1 Sir William Temple, Observations upon the United Provinces of the Netherlands, second edition (London, 1673), 170–1; consulted on Early English Books Online (subscription website http://eebo.chadwyck.com/home).

2 For an overview of hospitals, see Kappelhof, Ton, ‘Hospitäler in den Niederlanden in den frühen Neuzeit (1530–1820)’, Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsbeforderung 115 (2007), 312–42Google Scholar. Orphanages: S. Groenveld, J. J. H. Dekker, Th. R. M. Willemse and J. Dane eds., Wezen and Boefjes. Zes eeuwen zorg in wees- en kinderhuizen (Hilversum, 1997). Madhouses: the Zinnelooshuis Reinier van Arkel in Den Bosch, founded in 1442 by Reinier van Arkel and the Willem Arntzstichting in Utrecht, founded in 1461 by Willem Arntz. Both institutions still exist; H. van Rooy, Het gesticht ‘Reinier van Arkel’ te ‘s-Hertogenbosch (Den Bosch, 1928); L. Hut, J. de Lange, H. Loois, A. Poslavski and B. van der Woord, De Willem Arntsz Stichting 1461–1961 (Utrecht, 1961); A. Kappelhof, Reinier van Arkel 1442–1992. De geschiedenis van het oudste psychiatrisch ziekenhuis van Nederland (Den Bosch, 1992). Reformatory: Hallema, A., ‘De stichting en inrichting van het Utrechtse tuchthuis’, Jaarboekje van Oud-Utrecht 3 (1926), 136–59Google Scholar.

3 For England, see Brian Howson, Houses of noble poverty (Ashford, 1993); and Brian Howson, Almshouses. A social and architectural history (Stroud, 2008). There are no general histories available for other countries, though for some cities overviews exist, such as Bruges in Belgium and Lübeck in Germany; Hilde de Bruyne, De Godshuizen in Brugge (Bruges, 1994); and Rainer Andresen, Lübeck. Wohngänge und Stiftshöfe (Lübeck, 1992). For Dublin, see Gahan, Robert, ‘Old alms-houses of Dublin’, Dublin Historical Record 5, 1 (1942), 15–40Google Scholar; and for Denmark, see H. R. Hiort-Lorenzen and E. Rosendahl, Repertorium over legater og milde stiftelser i Danmark (Copenhagen, 1903). The notion that almshouses are a European phenomenon was confirmed and developed in a conference co-organised by the author, Almshouses in Europe from the late middle ages to the present – comparisons and peculiarities, held in Haarlem, the Netherlands, 7–9 September 2011. Some of the papers will be published in a special issue of the Scandinavian Economic History Review 60, 1 (2013).

4 The study of the history of almshouses, though everywhere still marginal, is perhaps strongest in England and the Netherlands, where awareness of their existence is greater than in other European countries. For England, see a forthcoming book, to be published by the Family and Community History Research Society: Nigel Goose, Anne Langley and Helen Caffrey eds., The English almshouse c. 1500–1900 (forthcoming). The great interest in almshouses in the Netherlands is attested by colourful illustrated popular overviews such as D. P. M. Graswinckel, Nederlandsche Hofjes (Amsterdam, 1943); R. Lopes Cardozo, Hofjes in Nederland (Hilversum, 1977); and I. Dorren, Langs hofjes: routes in Nederland en België (Utrecht, 1994). For recent scholarly work, Willemijn Wilms Floet of Delft University is working on a dissertation on the architecture of almshouses. For the nineteenth century, almshouses are discussed in M. H. D. van Leeuwen, Logic of charity. A simple model applied to Amsterdam 1800–1850 (Aldershot and New York, 2000).

5 Although far behind Amsterdam and The Hague, the first- and second-richest cities; Kees Zandvliet, De 250 rijksten van de Gouden Eeuw. Kapitaal, macht, familie en levensstijl (Amsterdam, 2006), XXIV.

