|
THE MEDIAEVAL ORIGINS OF POOR LAW Mark Elvins The mediaeval Church-made laws, levied taxes, maintained courts and paralleled the secular government in many ways, being the essential legal authority in much of everyday existence. Indeed the Church's social teaching of the period is largely enshrined in canon law. As the relief of the poor was a precept of Christian charity the Church rightly claimed their care and protection, to which end she made special legislation. The secular powers were notwithstanding often at odds with a universally acknowledged authority that did not come under their purviews but with regard to the relief of poverty canon law became the exclusive authority. The decline of the Roman Empire in the fifth and sixth centuries saw the eclipse of Europe in the unremitting chaos of the Dark Ages, from which a new civilization finally emerged, a new-age of faith subsequently burgeoned forth in the Christendom of the eleventh century. Old Roman law was re-discovered, as codified by Justinian, but meanwhile the Church's accumulation of papal decrees, conciliar directives and patristic tenets had become an embarrassing muddle. Gratian, a monk of Bologna, in 1140 systematized all this heterogenous material in his "Concertia Discordantium Canonum" which enshrined the law of the Church. To this work were added further papal decretals making up what came to be known as the Corpus Juris Canonici: the Decretum as Gatian's work came to be called contain a large portion of the canons relating to poor relief. (1). These texts for the most part were taken from Early Church records of the Fathers. Many historians of the poor law have begun with the reign of Elizabeth I and castigated the charity of the hospitals and religious houses of the mediaeval Church as fostering healthy beggars, too idle to work, with open-handed generosity. This is far from true. Evangelical poverty was a thing largely uncomprehended in Elizabeth's reign, but the Mediaeval Church was clearly aware of the distinctions of asceticism and plain indolence. The Cistercians for example venerated "poverty not the penury of the idle and negligent" but a poverty sustained through "faith and approved by divine love". (2). St. Francis in his devotion to voluntary evangelical poverty declared, "I firmly wish that all the brothers should work at some honourable trade". (3). It would seem therefore that those who framed the mediaeval poor law were well aware of the distinctions and co-ordinated their efforts exclusively for the remedy of involuntary poverty and its attendant evils, which unlike evangelical poverty, was far from inducing virtue. A canonist of the twelfth century, one Huguccio, divided the poor into those born into poverty-, who endured their state for the love of God: those who joined them-selves to the poor by giving up all their possessions to follow Christ and those who were filled with the “voracity of cupidity”. (4). Unlike the later reformers and law makers the Mediaeval canonists did not consider poverty was a vice requiring stem measures to eradicate it, in this there is sharp distinction of attitudes between the Church's old legislation and that of a later age which viewed poverty as a defect greatly to be abhorred. The "Decretum", drawing on the writing of St. Ambrose "Poverty is not among the number of things evil” (5) in other words attached no moral guilt to the sufferer. The Charity of Compassion As evidence of the canonist's concern for the poor they exempted them from court fees, so often considered a part of modem enlightenment. Pope Honorius IIl in the thirteenth century went further, insisting that those inhibited by poverty should have counsel supplied free by the courts. The Church courts were moreover concerned to uphold Exodus 22:22 in the protection of orphans and widows and Gratian in the traditions of the Early Church states that "The bishop ought to be solicitous and vigilant concerning the defence of the poor and the relief of the oppressed". (6) There was however running through the mediaeval concept of charity the element of reward, but not without some justification. "Give, and it shall be given unto you, pressed down, shaken together and running over..." (Luke 6:38). The canonists considered charity an act of love (in its original sense) or in the legal sense an act of divine justice, they well understood that indiscriminate charity destroys its own ends and would have been mindful of not inducing idle vagabondage. A gross injustice has been done by nineteenth century writers, in describing mediaeval charity as naive and indiscriminate, which has influenced most writers since. The new Poor Law of Elizabeth I, and its subsequent development, are treated as inspired innovation which gave the world a basis for social legislation. This is not only simplistic it is quite incorrect as Professor Tierney has so ably expounded. (7) Sir