Policing the Poor: J. L.

Vives and the Sixteenth-Century Origins of Modern Social

Administration
Author(s): H. C. M. Michielse and Robert van Krieken
Source: The Social Service Review, Vol. 64, No. 1 (Mar., 1990), pp. 1-21
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30012064
Accessed: 13/05/2010 13:52

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Social Service Review.

http://www.jstor.org
Policing the Poor: J. L.
Vives and the Sixteenth-

Century Origins of Modern

Social Administration

H. C. M. Michielse
Universityof Amsterdam

Translated by

Robertvan Krieken
Universityof Sydney

A crucial episode in the history of social work and social administrationwas the
sixteenth-centuryreform of poor relief in both Catholicand ProtestantEuropean
towns. The writingsof the CatholichumanistJuan Luis Vives in particularplayed
an importantpart in the subsequentdevelopmentof sixteenth-centurypoor relief.
This articleanalyzeshis ideas, the changes of the period, the waysin which the new
arrangementsdifferedfrom medievalpoor relief, and the waysin whichthey formed
the foundationsof modern social administration.

How far back in history do we have to go to trace the origins of modern

social administration and social work? Most writers limit their focus
to the period since the nineteenth century,' but one can identify the
early sixteenth-century publication De subventionepauperum, by the
Spanish-Dutch humanist Juan Luis Vives (1492-1540) as the theoretical

SocialServiceReview(March 1990).
C 1990 by The Universityof Chicago.All rights reserved.
0037-7961/90/6401-0004$01.00
2 Social Service Review
foundation for all subsequent social work and social policy. The Webbs
argued that it was probably the "best-seller of its time,"2 and Pinchbeck
and Hewitt also mention the impact Vives's ideas had on the development
of English social policy.3 Piven and Cloward have remarked that Lyon's
poor relief system, established in 1534 and modeled along the lines
argued by Vives, possessed "most of the features of modern welfare
-from criteria to discriminate the worthy poor from the unworthy
to strict procedures for surveillance of recipients and measures for
their rehabilitation."4 However, these few references are very brief,
and Vives's work is worthy of more attention than it has received if
we are to explain fully the origins of contemporary social administration.

From Christian Almsgiving to Policing the Poor

Vives was not the direct inspiration for the changes in ordinances
dealing with the poor that took place in many sixteenth-century Eu-
ropean cities. Prior to the appearance of De subventionepauperum in
1526, a number of German and Dutch towns had already introduced
new systems of poor relief based on the principles espoused by Vives:
Nilrnberg (1522), Kitzingen (1523), Strasbourg (1523), Regensburg
(1523), Basel (1526), Bergen and Ypres (1525).5 Ypres became the
model for poor relief arrangements throughout Europe, and both
Salter and Bonefant have demonstrated that the Ypres authorities
introduced their reforms independently of Vives's influence.6
There are also important differences between Vives's book and the
Ypres ordinances. While the latter are short, business-like, and precise,
the humanist's lengthy discussion is vague on a number of essential
points.' However, we can say that Vives's work presented a broad
theoretical explanation and defense of a strategy of poor relief already
being pursued by many town councils. This was recognized by the
Ypres magistracy, for when the town had to defend itself against
criticism of the new ordinances, Ypres had Vives's book translated into
Dutch, as Secours van den aermen (1533).8 The Latin text was also
translated into French, Spanish, and Italian. It thus had a significant
effect on the establishment and spread of the new approach to poor
relief throughout Europe.9
In contrast to the previous system of Christian charity and the medieval
view of poverty, the main characteristics of the new approach to poor
relief can be summarized as follows: the social salvation of the recipients
rather than the spiritual salvation of the donors took precedence;
secular rather than church authorities became the central agents of
poor relief; the maze of independent institutions was replaced by a
central institution, the "common chest"; begging was prohibited, no
longer an accepted practice of the pauperes Christi; and the central
concern was no longer benevolence but the subjection of the poor to
 J. L. Vives 3
a systematic and disciplinarian program of education and improvement.
The concepts "pollitie," "pollicey," or "police" were employed by con-
temporaries to refer to the essence of these changes; that is, the whole
range of measures and interventions directed at the poor.'0 One difficulty
here is that one can see the reforms of poor relief as constituting an
abrupt break with medieval practices, when in fact many elements of
the new policing approach were already long in the making. What
was new was that, in this period, the various elements were brought
together in a new system and implemented in a radically new form
in a number of European towns. It is in this sense that one can speak
of a turning point in social administration."
Medieval poor relief was certainly not idyllic. The criticism of its
ineffectiveness by humanists like Vives was justified to a large extent.
The Middle Ages span at least 10 centuries, during which time care
for the poor developed from liturgically determined almsgiving by
Benedictine monks in the ninth century to a very differentiated system
of religiously inspired caritas by parochial mensa Spiritus Sancti (tables
of the Holy Ghost or poor tables), by brotherhoods, and by innumerable
charitable institutions in the late Middle Ages.'2 Generally speaking,
throughout this period one gave out of God's love, without making
demands on the poor. Charity given in the name of God's love offered
the poor only irregular support, but at the same time it left their
freedom intact.
By 1500 urban poor relief was primarily a lay affair, albeit one with
a strong religious motivation. The two main forms were almshouses
and hospitals caring for the sick and aged, and the poor tables-
parochial institutions in which the laity gave alms to begging paupers
under the supervision of the town authorities, preferably on religious
days. In addition, there was individual giving of alms. In a town such
as Leiden, for example, in the years 1276-1390 there was the Katrijn
Guest House and the Pieter's Church poor tables. After 1390, a number
of other institutions were added: two almshouses, the leper's hospital,
three poor tables, a number of hostels, and three homes for the so-
called silent poor who did not resort to begging.'13All these institutions
were financed by donations and bequests ad pias causas and by the civil
authorities. Eventually, however, they were unable to meet the great
need of many of the poor when, for both economic and demographic
reasons, the number of paupers and beggars rose sharply around
1500.

