Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

2 results

  • 2 - Manorial Officeholding and Selection Processes: Participation or Restriction?

  • Spike Gibbs, Universität Mannheim, Germany
  • Book:
    Lordship, State Formation and Local Authority in Late Medieval and Early Modern England
    Published online:
    13 July 2023
    Print publication:
    27 July 2023, pp 68-116
    • Chapter
      • You have access
      • Open access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation

  • Summary

    This chapter examines the extent to which service in manorial office was characterised by relative inclusion of all members of the community or whether official positions were controlled by a narrow elite, and how this changed over time. Through examining the systems by which officials were selected, it finds that communities of tenants had significant power over who was chosen for office owing to traditions of collective liability. A further quantitative analysis of selection patterns reveals a two-tier system. While a significant proportion of the adult male tenant population likely served in office across their lifetimes, an elite dominated office through repeat service across a number of different roles. These findings demonstrate that a single designation of ‘participatory’ or ‘restrictive’ cannot be applied to manorial officeholding, as patterns of selection encompassed both elements. It also reveals little change into the early modern period, challenging a narrative of the rise of the ‘middling sort’.

  • 10 - Jewish Perspectives on Poverty

  • Edited by William A. Galston, Brookings Institution, Washington DC, Peter H. Hoffenberg, University of Hawaii, Manoa
  • Book:
    Poverty and Morality
    Published online:
    05 June 2012
    Print publication:
    20 September 2010, pp 204-219

  • Summary

    The political changes of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries brought an end to the political authority of halakhic law. In a society shaped by Judaic traditions, groups more liable to be poor include immigrants and aliens, women, and paradoxically those committed to the supreme religious ideal of a life of study. In the Jewish tradition, alleviating poverty is by no means merely a matter for supererogation; the duty to help the poor is called tzedakah. Providing for the basic needs of the poor was seen also as a communal responsibility, and Jewish communities did so through two complementary mechanisms: a daily operation of food collection and distribution, and a tzedakah fund that made weekly disbursements to all poor residents. The common form of competition for welfare resources was between the local poor, asserting an entitlement to the care and resources of their own community, and itinerant claimants.