Escape from the great confinement: The genealogy of a German workhouse

Journal of Modern History

Volumn 71, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 308-345

  Harrington, Joel F ^a  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33750175908     PISSN: 00222801     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/235249     Document Type: Article

References (198)

1. Stadtarchiv Nürnberg (hereafter StAN) D1/544. The proposals and resulting ordinance are discussed at greater length in Joel F. Harrington, "'Singing for His Supper': The Reinvention of Juvenile Streetsinging in Early Modern Nuremberg," Social History 22, no. 1 (January 1997): 33-35.
2. "Nemblichen dz ein E. Rhatt ein besonderen orth (der dafurglich nicht, als ein Siechhaus könnte erbessert werden) verordnen, und darin ein fleissigen Man (der den under den Almusdienern möcht erwehlett werden) setzen, Ihme neben dem ordinario salario auss dem Almussen, und dem freiensitz, noch 50 fl. jährlich besoldtung vermachen, daneben auch mit nottwendigen holtz versehen, und Ihme ein ordnung furshreiben liess, wie und welcher gstaltt er die verhafften petler und kinder mit essen halten, und des Ihme fur dzselb gegeben werden soltt, ferner solten auch die gemächer, damit die verhafften nicht ausbrechen, od. Sunstn shaden zufurgen könte verwahrett, und undershidenlich fur mans und weibspersonen gemacht werden . . . die streuener und starcken petler aber, solten an ein ort eingespertt, und Ihm arbeit und die handt gegeben od. in spring zur arbeit eingeshlagen od. da solches nicht helf. wolte, dem hencker ubergeb. werd. Hierdurch wurde vehefentlich dz Peteln abgeshindt werdn, sondlich bey den gewachsen Person von Mans und Weibspersonen, da aber die Petelweiber nicht ablass. solten muste man Ihm zuspinnen od. ande arbeit und geben." StAN D1/544. The thirty-three-year-old Koler was unique among the panelists in the severity of his solutions, describing the begging of male foreigners in Foucauldian terms of contagion and proposing public works or galley sentences for "wild" boys.
3. My main points of reference here will be Foucault's Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans. Alan Sheridan (original 1975; New York, 1979),
4. and the earlier Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason (original 1961; New York, 1965),
5. though the interested reader is also referred to Foucault's influential American presentation in Hubert L. Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow, Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, 2d ed. (Chicago, 1983), esp. pp. 143-67;
6. also G. Burchell, G. Gordon, and P. Miller, The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality (Chicago, 1991).
7. For various refutations of Foucault's arguments on the workhouse and the Great Confinement in general, see Pieter Spierenburg, The Prison Experience: Disciplinary Institutions and Their Inmates in Early Modern Europe (New Brunswick, N.J., and London, 1991), pp. 1 ff.
8. On the general scholarly resistance to Foucault's interdisciplinary theories and methods in Germany, see Martin Dinges, "The Reception of Michel Foucault's Ideas on Social Discipline, Mental Asylums, Hospitals, and the Medical Profession in German Historiography," in Reassessing Foucault: Power, Medicine, and the Body, ed. Colin Jones and Roy Porter (London and New York, 1994), pp. 183-212.
9. The methodological and epistemological differences between philosophy and history have long been cited as the source for historians' disagreements with Foucault's interpretations. In a recent article, Gérard Noiriel summarizes how historians and philosophers have become "unwitting prisoners of their respective disciplinary traditions." To appreciate and not misunderstand Foucault, historians must recognize, he argues, that philosophy assigns itself "the role of supreme arbiter in the dispute over truth and falsehood," and that it is concerned with the exercise of historical thinking rather than with objects or products or institutions. Gérard Noiriel, "Foucault and History: The Lessons of a Disillusion," Journal of Modern History 66, no. 3 (September 1994): 547-68 (here p. 554).
10. See especially the persuasive arguments of Margaret DeLacy (Prison Reform in Lancashire, 1700-1850: A Study in Local Administration [Stanford, Calif., 1986], pp. 6 ff.), providing a devastating rebuttal to those who have assumed "that a united elite was acting with a clearly defined motive, the maintenance of domination, and have failed to appreciate both the multiplicity of intentions and the fact that many actual changes had not been intended at all" (p. 227).
11. The more recent work of Sandra Cavallo (particularly, "The Motivations of Benefactors: An Overview of Approaches to the Study of Charity," in Medicine and Charity before the Welfare State, ed. Jonathan Barry and Colin Jones [London, 1991], pp. 46-62) is also instructive on the motives and dynamics of so-called social elites.
12. Gareth Stedman Jones, "The Determinist Fix: Some Obstacles to the Further Development of the Linguistic Approach to History in the 1990s," History Workshop Journal 42 (Autumn 1996): 19-35, at p. 21.
13. Jones writes that Foucault's historical method "remained parasitic upon Marxism, while at the same time stridently declaring its difference from it" (p. 25), and that Foucault himself "both denied telling stories and nonetheless continued to tell them" (p. 24). For a more detailed criticism of this "crude functionalist notion of social control," see Jones's book, Languages of Class (Cambridge, 1982), esp. pp. 76-90.
14. Colin Jones, who notes the particular susceptibility of the history of poor relief to teleology ("Some Recent Trends in the History of Charity," in Charity, Self-Interest and Welfare in the English Past, ed. Martin Daunton [London, 1996], pp. 51 ff.), remains nonetheless more optimistic about the supposed demise of the modernist narrative than I do.
15. In a recent study of the Augsburg orphanage, for instance, Thomas Safley firmly rejects the Great Confinement model and astutely notes the continuing scholarly fixation on motive in early modern poor relief rather than behavior (Charity and Economy in the Orphanages of Early Modern Augsburg [Atlantic Highlands, N.J., 1997], p. 10) .
16. Disappointingly, though, he first professes ignorance as to the causes of expanded state intervention and then goes on to offer still another motive - capitalist efficiency - for the emergence of such new institutions, thus maintaining a neo-Weberian narrative of ideological rationalization among the political elite. Another worthwhile study, Sherrill Cohen, The Evolution of Women's Asylums since 1500: From Refuges for Ex-Prostitutes to Shelters for Battered Women (Oxford, 1992), is even more modest in its revision of the same narrative, adding needed gender and chronological dimensions but otherwise remaining mute on the causation behind such early modern institutions for the poor.
17. During the seventeenth century, sixty-three Protestant workhouses opened in the empire versus only six Catholic institutions, all of the latter during the last third of the century. The apparently striking confessional distinction has led many scholars to the same conclusion reached by Alfred Müller-Armack: "Nur im Calvinismus konnten Strafe und Armenpflege, Ethik und Wirtschaft so ineinandergehen, dass ihre symbolische Vereinigung in einer Institution möglich wurde" (Genealogie der Wirtschaftsstile: Die geistesgeschichtlichen Ursprünge des Staats- und Wirtschaftsformen bis zum Ausgang des 18. Jahrhunderts, 3d ed. [Stuttgart, 1944], p. 243).