Town Government and the Common Chest

The new poor relief ordinances, such as Ypres' Ordonancievan der
Ghemeenderbuerze,were administered by the civil authorities,14 but not
because they had taken over the function of poor relief in some sort
4 Social Service Review
of revolutionaryfashion;there had been cooperationbetweenreligious
and secularauthoritiesfor centuries.15The Ypresmagistratesapproved
the ordinances "after consulting and being advised by the clergy."'6
The new regulations signaled a further reinforcement of the town's
political position. The civil authorities had graduallydeveloped into
an independent politicalpower that, as the government,came to stand
apart from and above the citizens, its subjects, and strove to pursue
an independent policy in all town matters,including poor relief.17The
role Elias ascribesto the process of state formation in the "civilizing
process"was," in relation to the poor at least, first played by the town
authorities.The poor relief legislationintroducedby CharlesV, whose
German empire included the Netherlands, was thus not designed to
formulate an independent policy for the national government but to
stimulate a more decentralizedsystem of town "police."
Juan Luis Vives provideda theoreticaland philosophicaljustification
for secular government action. He argued that "it behoves [sic] the
Governorsof a City to care for the Poor"'9and based this obligation
on the government'sresponsibilityfor public order, which pauperism
threatened, while the personal obligation to do good was for him still
based on the Christiancommandment of caritasand on natural law.
There would be more "peace... if everyone'sneeds werejustlycatered
for," for "in a State the poorer members cannot be neglected without
danger to the powerful ones."20The dangers Vives mentioned include
the potential of the poor to steal, wander, rape, and riot. There was
also the likelihood that they would neglect their children, become
vagabonds, and desert the church and God's word. This was not so
much the fault of the poor as that of rulers who did no more than
drag the poor into court to punish delinquency,when it was precisely
their principalduty to -turnthe poor into good citizens.21Apart from
the question of public order, Vives also argued in terms of public
health. There was a great danger of contagion and infectious diseases
such as plague, ulcers, leprosy, and "otherafflictionsdisgusting even
to speak of," arisingfrom the crowdsof paupersgatheringin churches
and at high festivals.22The rulers of cities should be awareof this and
combat the spread of diseases. Elsewhere, Vives referred to the need
of trade and industry for adequate labor power.23
In contrast to the more politically experienced Ypres magistracy,
the stern Vives was very criticalof the clergy. He criticizedthe clergy's
complete neglect of the poor, who did not go to confession or com-
munion and were completely ignorant of the faith. He also attacked
the wealth of the church and the appropriationof the property of the
poor by bishops and abbots, although he felt that failure to return it
should incur only God's wrath, for the poor themselves were never
to complain about it or cause a disturbance.24 Vives believed that the
government ought to ensure that the clergy should not control large
 J.L. Vives 5
sums of money under the pretext of great piety, money that could be
better bestowed on the poor.25
The core of the new system of poor relief was its centralization in
the form of an aAmonegindrale, or common chest.26 Although Vives
referred to this notion, his propositions on the point are vague and
ineffectual; the Ypres ordinances, in contrast, were very precise and
concise.27 All the alms intended for the poor were brought together
in a common chest, deriving in part from the almshouses, poor tables,
and so on, and partly from collections in the streets and churches
where everyone could deposit their "secret alms." The central institution
was headed by four "governors and guardians of the Common Chest"
appointed by the town council; beneath the governors and guardians
who were
there were four citizens per parish, almoners or dischmeesters,
responsible for the actual distribution of money, bread, wood, and so
on, "at their discretion and according to the condition and needs of
the poor."28
This centralization had a number of advantages for the authorities.
On the one hand, there was a more rational use of finances. The Ypres
authorities offered this argument as a justification. The old system
allowed some individuals to profit through guile and deceit, while
others got little or nothing. Many went every day "to table, street and
church" to beg and maintained themselves in idleness when they could
easily have managed if they had worked.29 On the other hand, the
changes also involved the bureaucratization of poor relief. A separate
government agency arose; a social administration that operated between
the burghers giving money as alms and the poor receiving aid. This
agency rested on modern, rational foundations, such as the profes-
sionalization of poor relief, hierarchical relations, and autonomous
administration.30 Precisely this centralized and bureaucratized system
made it possible, as we shall see, to implement the "policing of the
poor" and their "reeducation."

A New Discourse on the Poor

The new poor relief measures were part of a broader strategy, a new
theoretical program that explained social reality in a way that enabled
political interventions and the implementation of a coherent, concrete
program. A new discourse on the poor was being formulated, one
which did not so much portray or reflect their real situation as describe
it in a way that made a particular course of action possible.

Fifteenth-CenturyViews of the Poor

In the Middle Ages, poverty had been seen, in theory at least, as a
sign of God's grace, but from the fifteenth century onward the attitude
6 Social Service Review
toward the poor increasingly began to move "between fear and con-
tempt." While the religious and secular powers opposed radical poverty
movements as being heretical, as early as the twelfth century Saint
Francis and Saint Dominic saw the poor as "a contrast to the pride,
violence and avarice of the rich and powerful," and as "capable of
playing a role in society (which is not the same thing as being used
by society)."3' But in the course of the fifteenth century the theme of
the poor as God's chosen ones, as the image of Christ, was increasingly
replaced by that of the poor as the dangerous classes. This new fear-
fulness applied initially to professional beggars and vagabonds, but
given the vague boundary between the poor and beggars, it soon
extended to all paupers.
Medieval theologians had long warned against giving to "false pau-
pers," able-bodied beggars, drunkards, and vagabonds. According to
the canon lawyers, alms ought not encourage idleness: vidi cui des,
scrutinize carefully to whom you give.32 Initially the extensive casuistry
of the canon lawyers had no effect on daily practice, but this changed
rapidly and begging was subjected, albeit ineffectively, to a variety of
restrictions. Among broad categories of the urban population, especially
the guild artisans, repugnance grew toward professional beggars, whose
elusiveness and work shyness were seen as a threat to moral order. In
the literature around 1500 one finds a sternly disapproving view of
beggars and vagabonds, as in Sebastian Brant's Narenschiff(1494) and
in Libervagatorum(1510).33 The measures taken by municipal authorities
against begging had already intensified by then, such as the compulsory
wearing of a "beggar's badge" as the first step toward public stigma-
tization.
The secularization of poverty was promoted by the humanists, who
replaced the casuistry of the canon lawyers with systematic discussions
in which they concentrated not so much on the spiritual salvation of
the donors of alms but on the dangers posed by the poor and the
need to supervise them. "With humanism," says Michael Mollat, "con-
tempt for the poor took a subtle and perfidious turn, becoming disdainful
and philosophical and-height of irony-invoking the dignity of man
as justification."34 The idea of pauperes Christiwas replaced by that of
dangers to the social order and to public health.