6 Jan Jansz Orlers, Beschrijvinge der Stadt Leyden (Leiden, 1641), 142–58; and Frans van Mieris, Beschryving der stad Leyden (Leiden, 1762), 246–362. Van Mieris included lengthy extracts from founders' wills. For the importance of wills in charitable giving, see Elise van Nederveen Meerkerk's contribution to this issue of Continuity and Change, ‘The will to give: charitable bequests and community building in the Dutch Republic, c. 1600–1800’.

7 To give a few examples: H. M. Turck, Die Leidener Wohnstiftungen vom 15. bis 17. Jahrhundert (Aix-la-Chapelle, 1989); Ine Leermakers and Wietske Donkersloot, Wonen om Gods wille in Leidse hofjes (Leiden, 2007); José Niekus and Cor Smit, Van bouwvallig nest tot bijzondere huisvesting. 350 jaar Jean Pesijnhof (Leiden, 2005); and Frits Boersma and Greet Dusseldorp-Kingma, Regenten en kuise maagden. 350 jaar Eva van Hoogeveenshofje (Leiden, 2007). Of great importance are also the many articles and special issues published by, among others, archivist P. J. M. de Baar in the journal De Leidse Hofjes (1969–1985).

8 They will therefore here be left out of the corpus of almshouse founders. They include the Heyn Reynszn. Huys (ca. 1429), Willem Danelszs cloester (before 1451 and after 1487), Cameren van Katherijn van der Hoeven (ca. 1478) and the Camertgen van Lijsbeth van Overwael (ca. 1485). The house of Meyne Uyt den Waerd (1368) and the chambers of Jan Arentsz van Beringen (1511) may never have come into existence. The Pieter Simonsz Zusterhuis, founded in 1389, may never have been an almshouse and developed quickly into a beguinage, a congregation of devout laywomen. Another short-lived foundation was the Warnaer van der Does Hof, founded in 1564 but already closed down by 1592; information from the Dutch Almshouse Database (hereafter DAD).

9 See J. K. S. Moes, ‘Stof uit het Leidse verleden. Sociale en economische facetten uit de geschiedenis van de Leidse textielnijverheid ca. 1275–ca. 1975’, in J. K. S. Moes and B. M. A. de Vries, Stof uit het Leidse verleden. Zeven eeuwen textielnijverheid (Utrecht and Leiden, 1991), 7–31, for an overview of the textile trade in Leiden and its periods of growth and decline.

10 As was the case with Zwolle: Nederveen Meerkerk, Elise van, ‘Geven na de dood. Liefdadige giften en stedelijke geefcultuur in Utrecht en Zwolle, 1600–1800’, Stadsgeschiedenis 5 (2010), 129–47Google Scholar, here 137. See also Turck, Die Leidener Wohnstiftungen, 7. On the growing poverty in Leiden, see H. A. Diederiks, D. J. Noordam and H. D. Tjalsma eds., Armoede en sociale spanning. Sociaal-historische studies over Leiden in de achttiende eeuw (Hilversum, 1985), passim; G. P. M. Pot, Arm Leiden. Levensstandaard, bedeling en bedeelden, 1750–1854 (Hilversum, 1994), passim.

11 On migration to Amsterdam and overseas as a safety valve for the charitable system of the Dutch Republic, see M. H. D. van Leeuwen, ‘Overrun by hungry hordes? Migrants’ entitlements to poor relief in the Netherlands, 16th–20th centuries', in S. Hindle and A. Winter, Migration, settlement and belonging in Europe, 1500–2000: a comparative perspective. Berghahn Publishers, in press.

12 The preceding paragraphs are based on DAD; the articles concerning Leiden almshouses in De Leidse Hofjes; Turck, Die Leidener Wohnstiftungen; Leermakers and Donkersloot, Wonen om Gods wille; Boersma and Dusseldorp-Kingma, Regenten en kuise maagden; Niekus and Smit, Van bouwvallig nest.