18. Compare the similar presumption regarding the Nuremberg workhouse in Marlene Sothman, Das Armen-, Arbeits-, Zucht-, und Werkhaus in Nürnberg bis 1806 (Nuremberg, 1970), p. 63 ;
19. also Hellmuth von Weber, "Die Entwicklung des Zuchthauswesens in Deutschland im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert," in Festschrift für Adolf Zycha zum 70. Geburtstag (Weimar, 1941), pp. 440, 454;
20. Spierenburg, Prison Experience, p. 28.
21. For the best and most up-to-date bibliographies on German discipline- and workhouses, see Ulrich Eisenbach, Zuchthäuser, Armenanstalten und Waisenhäuser in Nassau: Fürsorgewesen und Arbeitserziehung vom 17. bis zum Beginn des 19. Jahrhunderts (Wiesbaden, 1994), pp. 282-94;
22. and Norbert Finzsch and Robert Jütte, eds., The Prerogative of Confinement: Social, Cultural and Administrative Aspects of the History of Hospitals and Carceral Institutions in Western Europe and North America, 1500-1900 (Cambridge, 1997).
23. Robert von Hippel, "Beiträge zur Geschichte der Freiheitsstrafe," Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 18 (1898): 419-94, 608-66;
24. Wilhelm Traphagen, Die ersten Arbeitshäuser und ihre pädagogische Funktion (Berlin, 1935);
25. von Weber, Die ersten Arbeitshäuser und ihre pädagogische Funktion pp. 427-68;
26. Gustav Radbruch, "Die ersten Zuchthäuser und ihr geistegeschichtlicher Hintergrund," in Radbruch, Elegantiae Juris Criminalis: Vierzehn Studien zur Geschichte des Strafrechts, 2d ed. (Basel, 1950), pp. 116-29, esp. 125 ff.;
27. and a generalized version of the same argument in Gerhard Oestreich, Neostoicism and the Early Modern State (Cambridge, 1982).
28. Helga Eichler, "Zucht- und Arbeitshäuser in den mittleren und östlichen Provincen Brandenburg-Preussens; Ihr Anteil an der Vorbereitung des Kapitalismus: Eine Untersuchung für die Zeit vom Ende des 17. bis zum Ausgang des 18. Jahrhunderts," in Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftsgeschichte (1970): 1:127-47.
29. This argument, based entirely on secondary literature, has found little support in archival studies. See also the influential Marxist interpretation of Fabriksklaverei in Max Adler, Fabrik und Zuchthaus: Eine sozialhistorische Untersuchung (Leipzig and Oldenburg, 1925), esp. pp. 23 ff.;
30. and later versions of the mercantilist interpretation in Catharina Lis and Hugo Soly, Poverty and Capitalism in Pre-industrial Europe (Sussex, 1979),
31. and Christoph Sachsse and Florian Tennstedt, Geschichte der Armenfürsorge in Deutschland: Vom Spätmittelalter bis zum Ersten Weltkrieg, 2 vols. (Stuttgart, 1980), 1:85 ff.
32. See especially two later adaptations of Weber's rationalization (or modernization) model: Hubert Treiber and Heinz Steinert, Die Fabrikation des zuverlässigen Menschen: Über die "Wahlverwandtschaft" von Kloster- und Fabrikdisziplin (Munich, 1980);
33. Dario Melossi and Massimo Pavarini, The Prison and the Factory: Origins of the Penitentiary System (London, 1981).
34. The confessional distinction, for instance, in early modern charity and poor relief has been effectively discredited at least since the work of Brian Pullan (Rich and Poor in Renaissance Venice [Cambridge, Mass., 1971])
35. and Natalie Davis ("Poor Relief, Humanism and Heresy: The Case of Lyon," Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History 5 [1968]: 217-75).
36. See a similar proviso against overestimating the value of a "Protestant ethic" in the formation of the workhouse: Hannes Stekl, "'Labore et fame' - Sozialdisziplinierung in Zucht- und Arbeitshäusern des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts," in Soziale Sicherheit und soziale Disziplinierung, ed. Christoph Sachsse and Florian Tennstedt (Frankfurt, 1986), p. 119.
37. Stekl even proposes an opposite "Säkularisierungsprozess" as more appropriate and significant for the same phenomenon. Spierenburg (Prison Experience [n. 3 above], pp. 28-29) agrees that Protestant or other religious motives had at best a secondary influence on the decision to open a workhouse.
38. See the criticisms of Spierenburg, Prison Experience (n. 3 above), pp. 117-23, and his conclusion that "the history of convict rasping definitely proves that the spread of prisons had nothing to do with the promotion of a capitalistic system of production," particularly in the Reformed Dutch Republic (p. 134);
39. also Sachsse and Tennstedt, Geschichte der Armenfürsorge in Deutschland, 1:93 ff., 117, on the relatively small number of workhouses in the empire and their common need for constant subsidizing.
40. Compare the discussion in W. Schulze, "G. Oestreichs Begriff 'Sozialdisziplinierung in der Frühen Neuzeit'" (Zeitschrift für Historische Forschung 14 [1987]: 265-302), on the distinction between Sozialregulierung (harmony) and Sozialdisziplinierung (hierarchical Herrschaft) comparable to the Rationalisierung of Weber and Civilizierung of Elias.
41. See also Martin Dinges, "Frühneuzeitliche Armenfürsorge als Sozialdisziplinierung? Probleme mit einem Konzept," Geschichte und Gesellschaft 17 (1991): 5-29;
42. also Stefan Breuer, "Sozialdisziplinierung: Probleme und Problemverlagerungen eines Konzepts bei Max Weber, Gerhard Oestreich und Michel Foucault," in Christoph Sachsse and Florian Tennstedt, eds., Soziale Sicherheit und soziale Disziplinierung (Frankfurt, 1986), pp. 45-69.
43. For a better understanding of the background to this issue, see especially the now dated theories of the constitutional historian Gerhard Oestreich, Neostoicism and the Early Modern State (n. 9 above),
44. and Robert Muchembled, Popular Culture and Elite Culture in France, 1400-1750 (Baton Rouge, La., 1985),
45. both of which emphasize political dimensions of the high and low cultural gap proposed by sociologist Norbert Elias, in The Civilizing Process (New York, 1978).
46. See also the recent historiographical surveys: R. Po-Chia Hsia, Social Discipline in the Reformation: Central Europe, 1550-1750 (London, 1989),
47. and Heinrich Richard Schmidt, Konfessionalisierung in der Frühen Neuzeit (Munich, 1993).