Vives's View of the Poor

The best example of the humanists' disapproval is Vives's portrayal

of the poor as hideous and vicious characters. In the first part of De
subventionepauperum he outlined the personal obligation to charity
with the support of the Old and the New Testaments, as well as classic
writers. On the one hand he based his argument on natural law, on
 J.L. Vives 7
"how it is natural to do good for others."35 On the other hand he
referred to the Christian obligation to do good and demonstrated "how
neither a virtuous life nor Christendom can exist if there is not natural
succour."36 Christianity was based on "the general rule of love for God
and man."37 But in the middle of this discussion, as he dealt with the
reasons that some "are afraid to do good for others," Vives produced
an indignant portrayal of the poor, which reproduced all the complaints
of his contemporaries.38
The poor, according to Vives, were ungrateful and resistant to im-
provement. He related how good citizens pulled the poor's offspring
out of the gutter, taught them a trade, and treated them like their
own children only to have these wretches either run off with their
master's possessions or become drunk with knavery and evil deeds.
Vives described begging paupers as henchmen and blackguards who
demanded alms at the door and in church, shamelessly grabbing alms
from people rather than asking for them. In general he portrayed the
poor as hideous creatures. Even when they were "deformed and covered
in ulcers, pimples and filthy scabs, with stinking breath and foul odors,"
they gathered among crowds, unconcerned about infecting others.
Some willfully attended to their ulcers, sores, and the like with herbs,
and they even broke their own or their children's legs, "the more to
move the people to compassion." They also "feigned being crippled
or lame."39
Work-shy beggars were also addressed by Vives. There are those,
he said, "who are so work-shy and so fond of idleness" that they "make
a trade of begging for bread, which ought only to be done out of
need." Later in this text Vives echoed the complaint of many masters
"that they can get neither workers nor servants."40 Alongside the ar-
gument of public order there was also the economic motif of disciplining
the poor. Professional beggars, according to Vives, swear and curse
God and his saints, and they fight and murder each other for a trifle.
Sometimes they have money that they squander "in useless gluttony,"
so that one would be justified in saying that they beg more "for the
profits and maintenance of the taverns and brothels than for them-
selves."41Vives described with abhorrence the screeching and clamoring
of the poor. They got up to all sorts of "unpleasantness, hatefulness,
and idleness," and their wives and daughters were inclined "to all life's
uncouthness." The theme of the "dangerous classes" also surfaced in
Vives's writings, for the poor not only engaged in all sorts of individual
crimes such as stealing, pillaging, murder, and rape42 but were also
present whenever there was a commotion or a riot.43 They refused to
be exhorted to live a better life, and yet they continued to boast of
being Jesus Christ's poor.44 The only group Vives spoke well of are
those who had lapsed into poverty through misfortune and refused
to admit it: the silent poor.45
8 SocialServiceReview
Governors, Capitalists, and Humanists: An Alliance
Historians have long puzzled over the causes of the new strategy of
poor relief. Was it the Lutherans with their new work ethic? Was it
the demographic and economic developments that led to an enormous
increase in the incidence of poverty and thus also induced a new
policy? Was it the increasing rigidity of the social system (the closing
of the guilds) that intensified social conflict, or was it the increased
political power of the town magistracy? Did all these factors together
play a determining role?46If we examine the source of the new strategy
of poor relief in the Netherlands, we can identify three determinant
social groups: the rulers of city and state and their lawyers and bu-
reaucrats, the rising class of capitalists, and the humanists.47 The most
important question then becomes whether these groups were inde-
pendent of each other or closely interwoven. Each of the three had
well-founded reasons to be concerned about the poor.
For the authorities, a central concern was public order. The growing
number of beggars and vagabonds was in itself of concern, but in
addition there were increasingly frequent riots and uprisings in many
European regions. The poor in general, and beggars and vagabonds
in particular, were often seen as playing a major role in these distur-
bances. A particular source of apprehension for the authorities was
the assumed receptiveness of the poor toward Lutheran and especially
Anabaptist (and supposed "communist") ideas.
In the period 1495-1525, capitalism had gone through the first
phase of a worldwide maritime-commercial expansion, which stimulated
capitalist forms of organization as well as the growth of industrial
production and benefited the southern Netherlands in particular.48
This development produced large proletarian and pauper populations
and also generated a desire for disciplined and subordinated labor
power. One can hear the complaints of the entrepreneurs echoed in
Vives, "that they cannot obtain either workers or labourers." The
bourgeoisie was thus concerned with transforming work-shy beggars
into a reserve army of labor.49
In addition, Christian humanists in Western Europe were striving
toward a moral, intellectual, and religious reformation of society. To
that end, they set in motion a strategy of popular education, directed
at all sections of the population. They regarded their task as being
"to purify society" and "to reform diseased Christendom with all the
means at their disposal."50 They wanted a world of order, moderation,
and piety led by the humanities, the spirit of the Church fathers, and
evangelism. A major means of achieving this was education, which
received a great deal of attention from Erasmus and others. Most
Dutch humanists had a passion for teaching and were involved in
educational reform either directly as teachers or indirectly through
 J.L. Vives 9
their writiqgs.51 They wrote educational tracts for the nobility and
knights and on the education of children and women. In regard to
the lower classes, the humanists focused on their religious education,
the neglect of which they criticized fiercely, and on the policing of the
poor and their education through work and disciplinary supervision.
They were also the first to write small catechisms in which Christian
teachings were systematically outlined in Latin.52
The capitalists, governors, and humanists were not separate and
autonomous. Their worlds were closely connected; in relation to the
poor they formed, as it were, a coherent alliance. In towns like Ypres
the control of the town council had passed into the hands of the new
capitalist bourgeoisie-industrialists and merchants who had become
rich through trade and speculation--shortly before the reform of poor
relief. But these "nouveaux riches" were also participants in the in-
tellectual renaissance brought about by humanism.53 The bourgeoisie
and the governors they produced had become followers of Erasmus,
whose writings represented the spiritual disposition characteristic of
the upper orders during the first century of the Republic of the Neth-
erlands.54 Nolf puts it well: "Under the influence of classical education
the bourgeoisie embarked at full speed upon the study of social problems,
and took upon themselves the task of healing social ills and of helping
and improving a suffering humanity."55Of course it was not as innocent
as this; capitalists and governors had their own reasons to respond to
poverty, such as their concern for a disciplined and orderly work force,
and humanists like Vives articulated these reasons.
Where should the humanists be placed in this total picture? Were
they the ideologues of rising merchant capital? The Austrian cultural
historian Friedrich Heer has described the humanists as a "third force"
between the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation, as represen-
tatives of the Zivilisation des Dialogs (civilization of dialogue) and the
Gespriichder Feinde (dialogue of enemies). One of Heer's star witnesses
was the humanist from a family of converts from Judaism who fled a
fanatically Catholic Spain: the meek and mild Vives.56 Vives's motto
was sine querella(without argument).57 He wrote a great work on peace,
De concordiaen discordia,and exhorted emperors and kings to become
peace loving. In a war-torn world threatened by religious intolerance,
the program offered by Christian humanism was not unattractive. But
the civilization of dialogue did not include the poor and the needy;
they were to be brought to order, industry, and virtue through work
and supervision.
This view of poverty and poor relief appears in the work of all the
great humanists. Erasmus dedicated one of his spiritual Colloquia(1525)
to the poor, in which he attacked begging as a danger to public order
and announced with satisfaction the impending "policing" of beggars.58
Thomas More took note of the misery among the proletariat that
10 Social Service Review
accompanied developing capitalism and wrote in Utopia (1516) that
begging and idleness would be forbidden, and that there would be
more than enough time for physical and mental relaxation after a 6-
hour working day.59But More was also hostile toward the real paupers
of his day: "As with almost all the humanists . .. the masses were also
for him merely a blind, destructive force, who could only be led towards
the good by the insight of the higher orders."60 One of Vives's con-
temporaries, Cornelis Agrippa, summarizes the humanists' disapproval
of the poor concisely in 1527: following the classics one should "not
so much pity the poor as despise the beggars and vagabonds."61
The affinity between the spiritual dispositions of capitalists and hu-
manists is very clear in Vives's work. Bataillon describes Vives with
his puritan and hard-working spirit as the champion of bourgeois
morality and spokesman for industry, in particular the textile industry
in the Netherlands.62 While More thought working people should be
granted a reasonable working day with time for personal development
and relaxation, Vives wanted to subject the poor to a strictwork discipline
and the most intransigent beggars to an "ascetic cure." His mentality
was that of the merchant bourgeoisie. As a sickly, melancholic, and
sensitive soul, he appeared to be in his element only "in the well-
heeled and strict world of cosmopolitan trade."63 He was wedded to
rising capitalism, which could only blossom once it had sufficient labor
power at its disposal. De subventionepauperum was written in the name
of "those less self-indulgent than scrupulous beings who, divided between
their business and piety, mirror in their polished houses the anxious
cleanliness of linen and ammonia which speaks out of the portraits of
Van Eyck and Quinten Metsys."64
The old controversy over the sixteenth-century reform of poor relief
revolved around the question of whether this reform was produced
by the Protestant work ethic or the spirit of Catholic humanists like
Vives. But are the ideas held by Vives and the Protestants in relation
to the poor and labor really so different? The reform of poor relief
was-given the decisive economic and political developments of the
day-in the air.65 On this point, despite all their conflicts concerning
faith and church, the ideas of humanists, Protestants, and strict Catholics
converged, or rather both the Reformation and Counter-Reformation
extended humanism further.66