William Ashley, whose "Economic History" remains a standard work, includes such references as to follows:- "The line which separated the enterprising labourer wandering in search of high wages from the lazy vagabond was one very easy to cross" and "With the indiscriminate doles to be found at the doors of monasteries, and of mansions of great lords, and the general haphazard charity which current religious notions encouraged, it was not very difficult to live without labour". (8). He adds that mediaeval legislation was "a vagrancy law, and not a poor law" and a "pauperising system of indiscriminate charity'". (9) The earlier champion of Church legislation had been Cardinal Ehrle showing that the Church had always taught discretion in almsgiving". (10). The social historians of nineteenth century post industrial society in England were little influenced by Cardinal Ehrle, indeed it was widely held that a destitute person was probably idle and deserved correction. The Mediaeval poor law as distinct from later counterparts was founded on Biblical admonitions such as Exodus 22:2, Mark 2:30-31, Luke 6:31 and Matthew 25:34-40 and sought to exemplify Christian faith and to underline the seven corporal works of mercy. The Church upheld the spiritual rewards for acts of charity but underlined the higher motive of love of neighbour for his own sake. Modem secular legislators are largely concerned with the recipients of charity and their material welfare, whereas the mediaeval canonists were as concerned for the benefactor and the merit gained by doles or almsgiving. In this the spiritual framework of charity is paramount in Church law, the giver gives as to Christ and the receiver receives as from God. (11). The canonists considered two elements in the almsgiver, — the renunciation of part of his property and the act of compassion for one in need. The first element applied particularly to those entering the religious life, in which it was proper to renounce ''all" worldly goods, the second element however required "discretion" when the donor acted in compassion for another's need, giving a little at a time to help the maximum number. The Decretum emphasized the need for discretion so that everything is not given at once and the Glossa Ordinaria requires only plain and simple food should be offered to the poor, not dainties. (12) Reckless generosity was not to be considered noble but the act of a fool, so commented Hostiensis in the Commentaria ad X (13). Furthermore the canonists declared that to ensure a work of charity was meritorious, it had to be motivated by a right attitude to God and neighbour, the giver had purify his heart from sin (a far cry from modem social theory). There is no room for bribing heaven and again the canonists quoting the Fathers declared "It is not enough to do good unless the act flows from a good source, that is good will" (St. Ambrose), or "if it is given without a loving heart, is altogether insufficient". (St. Augustine). (14). Moreover the Glossa Ordinaria enshrined the most pertinent teaching of the canonists on the subject of almsgiving, for it stated that to give alms simply to be rid of an importunate beggar, without charity in the heart was actually sinful. (15). The canonists also claimed that to avoid vain glory almsgiving must uphold justice, order, and right intention; justice as applied to the giver's justly acquired property; order referred to the need to order his life spiritually and right intention signify the need to give from motives of true charity and not to win praise or fob off an inconvenience. (16). One Brotherhood One Family Modem critics (17) of the Mediaeval charity have neglected to study the Decretum which maintained the teaching of the Fathers (St. John Chrysostom, St. Ambrose and St. Augustine in particular) and gives evidence of a continuity of practice from the Early Church to the Middle Ages, indeed the mediaeval concern for discrimination has its basis in the writing of Ambrose and Augustine. However Gratian in his Decretum does debate the difference between the "deserving" and the “undeserving poor", in this he was much guided by Ambrose, as one of the greatest exponents of poor relief in the fourth century. Much of Mediaeval teaching on poor relief had its basis in the family; after God all men should love their families and then the stranger at their gate, and so poor relief was a general responsibility and by no means the exclusive duty of the bishops, clergy and religious houses. The Glossa Ordinana of the Decretum give very specific direction on safeguarding against indiscriminate charity:- "The Church ought not to provide for a man (18) who is able to work, . . . for strong men sure of their food without work, often do neglect justice". This admonition can be compared to St. Paul's teaching; "If a man does not work then neither shall he eat" (II Thess. 