48. The best and most recent treatments of the economic and social crises of seventeenth-century German lands are John Theibault, German Villages in Crisis: Rural Life in Hesse Kassel and the Thirty Years' War, 1580-1720 (Atlantic Highlands, N.J., 1995),
49. and the overview, Sheilagh C. Ogil vie, "Historiographical Review: Germany and the Seventeenth Century Crisis," Historical Journal 35 (1992): 417-41.
50. "Unsere heute wichtigste Strafe, die Freiheitsstrafe, basiert geschichtlich auf dem Besserungszweck [of the discipline- and workhouse]," von Hippel (n. 9 above), p. 661.
51. Hannes Stekl, Österreichs Zucht- und Arbeitshäuser, 1671-1920: Institutionen zwischen Fürsorge und Strafvollzug (Munich, 1978), argues that the multipurpose function of many workhouses was one of the main reasons such institutions were neither solvent nor successful.
52. See especially the early and distinctly non-Foucauldian argument of Erich Maschke, "Die Unterschichten der mittelalterlichen Städte Deutschlands," in Gesellschaftliche Unterschichten in den südwestdeutschen Städten, ed. E. Maschke and J. Sydow (Stuttgart, 1967), stressing the "öffentliche Gewalt" of all magisterial poor relief. For a persuasive refutation of poor relief as social control,
53. see the arguments of Dinges, "Frühneuzeitliche Armenfürsorge" (n. 14 above), pp. 5-6, and the example of poor relief in Bordeaux (pp. 10 ff.)
54. See the pioneering and still controversial Ferdinand Tönnies, Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft (Leipzig, 1887),
55. as well as Werner Danckert, Unehrliche Leute: Die verfemten Berufe (Bern, 1963), esp. pp. 9-12, on the legal distinctions by the late middle ages among Unehrlichkeit, Echtlosigkeit, and Rechtlosigkeit.
56. Von Hippel (n. 9 above), pp. 419 ff.; and cf. von Weber (n. 9 above), p. 437: "Das Zuchthaus ist kein Strafmittel, Vielmehr wird es als censura, auch als disciplina et censura angesprochen." Eisenbach ([n. 8 above], pp. 27-28) also emphasizes the poor-relief context.
57. Sachse and Tennstedt, Geschichte der Armenfürsorge;
58. Thomas Fischer, Städtische Armut und Armenfürsorge im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert: Sozialgeschichtliche Untersuchungen am Beispiel der Städte Basel, Freiburg i. Br., und Strassburg (Göttingen, 1979);
59. Werner Moritz, Die bürgerlichen Fürsorgeanstalten der Reichsstadt Frankfurt am Main im späten Mittelalter (Frankfurt am Main, 1981);
60. Robert Jütte, Obrigkeitlichen Armenfürsorge in deutschen Reichsstädten der frühen Neuzeit: Städtisches Armenwesen in Frankfurt am Main und Köln (Cologne, 1984).
61. Some colleagues have pointed out to me similarities between this argument and the Robinson-Gallagher theory of British imperial expansionism during the nineteenth century. While I acknowledge a resemblance - particularly in our common emphasis on peripheral administrative (rather than ideological) shaping of policy as well as reactive formalization of enforcement - I hesitate to venture into the rich and complex scholarship on this subject. The interested reader is referred to a recent summary of the debate over the past thirty years in the introduction of P. J. Cain and A. G. Hopkins, British Imperialism, vol. 1, Innovation and Expansion (1685-1914) (London and New York, 1993).
62. Compare Max Weber, Economy and Society (trans. and ed. G. Roth and C. Wittich, 2 vols. [New York, 1968], 1:225 ff. and 2:956-58) on the "spirit" and methods of bureaucratic expansion.
63. For modern examples of bureaucratic oligarchies and what sociologists call "goal displacement," see the classic studies of Philip Selznick, TVA and the Grass Roots: A Study in the Sociology of Formal Organization (Berkeley, Calif., 1949; republished New York, 1966),
64. and Robert Michels, Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy, trans. Eden and Cedar Paul (New York, 1959).
65. My use of "policy feedback" in this article is somewhat different from that of some political scientists and sociologists. An influential collection of essays by such scholars, for instance, emphasizes the influence of policy on bureaucracy and social conflicts: "Once instituted, social policies in turn reshape the origin of the state itself and affect the goals and alliances of social groups involved in ongoing political struggles" (Margaret Weir, Ann Shola, and Theda Skocpol, "Introduction: Understanding American Social Politics," in The Politics of Social Policy in the United States, ed. Margaret Weir et al. [Princeton, N.J., 1988], p. 25). I wish to stress the other side of this dynamic relationship, that is, the influence of bureaucratic procedures and social conflicts on the evolution of social policy. Here I believe I differ from the path-breaking work of DeLacy (n. 5 above), which stresses the importance of changes at the level of implementation but does not consider the resulting impact on the policies themselves.
66. Among the many works on medieval and early modern poverty, the best introductions are probably Michel Mollat, The Poor in the Middle Ages: An Essay in Social History, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (New Haven, Conn., 1986),
67. and Robert Jütte, Poverty and Deviance in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge, 1994).
68. Jütte also points out that Sozialregulierung was first necessary in places where many people crowded into small spaces ("Disziplinierungsmechanismen in der städtischen Armenfürsorge," in Sachsse and Tennstedt, eds., Soziale Sicherheit [n. 12 above], pp. 102 ff.).
69. Kathi Friedman, for instance, places the Weberian shift from patrimonial regulations and petitioning subjects to bureaucratic states and entitlements in the early seventeenth century, as do Foucault and Oestreich. Robert Jütte and Werner Buchholz, on the other hand, have argued that this kind of governmental intervention - which they label Sozialregulierung or Sozialdisziplinierung - demonstrates that all three grand theses can be pushed back to the late middle ages in German cities such as Nuremberg. Kathi V. Friedman, Legitimation of Social Rights and the Western Welfare State: A Weberian Perspective (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1981), pp. 6-8;
70. Robert Jütte, "Disziplinierungsmechanismen in der städtischen Armenfürsorge der Frühneuzeit," pp. 101-2;
71. Werner Buchholz, "Anfänge der Sozialdisziplinierung im Mittelalter: Die Reichsstadt Nürnberg als Beispiel," Zeitschrift für Historische Forschung 18 (1991): 129-47.
72. Two useful introductions to Nuremberg during this period are Gerald Strauss, Nuremberg in the Sixteenth Century (New York, 1966),
73. and Gerhard Pfeiffer, ed., Nürnberg - Geschichte einer europäischen Stadt (Munich, 1971).