The Technology of the New Poor Relief

In the medieval conception of care for the poor, the well-being of the
giver's soul stood central. Whether poverty was seen as the result of
sin or God's grace, one gave to the poor, in wills or personal alms, in
order to ensure a place in heaven. But the sixteenth-century poor
police placed the poor at the center of attention: the poor, not poverty,
 J. L. Vives 11
were seen as the social problem. A very few remarked on the social
causes of poverty, such as the Leiden town clerk Jan van Hout, who
offered in a report in 1577 a pure "materialist" explanation of the
great poverty in Leiden, ascribing it to the exploitation of workers by
the drapery manufacturers.67 Nevertheless, the dominant approach
was that which P. C. Hooft later articulated, that "the majority of the
poor are poorly educated, ill-mannered and of coarse tongue."68 The
abhorrence for the poor revolved around three characteristics: the
mobility of vagabonds, the idleness of professional beggars, and the
anonymity of the mass. All three characteristics came under attack. It
was not so much the health and welfare of the poor that stood central
in the new poor relief, but their social reeducation and disciplining.
In one stroke, the social utility of the poor was to be increased and
their politicaldanger diminished.To achievethat, a seriesof techniques
were developed and brought together in one set of practices: the
policingof the poor.Thesetechniques-the classification
of the poor,
investigation and documentation, supervision, normalization, labor
and education-strove for the positive effect of the new poor relief:
a mass of disciplined, socially useful, and politically harmless paupers.

Begging Prohibited
The new policing approach to poor relief involved both negative,
repressive measures and positive ones. In all towns where the new
poor relief was introduced there was an absolute prohibition of begging.
The Ypres town council forbade begging for alms within and without
the town, and those who persisted would be "sharplycorrected." Parents
who let their children beg would be put on a bread and water diet,
and the children themselves could expect disciplining with the birch.
All foreign beggars and idlers were expelled.69 The measures taken
against poor foreigners during epidemics or the threat thereof were
also repressive. In addition to the repressive prohibition of begging
there were also "positive" elements, such as improvements in assistance
for the physically and mentally ill, directed and regulated support,
work creation, and above all, reeducation of the poor. Vives rejected
a purely repressive approach and insisted on its combination with
education for good citizenship.
In the area of physical and mental health care, new ideas were
developing directed at increasing specialization and a certain degree
of competence, made possible by the development of medical knowledge
following classical examples. The idea arose that one can treat as well
as merely care for the sick.70 Vives pleaded for improvements in the
treatment of the mentally ill; first and foremost one would investigate
whether they were mad by nature, or because of other causes, and
whether there was hope of improvement. One should not simply lock
12 Social Service Review
them away, which he regarded as inhuman cruelty. The course of
action he recommended was gentle treatment, activity, and guidance.
The concern for public health also led to direct measures for the
improvement of health care. Combating epidemics was sometimes
explicitly identified as a motif for the new policing approach. Vives
proposed to have all the sick poor taken to a hospital. If there was
insufficient space, more would have to be created. What had to be
avoided was the healthy poor becoming infected. Paupers with infectious
diseases or scabs should only be allowed to lie down and to eat. The
Ypres magistrate in fact organized the town's hospitals and founded
a separate one with "20 or 30 suitable cells" for sufferers of infectious
diseases.71