13 Anouk Janssen, Grijsaards in zwart-wit. De verbeelding van de ouderdom in de Nederlandse prentkunst (1550–1650) (Zutphen, 2007), 23–5, 46–7.

14 Harry F. M. Peeters, ‘De levensloop in het begin van de Moderne Tijd (1500–1700)’, in H. F. M. Peeters and F. J. Mönks eds., De menselijke levensloop in historisch perspectief (Assen and Maastricht, 1986), 59–83, especially 80–1. It is not clear on which he bases his estimate, though he refers to ‘demographical computations’.

15 Arie van Deursen, ‘De oude dag in een Hollands dorp’, in Harald Hendrix and Riet Schenkeveld-van der Dussen eds., Oud en lelijk. Ouderdom in de cultuur van de Renaissance (Amsterdam, 1996), 73–83, here 74.

16 van Leeuwen, Marco H. D. and Oeppen, James E., ‘Reconstructing the demographic regime of Amsterdam 1681–1920’, in Economic and Social History in the Netherlands 5 (1993), 61–102Google Scholar, here 88–9.

17 D. J. Noordam, Leven in Maasland. Een hoogontwikkelde plattelandssamenleving in de achttiende en het begin van de negentiende eeuw (Hilversum, 1987), 78–9.

18 Janssen, Grijsaards in zwart-wit, 26; Ronald Sluijter, ‘Oud, afgesloofd, behoeftig en arm. Bejaardenzorg in Leiden in de achttiende eeuw’ (unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Leiden, 1995). I am indebted to Dr Ariadne Schmidt for this reference.

19 The percentages mentioned here are calculated on the basis of Table 10 in van Leeuwen and Oeppen, ‘Reconstructing the demographic regime’, 88–9.

20 Only for emigrants from Leiden in the years 1735–1784, but one may doubt if the number of elderly emigrants is representative, assuming that most elderly people would not be very mobile anymore; on the age division of emigrants from Leiden, see C. A. Davids, ‘De migratiebeweging in Leiden in de achttiende eeuw’, in Diederiks, Noordam and Tjalsma, Armoede en sociale spanning, 137–56, here 148.

21 The term ‘functioning’ is defined as foundations that had actually been put into effect. Some Leiden foundations did not take effect until long after the actual foundation, as Table B in the Appendix shows.

22 H. D. Tjalsma, ‘Een karakterisering van Leiden in 1749’, in Diederiks, Noordam and Tjalsma, Armoede en sociale spanning, 17–44, here 33; personal communication Heiko Tjalsma M.A., 8 November 2011.

23 Sluijter arrives at a similar number of elderly almshouse inhabitants – 500 – on the basis of the same data, although he believes that this value is probably too high; Sluijter, ‘Oud, afgeleefd, behoeftig en arm’, 15–16.

24 Sluijter gives the following figures for elderly Leiden inhabitants enjoying social care in 1749: elderly individuals with a separate household receiving poor relief: 300; almshouse inhabitants: 500; elderly people living with family: 100; elderly people lodged with private carers: 300; hospital inhabitants: 300; a total of about 1,500; Sluijter, ‘Oud, afgeleefd, behoeftig en arm’, 20–1.

25 For a discussion on the possibilities and pitfalls of prosopography as a method, see Stone, Lawrence, ‘Prosopography’, Daedalus. Historical Studies Today 100 (1971), 46–79Google Scholar. Prosopography as a method has flourished in the Netherlands since its introduction in the late 1970s. Two studies of the early modern Leiden patrician elite, frequently cited in this article, are products of this Dutch interest in prosopography; D. J. Noordam, Geringde buffels en heren van stand. Het patriciaat van Leiden, 1574–1700 (Hilversum, 1994); Maarten Prak, Gezeten burgers. De elite in een Hollandse stad 1700–1780 (Amsterdam, 1985). For an overview of Dutch and Belgian work using prosopography as a method, see Koen Goudriaan, Kees Mandemakers, Jogchum Reitsma and Peter Stabel eds., Prosopography and computer. Contributions of mediaevalists and modernists on the use of the computer in historical research (Leuven and Apeldoorn, 1995).