74. For the text of the 1370 ordinance, see Willi Rüger, Mittelalterliches Almosenwesen: Die Almosenordnungen der Reichsstadt Nürnberg (Nuremberg, 1932), pp. 68-70. The town council had begun to assume authority in this area since the beginning of the fourteenth century (p. 7).
75. On the verschämte poor and their special status, see especially Bronislaw Geremek, Poverty: A History, trans. A. Kolakowska (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 39 ff.
76. On differentiations among the poor in this period, see also Bernd-Ulrich Hergemöller, ed., Randgruppen der spätmittelalterlichen Gesellschaft (Warendorf, 1990);
77. Valentin Groebner, Ökonomie ohne Haus: Zum Wirtschaften armer Leute in Nürnberg am Ende des 15. Jahrhunderts (Göttingen, 1993);
78. and Bernd Roeck, Eine Stadt in Krieg und Frieden: Studien zur Geschichte der Reichsstadt Augsburg zwischen Kalenderstreit und Parität (Göttingen, 1989), chap. 7.
79. Outsiders to the Gemeinschaft comprised four overlapping groups: vagrant professionals (mercenaries, entertainers, tinkers, knife-grinders, peddlers, etc.), dishonorable professionals (butchers, tanners, executioners, prostitutes; also Jews and Gypsies), criminal professionals, and poor foreigners in general. See Richard Evans, "Introduction," in The German Underworld: Deviants and Outcasts in German History, ed. Richard Evans (London, 1988), p. 2.
80. See also Danckert (n. 19 above), pp. 208-23. Foreign beggars were permitted to make three three-day visits to the city per year, a privilege repeated in the last ordinance (1518) before total abolition in Nuremberg (Rüger, Mittelalterliches Almosenwesen, p. 34).
81. Quoted in Rüger, Mittelalterliches Almosenwesen, p. 33.
82. See Jütte, Poverty and Deviance (pp. 100-142, esp. pp. 101 ff.) on the importance of bureaucratic rationalization and centralization in most early modern states.
83. In Nuremberg, the council had already assumed control of all ecclesiastical administration within the city by 1483 (Ingomar Bog, "Über Arme und Armenfürsorge in Oberdeutschland und in der Eidgenossenschaft im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert," Jahrbuch für fränkische Landesforschung 34/35 [1974/75]: 984). Two of the hospices (Siechköbel) remained independent of the city council: St. Johannes and St. Peter.
84. Ingomar Bog claims that there was no significant rise in the number of Nuremberg's poor until later in the sixteenth century (Ingomar Bog, "Jahrbuch für fränkische Landesforschung ibid., pp. 990, 991).
85. The French situation is described in similar terms in L'histoire des hôpitaux en France, ed. Jean Imbert (Toulouse, 1982),
86. and Steven Kaplan, "Réflexions sur la Police du Monde du travail, 1700-1815," Revue Historique 261, no. 1 (1979): 17-77.
87. Among the charitable foundations now under the direct administration of the city council were all cloisters and parish churches; the city's four Siechköbel (founded in 1234, 1308, 1317, and 1357, respectively); Konrad Groß's Stiftung for twelve poor students annually (founded 1331); the Heilig-Geist hospital (founded 1339); two pilgrim hospitals (founded in 1360); the Reichen Almosen for citizens with two or more children (founded 1388); the municipal Foundling House (founded ca. 1388); the Almosen für Sondersiechen (since at least 1394); the Jungfernalmosen for poor brides (founded 1427); the Grossen Almosen for shame-faced citizens (founded 1485); the Kindtbetterinnen Almosen for needy pregnant women (founded 1495). See StAN D1/123; Rüger, Mittelalterliches Almosenwesen, pp. 26-29;
88. Emil Reicke, Geschichte der Reichsstadt Nürnberg (Nuremberg, 1896; reprinted., Neustadt an der Aisch, 1983), pp. 620-21;
89. Rudolf Endres, "Armenstiftungen und Armenschulen in Nürnberg in der Frühenneuzeit," Jahrbuch für fränkische Landesforschung 53 (1992): 1.
90. The text of the 1522 ordinance is in Rüger, Mittelalterliches Almosenwesen, pp. 76 ff.
91. Compare branding of a "V" (for vagrant) and "R" (for rogue) in the vagrancy statutes of Ed ward V and James I, respectively, with the relatively milder flogging and banishment of Charles V's 1530 imperial decree and the more elaborate version of the same for the Netherlands on October 6, 1531 (Geremek [n. 30 above], pp. 143-46). Similar disfigurements were common, though, elsewhere in France and parts of the empire (Jütte, Poverty and Deviance, p. 164).
92. The four Siechköbel were located on each of the four main roads leading into the city, at a distance of fifteen to thirty minutes from the walls. The oldest, St. Johannes, dated back at least to 1234; the others were in operation by the early fourteenth century. A fifth hospice, St. Sebastian's, was erected in 1490 for victims of the plague, also outside the city walls. Ludwig Eisen, Christliche Liebestätigkeit im alten Nürnberg (Nuremberg, 1938), pp. 45-47, 52;
93. Rüger, Mittelalterliches Almosenwesen, p. 23.
94. Rüger, Mittelalterliches Almosenwesen, pp. 24-25;
95. Eisen, Mittelalterliches Almosenwesen, pp. 40-45;
96. also M. Pfister-Burkhalter, "Das Gastmahl der Sondersiechen zu Nürnberg," Ciba Zeitschrift Basel 4 (1936/37): 1453. I am indebted to Robert Jütte for this last reference.
97. See especially the significance of disciplina and castigatio for Vives, More, Campanella, Bodin, Lipsius, and Tolosano, all discussed in von Weber (n. 8 above), pp. 431-39. See also the humanist description of work as humans' "Zweite Natur," in Stekl (n. 12 above), pp. 125 ff.; also Traphagen (n. 9 above), passim.
98. See Spierenburg, Prison Experience (pp. 23 ff.), on the English Bridewell prisons (also pp. 265-66), and von Weber ([n. 8 above], p. 439) on the Calvinist consistory.
99. This apparently common phenomenon certainly lends support to my subsequent arguments of bureaucratic momentum making use of resources (especially buildings) as they become available. It also illustrates the primary poor relief and pedagogical context of early discipline-houses (including the first, in Amsterdam's old Clarissa cloister). Von Hippel (n. 9 above), pp. 653-54; Stekl (n. 12above), pp. 120, 123. For an extensive argument on monastic discipline as the model for all modern factories and prisons, see Treiber and Steinert (n. 11 above). Foucault predictably emphasizes the conversion of some lepertoria into new institutions of containment (Madness and Civilization, pp. 3-7).