Classification
The only power that the weak and the poor possess, thought the
fictional sixteenth-century learned free-thinker Zeno in Marguerite
Yourcenar's L'oeuvre au noir,72 is their anonymity: they can always,
when necessary, dive into the mass of beggars and vagabonds. The
burghers were the most disturbed by this elusiveness and invisibility.
How could this anonymity be reduced as much as possible? It was to
be done by giving the beggars and paupers names and tying them
down to one place: in short by "individualizing" them. The first pre-
condition for this was to make distinctions among the amorphous mass
filling the streets and going from one almsgiver to the next.
Scholastic theorizing on poverty as well as guides for confessors at
the end of the thirteenth century had made distinctions among the
poor, in particular between the worthy and unworthy, deserving and
undeserving. The "false poor," the able-bodied, drunkards, and va-
gabonds, were condemned in the name of the moral law of labor. In
tracts such as De bonoet malo (William of Auvergne), the various forms
of poverty were analyzed in detail,73 and the distinction between the
silent poor and aggressive beggars was also made in bequests and
donations.74 But the practice of public almsgiving still operated within
the framework of individual conscience formation, for which the church
had striven since the thirteenth century. The theory had little or no
practical influence, for there were no means or procedures by which
to put the distinctions into practice.
This all changed with the new policing approach, which established
different distinctions on which to focus. An initial distinction was based
on juridical grounds: that between local paupers and foreign beggars.
The latter were to leave the town. And there was a division based on
assistance criteria: the existence of real need due to an inability to
work (illness, disability), no or little income (many young children,
unemployed), family situation (families left fatherless by death or de-
 J. L. Vives 13
sertion). Finally there was a normal distinction between worthy and
unworthy paupers (drunkards, vagabonds, layabouts).75
The Ypres common chest applied this classification scheme almost
literally. The ordinances banned foreign beggars and vagabonds, and
the following categories were used in relation to the local poor. The
"principal poor" were the "elderly, mad, disabled, and the like," and
children either going to school or in apprenticeship. The "secret poor"
were those who had lived respectably and lapsed into extreme poverty.
The "shame-faced house-poor" required help because of the size of
their family, inadequate income, illness, misadventure, unemployment,
and an inability to secure such help themselves. Finally, the drunkards,
idlers, and those who abandoned their wives and families constituted
another category of the poor; they got nothing or very little.
If the poor relief authorities were to apply these classifications, it
was necessary to investigate the poor, and the reorganization of poor
relief was a first step toward making this possible. In Ypres, the four
dischmeestersin every parish were given the task of investigating the
state of the poor, their occupations, age, number of children, illnesses,
income, whether they were well behaved, and whether they were drun-
kards or beggars.76 All this information was to be recorded and would
form the basis for the authorities' decision on what each household
would receive. Vives gave detailed suggestions for the investigation
and description of the poor. He distinguished between three groups:
those who required hospital care (the sick or disabled); those who
endured their poverty at home (the "house-poor"); and beggars and
vagabonds. Reports on the institutions would account for all expenditure
and income, register the number of paupers, the reasons for their
poverty, and how they came to the institution. The house-poor would
be registered in every parish, with the number of children and so on.
Two senators, "accompanied by a scribe," would "visit each of all these
houses and investigate" what sort of life the inhabitants had led, what
sort of people they were, what they lived on and how.77The investigation
would use the testimony of neighbors, but not of other paupers, "for
envy is not idle." Beggars and vagabonds were to be called to "some
open place, or square, that such a dirty throng may not invade the
Senate-house" and there asked for their names and manner of living.
All this information would be passed on to the "Consuls and Senate
in their Court."78

Permanent Supervision

After the allocation of assistance the investigation of the situation of

the poor would continue. In this way the poor were to be placed under
permanent supervision. Vives gave two censors appointed by the senate
the task of continuously investigating the poor's manner of living and
14 Social Service Review
whetherthey compliedwith the relevantordinances.He wasparticularly
concerned about investigating the lifestyle of elderly women capable
of witchcraft, and Vives, in contrast to other humanists, supported
the persecution of witches. Vives's concern for education was not
confined to the children of the poor, for he also suggested that the
censors"takenote of the sons and youthsof richfamilies."79Throughout,
the authoritieswould require sufficientpower and authorityto coerce
recalcitrantpaupers and jail them if necessary.
Increasing the visibilityof the poor, and thus making it easier for
both the authoritiesand all the town's citizens to supervisethem, was
ultimatelyperfected by the compulsoryand visiblewearingof a badge.
In 1526 the Ypres magistrateissued a provisionthat made the wearing
of such a badge compulsory for the poor who had been begging for
more than a year and those paupers who led an unstable life, such as
drunkards and vagabonds.80The University of Leuven objected to
this obligation to the extent that it applied to the worthy poor,8"and
there was also popular unrest about the provision,82but the outcome
was merely that the secret poor were exempted from the provision.

Normalization
The actual assistance offered to the poor consisted of money, food,
clothes, and fuel, but the idea had already arisen that sound advice is
the alms of the soul and is often better than money and goods.83The
exhortations were aimed at various aspects of the lower orders' way
of life and were coupled with threats of punishment and restriction
of assistance.The guideline for this process of normalizationwas the
value system of the urban professional bourgeoisie: hard work, an
ordered domestic life, moderation in eating, drinking, and playing.
In many of the ordinances,tavernsand gamblingdens were regarded
as cesspools of ruin and the cause of moral impropriety.Charles V's
Placaetin 1531 forbade the poor "to converse in taverns,cabaretsand
so on; consent is only given that they might sometimes drink a pot of
beer for recreationwith their housewives,withoutbecoming drunk."84
In Bruges, the poor relief ordinancesprohibitedthe servingof alcohol
to the poor. Vives also disapproved sharply of taverns. Alms, argued
Vives, should not be given to gamblers,drunkards,and whore chasers:
he regarded that as equivalent to throwing oil on the fire.85This
removal of the poor from public life, says Fischer,led to their further
marginalization and stigmatization. Taverns and "gatherings"un-
doubtedly had negative aspects, but these places were also important
for the poor's self-respect and social integration.86
The pressures exerted on the poor were aimed at making them well
behaved and subservient. They were expected to be subdued, pious,
quiet, honest, obedient, and hard working and to bear their poverty
 J. L. Vives 15
patiently. The prime concern was for the poor to develop an orderly
household so that they did not live from hand to mouth and gave
some thought to the future. Boys and girls should be brought up to
follow a respectable lifestyle, to be thrifty, and to follow God's law.
They should learn to earn their keep and go through life honestly.87
In this way order and peace would be best assured. Vives believed
that the poor should not be attacked or addressed harshly, except
when they were vicious knaves who did not "obey." Those who lapsed
into poverty through "bad" habits, such as gambling and drinking,
should be helped, but in "penitence for their wicked lives." To make
an example of them they should be given simpler food and do heavier
and more work.88