26 This is because two less obvious combinations of founders have been listed separately. In one case, a brother and sister – Jacob and Anna van Brouckhoven – were involved and in the other, two siblings and one in-law: the Tevelingshofje was founded by a pair of brothers and the wife of one of them, and thus had three founders. Whenever an almshouse, however, was founded by husband and wife jointly, they have been counted as one founder. Marriage law valid in Leiden stipulated that a husband had control of his wife's capital and acted on her behalf throughout their married life: Ariadne Schmidt, Overleven na de dood. Weduwen in Leiden in de Gouden Eeuw (Amsterdam, 2001), ch. 3 and 4.

27 Not all Leiden almshouses could be taken into account. The Houcksteen almshouse, founded in 1660, was not founded by a private benefactor but by the deaconry of the Flemish Mennonite congregation. Also excluded is the Elisabethgasthuishof which did not originate as an almshouse but as a hospital, developed into an institution housing corrodians and only much later, in the eighteenth century, developed into an almshouse. Originally founded by private benefactors in 1428, its different aims and administrative history make this almshouse a borderline case.

28 See Manon van der Heijden, Elise van Nederveen Meerkerk and Ariadne Schmidt, ‘Terugkeer van het patriarchaat? Vrije vrouwen in de Republiek’, Tijdschrift voor Sociale en Economische Geschiedenis 6, 3 (2009), 26–52.

29 Again, founding couples constitute one founder.

30 When the founder was a couple, absence or presence of children is related to them as a unit. However, in two cases the husbands had had children by a woman other than his current wife: Jacob Spruyt had a predeceased child from a previous marriage, whereas Willem Aerntsz van Tetrode had an illegitimate child; DAD.

31 Noordam, Geringde buffels, 93–4; van Nederveen Meerkerk comes to a similar conclusion: in Utrecht and Zwolle a significant proportion of donors did not have children, at least when compared with testators as a whole and with general demographic patterns; Van Nederveen Meerkerk, ‘Geven na de dood’, 141–2. See also her contribution to this issue: ‘The will to give’.

32 Regional Archive Leiden (hereafter RAL), Arch. 513 (Hofjes), no. 572, Will of Bartholomeus Willemsz van Assendelft, 29 September 1624.

33 To name two examples: Diderick van Leyden was survived by five adult sons and Geraert van der Laen's lineal descendants were still involved in his almshouse in the nineteenth century; Prak, Gezeten burgers, 396–8; Leermakers and Donkersloot, Wonen om Gods wille, 130–45.

34 See Prak, Gezeten burgers, 75, 170–1, 207, 245–8.

35 de Baar, P. J. M., ‘Het Mierennesthofje’, De Leidse Hofjes 12 (1983), 1–13Google Scholar; Bovée, L. J. M., ‘Het van Leydenshofje te Vlaardingen’, De Leidse Hofjes 12 (1983), 14–18Google Scholar.

36 For this problem, see Marco H. D. van Leeuwen, ‘Giving in early modern history: philanthropy in Amsterdam in the Golden Age’, in this issue of Continuity and Change.

37 This was the case with the Sionshofje, the St. Stevenshofje, the St. Annahofje (Joostenpoort), St. Janshofje, Cathrijn Jacobsdochterhofje, the St. Barbarahofje, the Cathrijn Maertensdochterhofje, the Van Assendelfthofje and the Van Woudendorphofje; DAD.

38 RAL, Stadsarchief van Leiden II, 1574–1816 (hereafter SA II) 6177, will Cathrijn Maertensdr, 17 February 1621; Arch. 513 (Hofjes), no. 425, will Pieter Gerritsz van der Speck, 7 August 1645.

39 Boersma and Dusseldorp-Kingma, Regenten en kuise maagden, 20, 69.

40 de Baar, ‘Het Mierennesthofje’, 4, 8.