100. The oft-repeated goal was stated most succinctly in Hamburg's workhouse ordinance: "vor allen Dingen zu wahrer Gottesfurcht, in guter Disziplin und stets Arbeit gehalten werden" (von Hippel [n. 9 above], p. 636). See also Spierenburg, Prison Experience, pp. 47, 109-10;
101. and von Hippel, Prison Experience, pp. 444, 451, 636.
102. The first two articles of the much-imitated Amsterdam workhouse ordinance deal with religious services for inmates and readings of "something useful." The "mother" and "father" of the same house were referred to as those "qui omnium diligentem curam gerunt." For these examples and a similar emphasis on prayer and "Seelsorge" in the discipline- and workhouses of Bremen, Danzig, and Hamburg, see von Hippel (n. 9 above), pp. 462, 474, 612, 636-37, 643-46; von Weber (n. 9 above), pp. 429, 462 ff.; and Pieter Spierenburg, "The Body and the State: Early Modern Europe," in The Oxford History of the Prison: The Practice of Punishment in Western Society, ed. Norval Morris and David J. Rothman (New York and Oxford, 1995), pp. 68-72. The concept of the ganzes Haus, or self-sufficient household unit, was apparently operative among many other early modern institutions, particularly hospitals and orphanages.
103. See Otto Brunner, "Das 'Ganze Haus' und die alteuropäische Ökonomik," in Neue Wege der Sozialgeschichte, ed. O. Brunner (Göttingen, 1968), pp. 33-61.
104. Spierenburg, Prison Experience, pp. 57, 70. See specifically the examples of Bremen and Lübeck (von Hippel [n. 9 above], pp. 615, 625).
105. Request of Burgomasters (March 17, 1588). See Spierenburg (Prison Experience, pp. 41-49) on the 1588 case of thieving cloth apprentice Evert Jans and the origins of the Amsterdam men's house;
106. also von Hippel, Prison Experience, pp. 437-72,
107. and von Weber, Prison Experience, pp. 428-29.
108. Following the opening of discipline-houses in Amsterdam in 1595-96 and Leiden in 1598, the institution spread outside the Netherlands to Bremen in 1608/13, Lübeck in 1613, Hamburg in 1622, and Danzig in 1629 (Eisenbach [n. 8 above], p. 18).
109. See my article "'Singing for His Supper'" (n. 1 above), pp. 27-45.
110. 1522 Almosenordnung, in Rüger, Mittelalterliches Almosenwesen, pp. 78, 82-83; also mandate of December 3, 1566 (StAN D1/543).
111. Note the similarity to the Amsterdam ordinance of December 22, 1597, denouncing parents who sent their children begging instead of training in a craft (Spierenburg, Prison Experience, p. 70).
112. For the text of the 1588 ordinance, see Rüger, Mittelalterliches Almosenwesen, pp. 90-94.
113. See also the six Gutachten preceding the final version (StAN D1/544) and the discussion of all of these in Harrington (n. 1 above), Mittelalterliches Almosenwesen, pp. 33-35.
114. The council first attempted the relocation as early as 1401 but quickly reconsidered in 1405 after signs of divine wrath in a sudden plague outbreak. Already by 1462 the Schau received 600 lepers; by 1574, the number of attending lepers and other beggars had reached the epic proportions of 2,540. In view of "Verunreinigung der Luft und sonsten allerlei ungemags" as well as "bei gefährlichen läuften gar leichtlich unter den namen der sondersiechen, eine anzahl volk sich hätte in der stadt einschleichen und dadurch eine verrätterei wider gemeine stadt anstiften [können]," the gathering was henceforth moved outside the city's walls to St. Johannis hospice. As late as 1627, the Schau still saw over 2,000 visitors during Holy Week, but following the decline in the 1630s, the gathering was finally abolished in 1663, when only ten of the attending 242 beggars showed signs of leprosy. Rüger, Mittelalterliches Almosenwesen, p. 25;
115. Reicke (n. 35 above), Mittelalterliches Almosenwesen, p. 591.
116. Strict gender segregation was typical in all discipline- and workhouses throughout the period. See Radbruch (n. 9 above), p. 119.
117. The first year after the ordinance, 1588-89, saw a profit of over 2,500 fl., followed thereafter by an average of 1,500-1,800 fl. per year. Rüger, Mittelalterliches Almosenwesen, p. 49;
118. Willi Rüger, Die Kinderfürsorge im Almosenwesen des XVII Jahrhunderts (Nuremberg, 1934), p. 55.
119. The Acht-Viertel plan divided the city into eight parts, each corresponding to different craft, with two collectors for each, collecting every Friday (each paid 1 fl. a week). From January to December of 1626, the Acht-Viertel collected 22,532 1/2 fl. plus 5,000 fl. interest. After distributing 15,644 fl. in direct supplements and figuring 2,565 fl. for administrative costs, the new fund still had over 9,323.3 fl. left over for other current and future relief (StAN D1/546). This was considerably more than the sum cited for the same year in a Stadtalmosenamt Gutachten of July 19, 1666: 4,184 fl. (StAN D1/564). For the text of the 1626 ordinance, see Rüger, Mittelalterliches Almosenwesen, pp. 51-53.
120. Begging ordinance of March 17, 1636; Rüger, Mittelalterliches Almosenwesen, p. 102. The ordinance was renewed in 1637, 1653, and 1666.
121. Reicke (n. 35 above), pp. 570-71. Contemporary Hamburg also employed only four begging enforcers, and Amsterdam had only two (Spierenburg, Prison Experience, p. 73). By 1566, the minimum commission was 8 d. a head, which required at least fifteen to twenty arrests per week merely to match an unskilled laborer's salary. Bettelrichter Ordnungen of August 19, 1536 (StAN D1/543) and November 29, 1566 (StAN D1/2); Groebner (n. 30 above), pp. 118 ff.
122. The city council also suggested stricter admission controls at the gates and fines for guards who negligently let foreign beggars pass. Bedencken on Bettelordnung: March 30, 1625 (D1/546); June 6, 1625 (D1/545); April 4, 1638 (StAN D1/99). Amsterdam raised the number of its begging police to ten during the same period (Spierenburg, Prison Experience, p. 76).
123. Compare complaints about excessive beating and the Bettelstreifer making themselves "verhasset" (Ratsverlässe of May 17, 1564, and February 25, 1568) as well as accusations of incompetence and bribery (1665; StAN D1560): "Beclagendt sonsten, der 7 Bettelstreiffer, unfleiss und dass sie in zu weilen von armen leuth geldt nehmen, und dieselben betteln lassen sollen." See also Spierenburg, Prison Experience (pp. 77-81), on begging police of Amsterdam and Hamburg.