Labor

The primary means of education was forced labor for the poor. The
moral virtue of labor was preached throughout the Middle Ages, and
the attitude toward voluntary poverty had gradually changed from
tolerance on religious grounds to social disapproval. But the town
authorities could only implement a compulsion to work when they
had the necessary means of coercion. The Ypres ordinances determined
that troublemakers and drunkards would receive no money for the
maintenance of their wives and children, but only bread, wood, and
so on. They would otherwise be persuaded with every means to start
working and bringing money into their home, under threat of pun-
ishment and loss of support.89
Various towns had already gone beyond insisting on a compulsion
to work and had created work for the poor,90 and Vives also recom-
mended this course of action, indicating precisely for each social category
what sort of work they should do. Referring to Saint Paul, Vives
pointed out what the Lord recommended as penance for our sins,
"that all should earn their bread and other necessities."91 This applied
to everyone except those weakened by disability, illness, or age. Those
who had no trade and were not too old could learn the trade they
preferred. Those who could or would not learn a trade, had to do
work "as no one can fail to learn in a few days": digging ditches,
drawing water, sweeping, pushing barrows, carrying loads, running
messages, and so on.92 They were to be put to work in businesses,
hospitals, or public works. The aged and invalids would get light tasks
"suited to their age and strength," and even the blind could blow the
blacksmith's bellows, learn to sing, or play the flute.93
The compulsion to work made it possible to respond to the demand
for labor power; as Vives pointed out, "the wool weavers of Armentikres
and, indeed, most manufacturers, are complaining of the scarcity of
hands."94 More generally, the labor market would be better regulated.
16 Social Service Review

Soly indicates that in certain periods assistance could be gradually

diminished or denied to certain categories. The introduction of sup-
plementary laborers could also prevent a rise in wages.95 These pos-
sibilities certainly applied to destitute, educated tradesmen who were
able to maintain their skills through the work-creation schemes. But
whether the beggars and the generation-to-generation paupers could
thus be transformed into a reserve army of labor is another question.
Perhaps their poor physical condition, due to permanent malnourish-
ment, and their mental outlook made that impossible.96 The best pros-
pects lay in educating the young poor to learn specific trade skills. In
Lyon, one of the founders of the auimoneginerale and the silk industry
took pupils out of poor relief to teach them how to make velour-a
training of 5 years duration that turned poor children into highly
trained workers.97 Later, the same would happen in Amsterdam.98
Besides all these economic functions, the compulsion to work was
above all a matter of Christian morality. Work was the fulfillment of
God's will and thus took on a holy character. It was a means of social
education in a general sense, to be valued "in order that the idle
thoughts and base desires that are born of idleness may be checked
by occupation and absorption in work."99 Vives wanted to bring the
most vicious into line with extra heavy work. He considered adapting
to work a great good, and in the spirit of his strict and disciplined
environment he saw working as something that should be part of
human nature. If the poor do not believe me, he said, then let them
inquire among those active in trade and industry and "those who feel
as though they are half dead when they are forced to be idle without
work or occupation" because "habit has virtually made work part of
their nature."100

Education

The framework of the reeducation of the poor also encompassed the

education and training of poor children, and Vives dedicated a whole
chapter of De subventionepauperum to the topic. He wanted to put
foundlings into a special home and "appointed women" would "act
as mothers," nurturing the children until they were six years old.1'0
Vives thought that poor children over the age of six should go to "the
public school" to learn obedience, good manners, reading and writing,
Christian piety, and "the right way of thinking."'02 The brighter and
more able boys should stay at school to become schoolteachers or
clergy. The others should learn the trade or skill they preferred. The
same applied to the girls. They should learn to read and also to spin,
weave, sew, embroider, and to perform all sorts of domestic skills such
as baking, washing, cooking, and household management, as well as
learning virtues such as modesty, chastity, courtesy, and thrift. Those
who were able would continue their education.
 J. L. Vives 17
Vives's plea for the introduction of compulsory education for poor
children, regarded by some as "unusually modern,"'03 was in fact
followed up by various town governments in the context of the new
poor policy. Charles V's Placaet in 1531 called for compulsory schooling
for the children of beggars."'4 In Ypres, this practice was introduced
early in the reorganization of poor relief. According to the ordinances,
children were to be sent to school or apprenticed privately.'05 But the
authorities quickly began to complain about the results. Despite large
sums of money being spent, many poor children were still on the
streets, begging and swearing. Many at age 14 or older did not know
the Lord's Prayer and had never gone to confession. This was why
the Ypres common chest decided to establish a school for boys in 1542
and for girls in 1550, to which was connected a boarding school for
30 boys and 30 girls. A strict regime was introduced in both the day
schools and the boarding school, which regulated precisely the children's
hours of rising and bedtimes, mealtimes, behavior, and duties.'06
Through help and education the authorities tried to adapt the poor
to a regular domestic life, regular employment, order and tidiness,
and discipline.

Structure and Conjuncture in Poor Relief

The introduction of the policing of the poor in Ypres was not an
isolated event. From the beginning of the sixteenth century it was a
structural phenomenon, for where merchant capitalism thrived, the
techniques of policing were introduced and further developed. There
were also conjunctural aspects to the story, particular waves of de-
velopments in the application of the techniques of policing and their
improvement or intensification. The economic and political devel-
opments in the course of the sixteenth century, in which the number
of the poor increased enormously and began to overrun the towns,
led to the near collapse of the system in the Netherlands and delayed
its introduction in other places.'07 Philip II's edict of 1556, in which
begging was allowed for those who had insufficient means of support,
signaled the system's temporary defeat.
Nevertheless, when economic and political conditions improved,
town authorities quickly returned to policing. In Leiden, where the
authorities had not dared to introduce the Ypres system in 1529, they
did so in a decisive manner in 1577, 3 years after the town's liberation
from the Spanish.8os Elsewhere, as in Amsterdam, the new metropolis
of merchant capitalism, the system was renewed and extended in 1596
with new institutions such as the workhouse. When great social crises
and changes arose in later periods, the techniques of policing were
again redesigned or improved, such as at the end of the eighteenth
century when pauperism had again attained plague proportions, or
at the end of the nineteenth century when the Netherlands first ex-
18 Social Service Review
perienced industrialization. The sixteenth-century structure of poor
relief maintained itself, at least in the Netherlands, until the 1950s,
when the technology used on "asocial families" was almost identical
to that described by Vives in 1526.109 It was a matter of making the
poor more useful and less politically dangerous with the help of tech-
niques of social administration- guidance, help, education.