3:10). From this can be derived the surest defence against the charge of fostering pauperism, for plainly wilful idleness was condemned by the canonists. There was however some debate among the canonists as to how far to apply discrimination, for St. John Chrysostom had upheld the giving of alms to all without restraint. Surely this was the ideal and, like much Roman Law, could also be tempered to individual needs, a general maxim with an individual application with its own intrinsic restraints. A Commentary on the Decretum (19) in fact explains that to avoid indiscriminate generosity four considerations must be applied, the standing of the one who seeks alms, whether he is honest or no, the resources of the giver whether he can supply all or some, the request whether asking humbly or demanding as of right and the amount requested whether excessive or moderate. If the one who asks is dishonest and moreover is able to earn a living but chooses to beg or steal he is to be denied and corrected, unless he is perishing from want; in the latter case discretion is overridden. To the honest beggar charity should always be given if resources allow. The inability to give to all who ask should not inhibit the duty to support family or household. (Clergy had a habit of wandering about in lay clothes demanding support, and the commentary suggests they be carefully examined and excessive demands refused). Raymund de Pennaforte, who compiled the "Gregorian Decretals" sums up the problem of applying discretion as follows:- (20). "Either you have enough for all or not. In the first case you ought to give to all indiscriminately . . . this is true except, when by being made sure of his food a man would neglect justice, for in that case "it is more useful to take away bread from the needy etc" except when he is dying of hunger, for then he ought to be fed however much he may neglect justice'. (21). Condition of "Will to Work" St. Ambrose's system was carefully applied, the idle healthy beggars were to be refused, the deserving beggar was to be given succour depending on what was available. If there was enough for all St. John Chrysostom’s principle of indiscriminate aid was applied except with regard to idle and nefarious persons, who were only to be fed if in extremis. The evidence against the Mediaeval Church fostering beggary is particularly apparent in some of the thirteenth century glosses. The undeserving were listed as excommunicated priests being a burden on their bishops, spendthrifts living in wanton extravagance, unbeneficed clergy made poor by gambling. These however despite their folly or wickedness should be given charity in extreme want, this included pagans; otherwise they should labour in want, for as the canonists rightly observed, if they were healthy they should earn their bread by their own labour (before industrialization and population density introduced the modern phenomenon of unemployment). Refusal of alms or provender was only emphatic in cases where the mendicant was healthy and such charity could encourage idleness or wickedness. All this is outlined in the distinctiones, being the divisions of the Decretum, (22) and these advise that the undeserving if in great need must be helped, but depending on the resources of the benefactor must wait their turn. Thus a more enlightened system of charity than its nineteenth century counterpart, for although similar in many respects the evidence suggests that there was no deterrent for those in genuine need — unlike the later version. The indiscriminate charity of St. John Chrysostom, explained by Guide de Baysio in the "distinctions", is to be applied to the day-to-day situation, not a separate case requiring special help. But to the number of mendicants who call daily. In other words the abuse of charity could be tolerated in small measure but not in a case of major assistance. In this the canonists underlined that “In case of doubt it is better to do too much than do nothing at all”. (23). NOTES 1. Mediaeval Poor Law'", Brian Tierney. Los Angeles 1959, p. 8. 2. The Life of Ailred of Rievaulx, trans. F.M. Powicke (London 1950). 3. Opuscula sancti patris Francisci. (Ouaracchi 1904) 4. Brian Tierney op.cit. 5. ibid 6. ibid. 7. ibid. 8. Sir William Ashley, Economic History vol. 1. London (1893). 9. op. cit. 10. Franz Ehrle. Beitrage zur Geschicte und Reform. 11. cf. Clement : Letter to Corinthians op. cit. 12. Tierney cit. p. 52 13. loc. cit. 14- ibid. 15. ibid 16. ibid 17. Sidney &. Beatrice Webb, Poor Law History I (London 1927). 18. Tierney op. cit. p. 58. 19. op. cit. (Summa of Rudinus). 20. ibid. 21. ibid. (Summa Juris X- 70). 22. ibid. (Distinctiones ad X). 23. ibid Reprinted with permission from Faith Magazine for January 1987 Address of Faith Magazine is: www.faith.org.uk/ Published by: The ChurchinHistory Information Centre http://www.churchinhistory.org/ Version: 23rd March 2008
|