124. Visitations are recorded for 1550, 1636, and 1652. A 1653 Stadtalmosenamt report suggested compiling master lists or "Specifications" of donations to the Acht-viertel alms collection and proofing, esp. excuses (StAN D1/564). See also 1668 Stadtalmosenamt Bericht (ibid.), and an ordinance of May 20, 1633 requiring a Nachtzettel for all visitors and threatening a 12 kreuzer fine for nonconformance. Staatsarchiv Nürnberg (hereafter SAN) 63Ia 1:71.
125. "schlechte Leuth . . . wer sie wem, wie viel sie kinder hetten, wer sonsten bey ihnen aufhielten, wie und mit was sie sich nahreten." Report of Stadalmosenamt to Ober Almosenpfleger (1660; StAN D1/564); also July 19, 1666 (StAN D1/514).
126. Galley sentences of eighteen months to twelve years were already common in Spain and Italy by the fifteenth century and became increasingly popular in France from the mid-sixteenth century on, reaching a peak of over 10,000 galley convicts during the 1690s. Transportation to foreign colonies was more popular in England during the eighteenth century and in France during the nineteenth century. In both instances, however, the punishments were always for more serious crimes than begging or vagrancy. See André Zysberg, "Galley and Hard Labor Convicts in France (1550-1850), from the Galleys to Hard Labor Camps: Essay on a Long Lasting Penal Institution," in The Emergence of Carceral Institutions: Prisons, Galleys and Lunatic Asylums, 1550-1900, ed. Pieter Spierenburg (Rotterdam, 1984), esp. pp. 78-85;
127. Spierenburg, Prison Experience, pp. 266-68;
128. Georg Fumasoli, Ursprünge und Anfänge der Schellenwerke: Ein Beitrag zur Frühgeschichte des Zuchthauswesens (Zurich, 1981), pp. 26-27;
129. von Weber (n. 8 above), pp. 435-36. Peter Martyr, De exilio, suggested banishment to a specific location (von Weber, pp. 434-35), which indeed corresponds to the much later function of the workhouse (Spierenburg, Prison Experience, p. 60).
130. Robert Jütte, "Bettelschübe in der frühen Neuzeit," Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Historischen Migrationsforschung 2 (1995): 61-71. Also known as Bettelfuhr, the practice remained mostly limited to the aged and infirm until the second half of the eighteenth century.
131. See Richard Van Dülmen, Theater des Schreckens: Gerichtspraxis und Strafrituale in der frühen Neuzeit (Munich, 1985), on the universal increase of capital punishment from 1550 to 1650 in the Holy Roman Empire.
132. The practice dates back at least to the fourteenth century in France. Even at its peak in sixteenth-century Paris, the revived atelier public still probably employed no more than twenty men at any given time. Numbers in some imperial cities appear to have been higher, but the precise introduction of the practice in German-speaking Europe is unclear. When Strassbourg, one of the apparent pioneers of opus publicum, mentioned the punishment in 1595 "wie in vielen andern grosen stätten," it is likely the magistrates were referring mainly to French cities. Fumasoli, Theater des Schreckens: Gerichtspraxis und Strafrituale in der frühen Neuzeit pp. 30-34, 102;
133. von Weber, Theater des Schreckens: Gerichtspraxis und Strafrituale in der frühen Neuzeit pp. 457 ff.,
134. and von Hippel, Theater des Schreckens: Gerichtspraxis und Strafrituale in der frühen Neuzeit pp. 434-35;
135. Spierenburg, Prison Experience, p. 263.
136. Fumasoli (n. 60 above) on Strassbourg (pp. 95-96) and Bern (pp. 123 ff., 131, 200). Many Swiss cities simultaneously continued to conduct periodic sweeps, or Betteljägde, throughout their territories until the late eighteenth century (Spierenburg, Prison Experience, ibid., pp. 129-30, 176).
137. See ibid., pp. 62 ff., on the variety of ritual public humiliations available, including masks, wreaths, and "stones of shame."
138. Ibid., pp. 51-62, on the etymology of Schellenwerk, which first appeared in Switzerland ca. 1614 in Bern. See also pp. 67-68 on different collars used, and pp. 68-90 on the significance of bells, mainly symbolizing folly. On the origin of Springbuben, see J. Grimm, Deutsches Wörterbuch, ed. M. Heyne et al. (Leipzig, 1919), vol. 10, sect. 2, pt. 1, p. 105 (no. 5). The term was used in Ulm as early as 1561, but Springer still carried the unambiguous meaning of "acrobat" in the official records of Nuremberg in the late 1580s, suggesting a later origin for the penal application in this instance.
139. See Fumasoli (n. 60 above), pp. 105-6; Ratsverlässe of March 13, 1587; November 18, 1587; April 30, 1589 (SAN 60a 1541, 12r; 1549, 28v; 1568, 57r). The punishment was called Karrenstrafe in Hamburg (Spierenburg, Prison Experience, p. 263).
140. Albrecht Keller, ed., Maister Franntzn Schmidts Nachrichters inn Nürnberg sein Richten (Leipzig, 1913), p. 101. Fumasoli ([n. 60 above], p. 113) guesses the practice did not start in Nuremberg before the mid-1580s.
141. ". . . wann nun selbige betretten, unnd inn die Springer eingeführt, widt die Notthurfft erfordern, solch las. gesundtt, mit Embsiger Teglicher Arbeit, unnd harter straff zurbelegen, auch mit der Cost etwas genauer, als bishero, zur hallten, damit sie desto mehr furch unnd ein absheuen daran haben mögten" (Kriegstube Bedencken of December 18, 1614 [StAN D1/545]).
142. See Ratsverlässe of June 4, 1632 and November 28, 1633 (SAN 60a, 2136/32r-v, 2154/60v-61r) on early releases in the Bettelstock to avoid overcrowding and later to make room for orphans. See also Ernst Mummenhoff, "Das Findel- und Waisenhaus zu Nürnbergs orts-, kultur-, und wirtschaftsgeschichtlich" (in Mitteilungen des Vereins für Geschichte der Stadt Nürnberg, vol. 21 [1915], pp. 310-16), on the general social crisis of 1632-35 and the martial law context of expanded Springbuben use in clearing the city's streets.
143. First offenders in Nuremberg got sentences of three days' imprisonment on bread and water (StAN D1/560; D1/564). Of all the German and Swiss cities examined by Fumasoli, only Colmar appears to have given a few life-long sentences (p. 104).
144. On November 3, 1571, the council responded to a Genoese offer to take on galley prisoners by sending six men (including four citizens' sons) away for sentences of three to five years. The cost-saving measure was used for forty cases of capital or life sentences over the next three years, but apparently only very sporadically thereafter. See Johann Christian Siebenkees, Materialien zur Nürnbergischen Geschichte, 2 vols. (Nuremberg, 1782-95), 2:597-99;
145. also Hermann Knapp, Das alte Nürnberger Kriminalrecht (Berlin, 1896), p. 79.