41 Ekkart, R. E. O., ‘Het Coninckshofje 1773–1973’, De Leidse Hofjes 2 (1973), 11–22Google Scholar, here 11.

42 Noordam, Geringde buffels, 89, 93.

43 Ekkart, R. E. O., ‘Cornelis Sprongh en zijn hofje aan de Breestraat’, De Leidse Hofjes 3 (1974), 29–36Google Scholar, 34; Prak, Gezeten burgers, 282.

44 Niekus and Smit, Van bouwvallig nest, 24, 29.

45 Prak, Gezeten burgers, 117.

46 These figures obscure a difference: of the rich burghers, Prak took only the richest Leiden inhabitants into account, whereas the town regents as a group included a number of not so wealthy members, lowering the average income; the median incomes of the merchants/entrepreneurs, Protestant rentiers and Catholics were 193,731, 166,107 and 130,111 guilders. He compared them with the town regents whose capital was over 100,000 guilders, and then arrived at figures of an average income of 225,274 guilders, and a median of 174,165 guilders, which shows a smaller difference between the city's regent- and non-regent elite; Prak, Gezeten burgers, 131–2.

47 Not an occupation as such, but an assumption, based on secondary literature, of the founder's particular main economic activity and mainstay.

48 This term is used here to classify men whose primary occupation was a position in administration.

49 RAL, Arch. 513, no. 545, probate inventory Anthonis Jacobsz van der Schacht, 17 March 1670. See also Th. J. Lunsingh Scheurleer, C. Willemijn Fock and A. J. van Dissel, Het Rapenburg. Geschiedenis van een Leidse gracht, volume I (Leiden, 1986), 233, 238.

50 The phrase ‘regent’ was used for everyone who held an urban office of some sort: I distinguish here between the town regents, the patrician men who had a seat on the town council and stood at the apex of urban society, and almshouse regents, the men – and sometimes women – who sat on the almshouse boards.

51 Incidentally, this concurs with some of the conclusions that Van Nederveen Meerkerk draws; ‘The will to give’.

52 Noordam, Geringde buffels, 35; Prak, Gezeten burgers, 75, 170–1, 207.

53 Willem Aerntsz van Tetrode did not fill any offices either, but he also belonged to the patrician elite of Leiden; Leermakers and Donkersloot, Wonen om Gods wille, 86–7.

54 See also Noordam, Geringde buffels, 93, where it is stressed that in general the founding of an almshouse was exceptional.

55 For the accumulation of capital; Prak, Gezeten burgers, ch. 3; Noordam, Geringde buffels, 94.

56 Van Nederveen Meerkerk, ‘The will to give’.

57 Their bequest encompassed about a sixth of their total estate of 133,652 guilders; Prak, Gezeten burgers, 200, 419.

58 RAL, Arch. 513 (Hofjes), 333, list of regents Hofje van Brouckhoven 1642–1857; Prak, Gezeten burgers, 374–8, 383, 386, 389, 391–3, 395–6, 399–403, 408, 414–15, 418.

59 Namely the St. Stevenshofje, the Bethaniënhofje and the Van Brouckhovenhofje; for Van de Velde, see Prak, Gezeten burgers, 418.

60 See, for example, Boersma and Dusseldorp-Kingma, Regenten en kuise maagden, 27, 32, 35; Sormani, A. J., ‘Het Salvatorhofje 1639–1939’, Leidsch Jaarboekje 33 (1941), 111–25, 121Google Scholar; de Baar, P. J. M., ‘De strijd tussen het St.Annahofje en de gemeente Leiden over de “onlosbare” renten’, De Leidse Hofjes 14 (1985), 67–71Google Scholar; Ekkart, ‘Het Coninckshofje’, 18. For the important role donations to poor relief institutions by its regents played in Amsterdam, see van Leeuwen, ‘Giving in early modern history’.

