Tvete, Stiftelser (1923), 70–2.

⁶⁰ Nicolaysen, Norske stiftelser (1858), vol. 2, 10–21.

⁶¹ Bøhmer, Katalog Stiftelser (1980), 135.

⁶² Nicolaysen, Norske stiftelser (1858), vol. 1, 495.

⁶³ Nicolaysen, Norske stiftelser (1858), vol. 1, 543; vol. 2, 80.

⁶⁴ Nicolaysen, Norske stiftelser (1858), vol. 2, 298, 302–3, 313.

⁶⁵ Liv og død på Hospitalet, (1999).

⁶⁶ McCants, Civic Charity (1997), 8–10, 22–3. Her argument is on the one hand, that the top elite were not interested in charity. There was almost no nobility in Norway, but a small group of persons of rank can be compared to the Dutch elite. However, they are too few to be studied as a group for this purpose, but they did not entirely avoid charity. On the other hand, McCants argues that the lower classes did not participate in charity. Meerkeerk (2012) agrees that the middling groups of society were more active in giving to institutions, but that this may not hold true when the smaller donations are included. In studying charitable collections through almsboxes and door-to-door collections, Teeuwen (2012) argues that a large majority of the population contributed to such collections. That would have been the case in Norway as well, but the sums were most often quite moderate.

⁶⁷ Fossen, Borgerskapets by (1979), 791–2. Nissen, Thomas Angell‘s stiftelser (1967), 101; Bull/Rian, Magistratsarkiv (1998), 33.

⁶⁸ Bull, Thomas Angell (1992), 252. The collection of smaller donations is discussed in Teeuwen (2012), ‘Collections’.

⁶⁹ Kidd, ‘Philanthropy’ (1996) reviews some of the theories concerning this, and concludes that “(c)haritable giving may have less to do with the wants of the needy than with the needs of the donor…”.

⁷⁰ Leeuwen, ‘Giving’ (2012).

⁷¹ Bull, Handelshus (1998), 269.

⁷² Bull, Thomas Angell (1992), 251–2.

⁷³ Flensburg, (1966), 104.

⁷⁴ Bull, Thomas Angell (1992), 247–8.

⁷⁵ Mordt, ‘Luksus’ (2010); Bull, Handelshus (1998), 271.

⁷⁶ Nicolaysen, Norske stiftelser (1858), vol. 1, 555.

⁷⁷ Nissen, Thomas Angell‘s stiftelser (1967), 32, 39, 45.

⁷⁸ Nicolaysen, Norske stiftelser (1858), vol. 1, 588.

⁷⁹ Nicolaysen, Norske stiftelser (1858), vol. 2, 259.

⁸⁰ E.g. Nicolaysen, Norske stiftelser (1858), vol. 2, 155, 190, 208, 235.

⁸¹ E.g. William Walcker's testament for foundation of a workhouse in Fredrikshald 1765 (Nicolaysen, Norske stiftelser (1858), vol. 1, 543).

⁸² Looijesteijn, ‘Funding’ (2012).

⁸³ Nissen, Thomas Angell's stiftelser (1967), 38, 43.

⁸⁴ Nissen, Thomas Angell's stiftelser (1967), 160–1. In the regional state archives of Trondheim, several large handwritten volumes of genealogical tables written by the director of Thomas Angell's foundation in the late nineteenth century are preserved: SAT, Horneman's collections.

⁸⁵ Nicolaysen, Norske stiftelser (1858), vol. 1, 542, 566, 588, vol. 2, 6.

⁸⁶ E.g., Jacob Taaning's gift to the widows' poorhouse in Bergen, Nicolaysen, Norske stiftelser (1858), vol 2, 155; Lars Busch's gift in Trondheim, vol. 1, 484; Kleist's foundation, vol. 1, 735; Hans Nissen's foundation, vol. 2, 10.

⁸⁷ Looijesteijn, ‘Funding’ (2012).

⁸⁸ Bull, Handelshus (1998), 262–8.

⁸⁹ Jütte (1994), 93, notes an increasing tendency among rich people to favour servants in bequests. This motive is also discussed in Looijesteijn (2012).

⁹⁰ Nicolaysen, Norske stiftelser (1858), vol. 1, 495.

⁹¹ Peder Hiort's testament 1788, Nicolaysen, Norske stiftelser (1858), vol. 2, 37; SAT, private archive 211 Røros kobberverk, klasse 33 Hiorts stiftelse; SAT, private archive 435 Hiorts stiftelse.

⁹² Nicolaysen, Norske stiftelser (1858), vol. 2, 65.

⁹³ Forordning om arv etter hospitals- eller almisselemmer 1749, 5 December, in Schmidt, Forordninger (1851), vol. 1, 534. That the means left by paupers should go back to the poor relief is also prescribed by the poor laws for the dioceses of Bergen (August 29, 1755), Kristiansand (May 5, 1786), and Trondheim (April 3, 1789), as well as in several single statutes.

⁹⁴ Nicolaysen, Norske stiftelser (1858), vol. 1, 779.

⁹⁵ Nicolaysen, Norske stiftelser (1858), vol. 2, 68.

⁹⁶ Nicolaysen, Norske stiftelser (1858), vol. 1, 420, 580.

⁹⁷ Folketelling 1801 for Trondheim (census 1801 for Trondheim), digitalized version at Digitalarkivet (http://www.digitalarkivet.no)

⁹⁸ Folketelling 1801 for Trondheim (census 1801), Kongensgade, Hus/43.

⁹⁹ Folketelling 1801 for Trondheim (census 1801), østergade, Hus/2.

¹⁰⁰ Folketelling 1801 for Trondheim (census 1801), St Jørgens Huus Veiten, Hus/3.

¹⁰¹ Folketelling 1801 for Trondheim (census 1801), Hospitalet.

¹⁰² Folketelling 1801 for Trondheim (census 1801), Kongensgade, Hus/39.

¹⁰³ Folketelling 1801 for Trondheim (census 1801), Kongensgade, Hus/40.

¹⁰⁴ Pram, Kopibøker (1964), 68.

¹⁰⁵ Pram, Kopibøker (1964), 69.

¹⁰⁶ Supphellen, Innvandrernes by (1997), 345–7.