146. The Bern Zucht- und Waisenhaus, for instance, was explicitly intended to occupy those individuals not subject to dishonorable work (especially involving human and animal excrement) (Fumasoli [n. 60 above], p. 154).
147. The council wrote of orphans "lying on top of one another" and defended its decision as preferable to expelling foreign orphans or "leaving them to rot in the streets" as had been previous practice during epidemics and other social crises (Ratsverlaß, November 28, 1633; SAN 60a). Once before, in the winter of 1625-26, the council had allowed a few Springbuben to stay at the orphanage, again keeping the honorable and dishonorable groups strictly segregated (Ratsverlaß, November 22, 1625; SAN 60a).
148. Compare Foucault, Discipline and Punish, p. 124, on the essential privacy or secrecy of the new prison model of rehabilitation, and pp. 141-48 on the importance of the site in penal discipline.
149. ". . . und weiln ein solches mit kehrung der gassen allein nicht ausgerichtet sein möchte, alss stünde dahin. Ob sie nicht zugleich auch anderer Orten, als bey raumung der gräben, eingegangen weyern, verfallenen wassern, so dann bey weeg und steeg machen, aus reutung der höltzer, und gar von hiesiger burgershaft selbsten, in einem und andern, zugebrauchtn sein möchten, und zuletzt dergestalt, dass man der Orten, wo sie einige Arbeit verrichteten von der Person des ags ein gewantes gebe, welches nachmals in eine buchen gestossen, und an sie berendet ebenden möchte, damit dem Ambt die verpflegung solcher personen in etwas leicht und desto ershendiglicher gemacht werden möchte." Bevorgrefflichs Bedencken, der herren Ober Almospfleger (June 9, 1651; StAN D1/564).
150. Bettelordnung of June 8, 1653; SAN 63 Ia, vol. 6. The case of four foreign soldiers briefly sentenced to rasping wood in the Findel appears to be unique, probably an ad hoc adjustment to the housing shortage of 1632-34 discussed above in note 69 (Ratsverlaß, May 6, 1636; SAN 60a., 2186/58v).
151. In the earlier Bettelordnungen, such as that of 1536, the Bettelstreifer were given a higher commission (5-10 d. a head) for catching foreign beggars than local beggars, even if already receiving alms (2 d.) (StAN D1/543).
152. "Eins Rats der Stat Nürmberg ordnung des grossen allmusen haussarmer leut" (ca. 1562); SAN 63Ia, vol. C:35v. The ordinance echoes the poor-reform sentiment made popular by Martin Luther that "there should be no beggars among Christians" ("An den christlichen Adel deutscher Nation" (1520) and "Ordenung eyns gemeynen kastens" (1523), in D. Martin Luthers Werke (Weimar, 1883 ff.), 6:381-469, 12:11-30.
153. See above, notes 47 and 48; also Ratsverlässe of February 19, 1651 and June 9, 1651 (StAN D1/564). Paul Slack has noted a similar blurring of the traditional boundary in England from the 1620s on in Poverty and Policy in Tudor and Stuart England (London and New York, 1980).
154. 1562 Hausarme Ordnung, 45r-v; SAN 63Ia.
155. 1579 Almosenordnung, 7v-11v; StAN DI/3. Complaints about bad parents and the proposal of severe fines or aid cutoff were repeated in a Gutachten of 1588 (StAN D1/ 544). See also Joel F. Harrington, "Bad Parents, the State, and the Civilizing Process," German History 16, no. 1 (January 1998): 16-28.
156. Ratsverlaß of February 20, 1639: "weil es gegen die Frühlung geht." Spinnräder, Rocken, and all other assets were liquidated to pay for back pay of the Hausmeister and other debts.
157. All able-bodied begging was to be similarly punished: "es sei Manns- oder Weibsperson, Bürger und Inwohner oder Fremde, haben ihre Herrlichkeiten Befehl gegeben, sich derselben mächtig zu machen, ihnen Springer oder Halseisen anzuschließen, auch zur Schanzarbeit, dabei man ohne deß an Leuten Mangel hat, anzuhalten und ihr Brot verdienen zu lassen" (Ratsverlaß of June 25, 1633). See also earlier Bedencken of March 30, 1625 (StAN D1/546).
158. Compare Ratsverlaß of December 16, 1631, threatening Schanzarbeit for alms recipients who lose or forget their badges; also request of dispensation by widow Margaretha Bauer (February 25, 1633), denied by the council (Ratsverlaß of February 28, 1633), which warned "werde sie die schilt nicht trag., so werd sie sich dess Almossens auch nicht weiters zugetrösten" (StAN D1/126). See Jütte, Poverty and Deviance (pp. 161-62),
159. on resentment of such badges among early sixteenth-century poor recipients, as well as his article, "Stigmasymbole: Kleidung als identitätsstiftendes Merkmal bei spätmittelalterlichen und frühneuzeitlichen Randgruppen (Juden, Dirnen, Aussätzige, Bettler)," in Zwischen Sein und Schein: Kleidung und Identität in der ständischen Gesellschaft, ed. Robert Jütte and Neithard Bulst (Freiburg i. Br., 1993), pp. 65-89.
160. Memorial des Stadtalmosenamt (October 20, 1649): "wieder den alzsehr einreisenden bettel gethan worden . . . darunter sich dann nicht allein, den eüsserlichen ansehen nach, arme nothleidende Personen, sondern mehren theils starcke trotzige gesellen befinden, welche sich baldt in elendt kruppel, bald in sechen, spitäler und ander weiss verstellen, und wann man sie ohne gab abshaffet, lose und ubel gar drohe wortt von sich hören lassen, ia die destwegen bestellt bettelstreiffer gar mit fäusten, steinen und in andere weeg sträflicher weiss zu tractieren sich nicht scheüen" (StAN D1/563); also Bedencken of June 9, 1651; D1/564; and Evans (n. 31 above), pp. 16 ff., on the emerging "underclass" of seventeenth-century cities and its connection to crime.
161. June 5, 1651; StAN D1/564.
162. See Jütte, Poverty and Deviance, pp. 105 ff., on Disziplinierung, Parzellierung, and Klassifizierung in early modern poor relief.
163. Ratsverlaß, September 30, 1651; StAN D1/564.
164. Compare the similar point by Spierenburg, Prison Experience, p. 34: "The authorities implicitly assumed that finding employment was easy if one wanted it, and vagrants were not seen as economically disadvantaged. They were considered lazy and idle, and their presence was considered to constitute a moral problem that justified their punishments."
165. Mandate of 1662; StAN D1/567. 1660 Stadtalmosenamt report to Ober Almosenpfleger; StAN D1/564.
166. See especially Ernst Mumenhoff, Alt-Nürnberg in Krieg und Kriegsnot, 2 (Aus d. Schlimmsten Tagen des 30jährigen Krieges) (Nuremberg, 1917).