61 RAL, Arch. 513 (Hofjes), provisional inventory Mierennesthofje, no. 5, will of Diderick van Leyden, 14 June 1760. Obviously, he held two positions at the same time. See also RAL Arch. 513 (Hofjes), Hofje van Brouckhoven, no. 333.

62 See L. Heerma van Voss and M. H. D. van Leeuwen, ‘Charity in the Dutch Republic: an introduction’, in this issue of Continuity and Change, and also van Leeuwen, ‘Giving in early modern history’, for these motives as evidenced by inscriptions on Amsterdam almshouses; for the religious and social reasons in appeals to give to collections, see D. Teeuwen, ‘Collections for the poor: monetary charitable donations in Dutch Towns, c. 1600–1800’, in this issue of Continuity and Change.

63 Leermakers and Donkersloot, Wonen om Gods wille, 158.

64 de Boer, D. E. H., ‘Het Sint Stevenshof tot het eind van de 18de eeuw’, De Leidse Hofjes 2 (1973), 25–37Google Scholar, here 27; Zwanenburg, J. P., ‘Het Sionshofje. Stichting van het gasthuis of Hofje genaemd Syon, binnen de stad Leyden’, De Leidse Hofjes 2 (1973), 39–46Google Scholar, here 40; Turck, Die Leidener Wohnstiftungen, 93; Leermakers and Donkersloot, Wonen om Gods wille, 112, 129.

65 Leermakers and Donkersloot, Wonen om Gods wille, 175–6.

66 Sormani, ‘Het Salvatorhofje’, 116.

67 Ekkart, ‘Cornelis Sprongh’, 34.

68 See, for this, Van Leeuwen, ‘Giving in early modern history’.

69 Noordam, Geringde buffels, 93; Zandvliet, De 250 Rijksten, 238.

70 RAL, Arch. 513 (Hofjes), no. 559, will of Catharina Geschier.

71 RAL, Arch. 513 (Hofjes), Hofje Samuel de Zee.

72 For example, in the case of St. Anna Aalmoeshuis, the chapel became a favourite spot for the regents to exult their lineage and involvement with the almshouse; Terwen, P. A. and Crèvecoeur, R., ‘De glasvensters van het St. Annahof-kapelletje’, in De Leidse Hofjes 14 (1985), 19–42Google Scholar.

73 Sormani, ‘Het Salvatorhofje’, 116.

74 van Nieuwenburg, J., ‘Uit de geschiedenis van het Woudendorphofje’, Leids Jaarboekje 55 (1963), 100–14Google Scholar, especially 101.

75 Such as the regents of the Sint-Elisabethgasthuis who placed their coats of arms over the door of their office; Leermakers and Donkersloot, Wonen om Gods wille, 198–9. Particular elaborate examples in a ‘non-social’ context can still be seen on and near the Keep of Leiden, the remains of the castle that once dominated the city.

76 ‘Voorwoord’, in P. J. M. de Baar, A. J. van Dissel, J. F. Dröge, H. J. M. van der Geest, J. F. Heijbroek, W. Louwrier and G. C. Quispel, Meermansburg, Leidens grootste hofje 1683–1983 (Leiden, 1983), 1.

77 Van Leeuwen notes a similar concern with status as an incentive to found almshouses; ‘Giving in early modern history’.

78 For the importance of family reputation in the Dutch Republic, see L. Kooijmans, Vriendschap en de kunst van het overleven in de zeventiende en achttiende eeuw (Amsterdam, 1997), 11–13, 39–41, 61–2, 88, 90, 97, 101–2, 120, 138–9.

79 Namely, the foundations of: Jan de Latere; Pieter Loridan; Charles Tevel (counted as separate from his co-founders, his brother Jacob and his sister-in-law), Jacob Tevel and Elisabeth van den Vinct; Jan Pesijn and Marie de Lannoy; Anthonis Jacobsz Schacht; Catharina Geschier and Jean Michel; and Samuel de Zee; DAD.