Notes
A different and shorter treatment of the material discussed here appeared in H. C.
M. Michielse, "Secours van den aermen: Jan Lois Vives, de hervorming van de armenzorg
rond 1525 en de opkomst van een 'andragogische' technologie," Tijdschriftvoor Agologie
15, no. 5 (1986): 267-87.
1. Derek Fraser, The Evolution of the British WelfareState (London: Macmillan, 1973);
Pat Thane, Foundationsof the WelfareState(London: Longman, 1982); Kathleen Woodroofe,
From Charityto Social Work(London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1962).
2. Sidney Webb and Beatrice Webb, English Poor Law History (London, 1927), p. 36.
3. Ivy Pinchbeck and Margaret Hewitt, Children in English Society, 2 vols. (London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1969), 1:91-92.
4. Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward, Regulating the Poor: TheFunctionsof Public
Welfare(London: Tavistock, 1972), p. 11.
5. Otto Winckelmann, "Die Armenordnungen von Nuirnberg (1522), Kitzingen (1523),
Regensburg (1525) und Ypren (1525)," Archiv fiir Reformationsgeschichte10 (1913):
242-80; 11 (1914): 1-18; P. Bonefant, "Les origins et la caractbre de la reforme de la
bienfaisance publique aux Pays-Bas sous le regne de Charles-Quint," Revue Belge de
philologie et l'histoire5 (1926): 886-904.
6. Bonefant, p. 892; E R. Salter, ed., SomeEarly Tractson Poor Relief(London: Methuen,
1926), p. xx.
7. Bonefant, pp. 894-97.
8. Translator's note.-Some of the original Latin text has been translated into English
in Salter, ed. Where possible, Salter's translation has been used, but because the author
makes primary use of the Dutch translation, at other times the references will be to
Secours van den aermen (Antwerp, 1533) (hereafter referred to as Secours). Another
translation by Sister Alice Tobriner is found in A Sixteenth-CenturyUrban Report, ed.
faculty of the School of Social Service Administration (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1977), ser. 2, no. 6, published in conjunction with the Social ServiceReview.
9. Salter, ed., pp. 1-3.
10. Vives speaks "Of the Governors of the poor and their police," in Secours, folio
(fol.) 82(5). In a French discussion of the 1525 ordinance the Ypres town council calls
in "La police faicte et entretenue pour les pauvres et mendiens" (J. Nolf, La reforme
de la bienfaisancepublique a Ypresaux XVIe siucle [Gand, 1915], p. 124). In 1539, there
appeared in Lyon "la police de l'aum6ne."
11. Catharina Lis and Hugo Soly, Povertyand Capitalismin Pre-industrialEurope(Atlantic
Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press, 1979), p. 92. They also point out that the radical
reform of poor relief in the years 1522-45 took place in a total of 60 western European
towns (p. 87).
12. Michael Mollat, The Poor in the Middle Ages (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University
Press, 1968), pp. 45-49, 139-42, 272-78.
13. C. Ligtenberg, De armenzorgte Leidentothet eindeder 16e eeuw (The Hague: Nijhoff,
1908).
14. Thomas Fischer, StaidtischeArmut und Armenfiirsorgeim 15. und 16. Jahrhundert
(G6ttingen: Schwartz, 1979), p. 266; Winckelmann.
15. Mollat, pp. 100, 152-53. For the poor tables and the role of the authorities, see
M. J. Tits-Dieuaide, "Les tables des pauvres dans les anciennes principaut6s Belges au
moyen age," Tijdschriftvoor geschiedenis88, no. 4 (1975): 562-83, quote at 573.
16. Nolf, p. 24.
 J. L. Vives 19
17. Christoph SachBe and Florian Tennstedt, GeschichtederArmenfiirsorge in Deutschland
(Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1980), p. 37; Fischer, p. 178.
18. Norbert Elias, Powerand Civility:The CivilizingProcess,vol. 2 (New York: Pantheon,
1982).
19. Salter, ed. (n. 6 above), p. 6.
20. Ibid., p. 6.
21. Ibid., p. 9.
22. Ibid., p. 8.
23. Secours (n. 8 above), fol. 75r.
24. Ibid., fol. 85r.
25. These ideas led the good Vives-who, like Erasmus, despite all his criticisms,
remained true to the Catholic church-to be accused of heresy in 1564. When Bruges
introduced a new system of poor relief, the Spanish monk Lorenco de Villavicensio
defended the traditional concept of almsgiving and accused Vives of being the pernicious
influence behind the Bruges system (M. Bataillon, "J. L. Vives, reformateur de la
bienfaisance," Bibliothequed'humanismeet renaissance 14 [1952]: 141-58, at 151).
26. Lis and Soly (n. 11 above), p. 88; Fischer (n. 14 above), p. 262; SachBe and
Tennstedt, p. 32; J. P. Gutton, La socie'te'et les pauvres (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1971),
p. 263.
27. Nolf (n. 10 above), pp. 21-23.
28. Ibid., p. 22.
29. Ibid., p. 20.
30. SachBe and Tennstedt (n. 17 above), p. 33; Gutton, p. 275.
31. Mollat (n. 12 above), p. 119.
32. Brian Tierney, "The Decretists and the 'Deserving Poor,' " ComparativeStudiesin
Societyand History 1 (1958-59): 360-71.
33. Sachfe and Tennstedt, p. 36.
34. Mollat, p. 255.
35. Secours (n. 8 above), fol. 14v.
36. Ibid., fol. 48r.
37. Ibid., fol. 56r.
38. Ibid., fol. 17r-23r.
39. Ibid., fol. 20r and 20v.
40. Ibid., fol. 75r. For the complaints of employers, see also Bonefant (n. 5 above),