167. On the wide-ranging impact of the Thirty Years' War on municipal budgets, see Peter G. Wallace, Communities and Conflict in Early Modern Calmar, 1575-1730 (Atlantic Highlands, N.J., 1995), pp. 146-78.
168. The significance of dwindling financial resources on French poor-relief policies has been explored by Cissie Fairchilds, Poverty and Charity in Aix-en-Provence, 1640-1789 (Baltimore, Md., 1976);
169. Colin Jones, Charity and Bienfaisance: The Treatment of the Poor in the Montpelier Region, 1740-1815 (Cambridge, 1982);
170. and Kathryn Norberg, Rich and Poor in Grenoble (Berkeley, Calif., 1985).
171. 1653 Stadtalmosenamt report; StAN D1/564.
172. "dz Verdiener geld aber jedem pettier verbleiben zulassen, damit ist einen zubuss haben können, ihnen aber allen, weil die springer ungqem und ander arbeit hinderlich seine eine halsseysenen anlegen zulassen, anlagend aber angebrachtes und halt dass brods, seines durch heim almospfleger ersuc. word" (Ratsverlaß, June 9, 1651); StAN D1/564.; also Bedencken of same date.
173. Kriegstube Bericht of October 16, 1658; also Ratsverlässe of February 21, March 1, and March 5, 1656. StAN D1/563.
174. The 1662 municipal debt was 5,536,427 fl. The next year, the city was asked to donate 40,000 fl. and five companies of men to the war against the Turks. See Pfeiffer, ed. (n. 28 above), pp. 319, 322.
175. 1663 Stadtalmosenamt report; D1/564.
176. StAN D1/252. Many arrest and release records of Springbuben during the 1660s have been collected in StAN D1/560, but the list is certainly not complete.
177. Stadtalmosenamt Bericht (ca. 1665); StAN D1/564.
178. Ibid.
179. July 19, 1666; StAN D1/564.
180. Ratsverlaß, June 30, 1668 on "schwere uncosten" of Springbuben, i.e., 30 kreuzer per inmate and 10 heller bread per week (April 22, 1668; D1/564).
181. 1668 Stadtalmosenamt report and Ratsverlaß of April 17, 1668, both in StAN D1/ 564.
182. Compare 1666 estimate of assets during the previous five years (including the production of 368 1/2 pounds of flax and 56 pounds of wool) but still requiring supplemental funding from the Reichenalmosen for bread and other
183. One incident of October-December 1668, in particular, is discussed in more detail in Harrington, "Singing for His Supper" (n. 1 above), pp. 40-43.
184. "Arbeitstherapie," in von Weber (n. 8 above), p. 442. Compare the motto of the Hamburg Zuchthaus: "Labore nutrior, labore plector" (I live by work, I am punished by work) (Sothman [n. 8 above], p. 2).
185. "Vorstellung, die Aufrichtung eines Zuch- oder Spinnhausses betr." (1669), StAN D1/252; also Ratsverlässe, January 10, 1669 and February 12, 1669 (SAN 60a, 2621, 62v-63r; 2622, 45r-46r).
186. Ratsverlaß, January 10, 1669; SAN 60a, 2621, 62v-63r. Compare similar language in the creation of the first discipline-house in Amsterdam in 1595: "um die untüchtige Jugend zu eine ehrlichen Leben in der Furcht Gottes zu bringen und die Stadt so viel als möglich von dem Gesindel (geboette) zu säubern" (von Hippel [n. 9 above], p. 444).
187. Ratsverlässe, January 23, February 12, March 1, 1669 (SAN 60a, 2621, 73 v; 2622, 45r-46r; 2623, 14v-15r). Compare the similar request for information on Nuremberg's begging police from the city of Ulm (October 23, 1667, response on November 21, 1667; StAN D1/568). See Spierenberg (Prison Experience, p. 137) on the spread of the institutions in this manner throughout the Holy Roman Empire. The popularity of colonial products such as tobacco and brazil-wood in workhouse manufacturing has been used to support several mercantilist interpretations of the institution's origins.
188. Ratsverlaß, May 17, 1670; SAN 60a, 2639, 31r-v.
189. Compare the similar argument for late medieval social disciplining in Nuremberg in Buchholz (n. 27 above), pp. 129-47; also Safley's rejection of a "desperate crisis-driven breakdown with the past and marginalization of the needy" in the formation of the Augsburg orphanage ([n. 7 above], p. 7).
190. Compare Werner Buchholz's conclusion: "Die Bettelordnung der Stadt Nürnberg ist wohl diejenige Polizeiordnung, die ihren Zweck, in erster Linie die patrizische Herrschaft zu sichern, zuletzt verrät" ([n. 27 above], p. 144).
191. One of the earliest mentions of the quarantine application of the workhouse was a 1682 Munich ordinance that an inmate of the Zuchthaus should "zu Buß, Arbeit, und zu besserem Leben gebracht oder an ein solches Ort gesetzt werden, wo er niemand mehr beschweren noch andere verführen kann" (von Hippel [n. 9 above], p. 658). See also von Weber (n. 8 above), p. 449, and Stekl (n. 17 above), pp. 58 ff., 313 ff.
192. Foucault, Discipline and Punish, p. 182.
193. See also Eisenbach (n. 8 above), pp. 77 ff. on the Resozialisierung goal of the early workhouse, and Jütte, Poverty and Deviance, pp. 143 ff. on perceptions of poverty as the source of crime in the later early modern period. In this qualitative respect, I strongly disagree with the generalization of Safley, who argues on the basis of Augsburg (poorhouse founded in 1711, workhouse in 1755) that, "apart from their gradual increase in size and number, the agencies and organizations charged with assisting the needy changed little between 1522 and 1806" ([n. 7 above], p. 45).
194. Rüger, Mittelalterliches Almosenwesen, p. 54. There are hardly any extant records of the institution before 1700.
195. Jones, "The Determinist Fix" (n. 6 above), p. 26.
196. On the complexity of charitable motives, see esp. Jones, "Some Recent Trends in the History of Charity," pp. 57 ff., and Safley, pp. 8 ff. (both n. 7 above).
197. I should add, moreover, that this does not affect Foucault's argument about internment of the insane, since such individuals were normally not intended to be released back into society.
198. Here I echo the sentiments of von Weber, one of the few legal historians to distinguish between the two early modern Freiheitstrafen of the discipline-house and the prison: "Zwischen Zuchthaus- und Gefängnisstrafe bestand im 17. bis tief in das 18. Jahrhundert, ja zum Teil hinaus, ein Unterschied nicht nur dem Grade, sondern durch der Art nach" ([n. 8 above], p. 465).