80 Noordam, Geringde buffels, 33–4.

81 Turck, Die Leidener Wohnstiftungen, 185.

82 Van Leeuwen, ‘Giving in early modern history’; and Van Nederveen Meerkerk, ‘The will to give’. Note a similar concern for family in charitable bequests.

83 Leermakers and Donkersloot, Wonen om Gods wille, 163.

84 Van Nieuwenburg, ‘Uit de geschiedenis van het Woudendorphofje’, 106–9.

85 Moerman, I. W. L., ‘Het Hofje van Samuel de Zee’, De Leidse Hofjes 5 (1977), 31–5Google Scholar, here 33.

86 Leermakers and Donkersloot, Wonen om Gods wille, 102; For other examples, see ibid. 95, 138 and 163.

87 ‘Bouwgeschiedenis van Meermansburg’, in de Baar et al., Meermansburg, 4–9, here 6.

88 Leermakers and Donkersloot, Wonen om Gods wille, 138–9, 145.

89 For some concrete examples of this, see Prak, Gezeten burgers, 232–3; and Van Leeuwen, ‘Giving in early modern history’.

90 Obviously not all; in 1749 only about 16 per cent of the households employed domestics; H. A. Diederiks, ‘Beroepsstructuur en sociale stratificatie in Leiden in het midden van de achttiende eeuw’, in Diederiks, Noordam and Tjalsma, Armoede en sociale spanning, 45–67, especially 61.

91 Noordam, Geringde buffels, 52–3; Prak, Gezeten burgers, 231.

92 Although there were alternatives, such as leaving them a bequest or allowing them to remain in their house for a while.

93 See, for example, Boersma and Dusseldorp-Kingma, Regenten en kuise maagden, 29–31, 44–5.

94 RAL, SA II 6177, Will Jan de Latere and Magdalena Vijns, 24 April 1612. For his charitableness, and that of his wife, see also Van Nederveen Meerkerk, ‘The will to give’.

95 L.G. le Poole, Bijdragen tot de kennis van het kerkelijk leven onder de Doopsgezinden, ontleend aan het archief der Doopsgezinde Gemeente te Leiden (Leiden, 1905), 51.

96 Catholicism was tolerated, but Catholics were regarded as second-rate citizens and discriminated against in law. They were, for example, forbidden to bequeath to Catholic priests and institutions; Charles H. Parker, Faith on the margins. Catholics and Catholicism in the Dutch Golden Age (Cambridge, MA, 2008).

97 The Elisabethgasthuis – later, an almshouse – between 1608 and 1654 housed a total of 248 widows, including 111 foreigners, of which 101 were widows from the Southern Netherlands; Schmidt, Overleven na de dood, 185. Also in the St. Anna Aalmoeshuishofje in Leiden in the years 1606–1626 inhabitants could come from the Southern Netherlands; van Dissel, A. J., ‘Van wege den hoochdringenden noot en uyt sonderlinge gratie. Enkele bewoonsters van het Sint Annahofje in het eerste kwart van de 17de eeuw’, De Leidse Hofjes 14 (1985), 11–17Google Scholar.

98 Niekus and Smit, Van bouwvallig nest, 20, 26–7.

99 RAL, Arch. 513, no. 503, Will of Anthonis Jacobsz van der Schacht, 24 September 1664; donatio inter vivos, 7 August 1655; see also Kees van der Wiel, Dit kint hiet Willem. De Heilige Geest in Leiden – 700 jaar vondelingen, wezen en jeugdzorg (Leiden, 2010), 33.

100 Sandra Cavallo, Charity and power in early modern Italy. Benefactors and their motives in Turin, 1541–1789 (Cambridge, 1995), 5, and ch. IV, notices a similar link between female charity and concern about female vulnerability in the late seventeenth century.