p. 899.
41. Secours, fol. 21v.
42. Ibid., fol. 66r.
43. Ibid., fol. 22v.
44. Ibid., fol. 22r.
45. Ibid., fol. 88v.
46. Franz Ehrle, Beitriigezur Geschichte
und ReformderArmenpflege(Freiburg im Breisgau:
Stimmen aus Maria Laach, 1881); Winckelmann (n. 5 above); Nolf (n. 10 above); Fischer
(n. 14 above), p. 162. Soly has already argued that the latter question can only be
answered once the dynamic interaction between the various determinant variables has
been examined, and that has not yet been done ("Economische ontwikkeling en social
politick in Europa tijdens de overgang van middleeuven naar nieuwe tijden," Tijdschrift
voor Geschiedenis88, no. 4 [1975]: 584-97). Lis and Soly (n. 11 above) go on to conclude
that the economic variable was decisive.
47. H. Pirenne, Histoirede Belgique (Brussels: Henri Lamertin, 1927), 3:290; Bonefant
(n. 5 above); Bataillon (n. 25 above); Nolf (n. 10 above), p. xix, xxv.
48. AlgemeneGeschiedenisder Nederlanden (Haarlem: Fibula Van Dishoeck, 1979), pt.
6, p. 27.
49. Ligtenberg (n. 13 above); Nolf, p. xix.
50. P. N. M. Bot, Humanisme en onderwijsin Nederland (Utrecht and Antwerp: Het
Spectrum, 1955), p. 19.
51. Ibid., p. 17.
52. H. C. M. Michielse, "De katechismus van de zestiende eeuw-opvoeding tot
gelovige vroomheid of strijdmiddel der confessies," Dux 31 (1964): 426-34.
53. Nolf, p. xix.
20 Social Service Review
54. J. Huizinga, Erasmus (Haarlem: H. D. Tjeenk Willink, 1958), p. 238.
55. Nolf, p. xix.
56. Friedrich Heer, Die dritteKraft-der europaiischeHumanismuszwischenden Fronten
des KonfessionellenZeitalters(Frankfurt: Fischer, 1960); see also H. A. Enno van Gelder,
The Two Reformationsin the SixteenthCentury(The Hague: Nijhoff, 1964).
57. A. Guy, Vives ou l'humanismeengagi (Paris: Seghers, 1972), p. 9; for a discussion
of Vive's dislike of argument and disagreement for its own sake, see Carlos G. Horena,
Juan Luis Vives (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1970), pp. 189-90.
58. Desiderius Erasmus, Colloquia, in H. Scherpner, Thdorieder Fiirsorge (G6ttingen:
Vandenhoeck en Ruprecht, 1962).
59. Thomas More, Utopia, in Bataillon (n. 25 above), p. 148.
60. E. Kuttner, Het hongerjaar 1566 (Amsterdam: Querido, 1964), p. 112.
61. In Gutton (n. 26 above), p. 246.
62. Bataillon (n. 25 above), pp. 142, 149.
63. Ibid., p. 147.
64. Ibid.
65. R. H. Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism(1926; reprint, London: John
Murray, 1960), p. 114; Natalie Zemon Davis, "Poor Relief, Humanism, and Heresy,"
in Societyand Culturein Early Modern France (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press,
1965).
66. For the role of the Catholics, see Gutton, p. 376; and Brian Pullan, Rich and Poor
in Renaissance Venice:The Social Institutionsof a CatholicState, to 1620 (Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1971).
67. Ligtenberg (n. 13 above), p. 300.
68. Quoted in Kuttner, p. 59.
69. Nolf (n. 10 above), p. 25.
70. Mollat (n. 12 above), p. 289.
71. Nolf, pp. 197-206.
72. Marguerite Yourcenar, L'ouvreau noir (Paris: Gallimard, 1968).
73. Mollat, pp. 131-32.
74. Ligtenberg, p. 209.
75. These distinctions are based on Fischer (n. 14 above), pp. 119 and 179.
76. Nolf, p. 21.
77. Salter, ed. (n. 6 above), p. 11.
78. Ibid., pp. 11-12.
79. Ibid., p. 20.
80. Ibid., pp. 26-27.
81. J. Everts, De verhoudingvan kerken staat in het bijzonderten aanziender armenverzorging
(Utrecht: P. Den Boer, 1908), p. 19.
82. Letter to the council, in Nolf (n. 10 above), p. 164.
83. Secours (n. 8 above), fol. 63v.
84. Quoted in J. de Bosch Kemper, "Overzicht der letterkunde omtrent het Ar-
menwezen in de 16eeeuw," in NederlandseJaarboekenvoor Rechtsgeleerheid12 (1850): 32.
85. Secours, fols. 21v and 61r.
86. Fischer (n. 14 above), p. 244.
87. Secours, fol. 81r.
88. Ibid., fol. 75r.
89. Nolf (n. 10 above), p. 22.
90. Mollat (n. 12 above), p. 291.
91. Salter, ed. (n. 6 above), p. 12.
92. Ibid., p. 13.
93. Ibid., p. 15.
94. Ibid., p. 13.
95. Soly (n. 46 above), p. 592.
96. Fischer (n. 14 above), p. 253.
97. Gutton (n. 26 above), p. 277.
98. H. F. J. M. van den Eerenbeemt, Armoedeen Arbeidsdwang(The Hague: Nijhoff,
1977), p. 132.
99. Salter, ed., p. 16.
 J. L. Vives 21
100. Secours (n. 8 above), fol. 25r.
101. In Lyon the a imone generale established a separate home for foundlings with
its own schoolmaster.
102. Salter, ed., p. 18.
103. H. F. M. Peeters, Kind en jeugdige in het begin van de modernetijd, ca. 1500-ca.
1650 (Amsterdam: Boom, 1975), pp. 130-31; Horena ([n. 57 above], p. 184) also
describes Vives's approach to education as "amazingly modern."
104. Bonefant (n. 5 above), p. 888.
105. Nolf (n. 10 above), p. 24.
106. "Minutes of the Resolutions on Pauper Schools, 1541-1549," in ibid., pp.
168-84.
107. Ligtenberg (n. 13 above); Nolf, p. lxv.
108. Ligtenberg, pp. 16 and 299.
109. H. C. M. Michielse, Welzijnen discipline:Van tuchthuistotpsychotherapie:Strategieen
en technologieenin het sociaal beheer(Amsterdam: Boom Meppel, 1989), pp. 134-35; A.
Dercksen and L. Verplancke, Geschiedenis van de onmaatschappelijkheidsbestrijding
in Nederland,
1914-1970 (Amsterdam: Boom Meppel, 1987).