Poor of Vilnius Lutheran Hospital in the 18th century

Straipsnyje analizuojami XVIII a. Vilniaus liuteronų špitolėje globotų žmonių kolektyvinio portreto bruožai. Remiantis istoriografijoje menkai panaudotais šaltiniais, aptariama priėmimo į špitolę tvarka, globotinių skaičius, aiškinamasi, kokios priežastys lemdavo moterų nuskurdimą, koks būdavo globotinių socialinis statusas iki patekimo į špitolę, taip pat aptariama kasdienio gyvenimo špitolėje tvarka.The history of poor relief in Vilnius, as well as in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, has received little attention in the historiography of Lithuania. The few studies have mostly focused upon the history of Catholic hospitals, paying almost no attention to the Protestant or Orthodox poor relief in 18th century Vilnius. These few studies, also, paid little attention to those who received poor relief in the hospitals. This article is an attempt to take both these points into account by focusing on the individuals who received poor relief in the Vilnius Lutheran hospital (almshouse) in the 18th century. Attention is paid to five major points: 1) admission to the hospital, 2) the number of poor in the hospital, 3) gender, 4) social background of the paupers and 5) everyday life in the hospital. The analysis of the sources shows that the majority of paupers were admitted to the hospital because of old age and disability or poor health, and hence the high mortality rate in the first few years of living in the institution. There were usually 5 to 12 paupers living in the hospital, whose number was probably reduced by the activities of other Lutheran poor relief institutions, primarily the Widows’ Home. The number of women living in the hospital was unusually small, compared with other hospitals in Vilnius because 4 to 8 women were normally living in the widows’ home. The position of women, mostly widows, in general, i. e. limited possibilities to work on their own, low wages for “feminine” jobs, responsibility for unpaid domestic work, determined their increased vulnerability. The apparent majority of paupers originated from or were related to artisans (primarily shoemakers and tailors) or urban working class. It becomes apparent that the community of the hospital was not an egalitarian one. Firstly, the sources show some paupers living in separate rooms, secondly, postmortem lists of belongings indicate unequal material well-being of the paupers in the hospital. Permanent living space, weekly payments and structured everyday life offered more stability to the poor. As dependants of the community the paupers were bound to obey the community’s elders and, as a means of paying back for the care, bequeath their belongings to the hospital