101 de Baar, P. J. M., ‘Eva Aelbrechtsdr van Hoogeveen en haar familie’, De Leidse Hofjes 13 (1984), 61–6Google Scholar; Dröge, J. F., ‘De bouwgeschiedenis van het Eva van Hoogeveenshofje’, De Leidse Hofjes 13 (1984), 67–81Google Scholar. It has been suggested that she was unhappy with her unmarried state; Boersma and Dusseldorp-Kingma, Regenten en kuise maagden, 15.

102 RAL, Hofjes 6, f. 24; Schmidt, Overleven na de dood, 189.

103 She ranks as no. 134 in Zandvliet, De 250 rijksten, 240.

104 Kooijmans, Vriendschap, 15–17, 20, 27, 30, 39–41, 54–5, 61–4, 79, 116, 134, 143–6.

105 Such as providing scholarships for promising students of theology; Kooijmans, Vriendschap, 36.

106 RAL, Arch. 513 (Hofjes), no. 459, Will of Eva van Hoogeveen, 4 June 1650.

107 He destined the almshouse for Dutch Reformed elderly poor in general, but the fact that he had a commemorative tablet installed listing all his lordship titles suggests that the Vlaardingen almshouse was meant to accommodate elderly persons from his lordships; Bovée, ‘Het Van Leydenshofje’, 14.

108 For the importance of proximity for establishing who received charity, see also Van Nederveen Meerkerk, ‘The will to give’.

109 Some historians combine these two layers together, while others separate them: Paul Knevel, ‘Een kwestie van overleven. De kunst van het samenleven’, in Thimo de Nijs and Eelco Beukers eds., Geschiedenis van Holland. Deel II, 1572 tot 1795 (Hilversum, 2002), 217–54, here 219–20, divides patricians and nobles from the great burghers; Marco H. D. van Leeuwen, De Rijke Republiek. Gilden, assuradeurs en armenzorg 1500–1800, volume I of: Jacques van Gerwen and Marco H. D. van Leeuwen, Zoeken naar zekerheid. Risico's, preventie, verzekeringen en andere zekerheidsregelingen in Nederland 1500–2000 (Amsterdam and Den Haag, 2000), 41–2, combines them. W. Frijhoff and M. Spies, 1650. Bevochten eendracht (Den Haag, 1999), 189–90, use the same six-layer stratification as Knevel, but in contrast, merge the ‘great burghers’ and the ‘broad burghers’ instead of the ‘broad’ and ‘small’ burghers. Here we chose to follow Knevel and Van Leeuwen.

110 Van Leeuwen, De rijke Republiek, 41.

111 They could, for example, buy their way into a ‘proveniershuis’, a house in which one was assured of lifelong care, lodging and food after paying a certain sum of money. Many medieval hospitals in fact had become such proveniershuizen; for example, see Gerda Kurtz, Het Proveniershuis te Haarlem (Haarlem, 1979); C. Boschma-Aarnoudse, Sint-Pietershof the Hoorn: bedelnap en preuve, kruisheren en proveniers aan het Dal (Hoorn, 1993).

112 van Leeuwen, M. H. D., ‘Guilds and middle-class welfare 1550–1800: provisions for burial, sickness, old age, and widowhood’, Economic History Review 65 (2012), 61–90CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

113 Knevel, ‘Een kwestie van overleven’, 220–1, 230–8; van Leeuwen, De rijke Republiek, 24–9, 41–2; Maarten Prak, Gouden Eeuw. Het raadsel van de Republiek (Nijmegen, 2002), 151–5. See van Leeuwen, De rijke Republiek, passim, for the many risks to which early modern Dutchmen were exposed.

114 On registration habits in the Dutch Republic, see Henk Looijesteijn and Marco H. D. van Leeuwen, ‘Identity registration in the Dutch Republic’, in K. Breckenridge and S. Szreter eds., Registration and recognition. Documenting the person in world history (Oxford, forthcoming), ch. 8.

115 Van Dissel, ‘Van wege den hoochdringenden noot’, 11–17; appendix 1-XIV, 75–96.