Early modern society was class-based and hierarchical. The poor were in the lowest class and included people with broadly diverse fates. Due to the lacunal nature of the source material, studying the poor has been challenging. Even so, gathering the scant information that is available allows us to gain a better understanding of who the poor were and what their life was like. A system of poor relief and welfare, which differed from the preceding system in terms of its objectives and sources of funding, and continued to operate for several centuries, started developing in the 16th century. Martin Luther’s work played a key role in shaping new attitudes. Helping the poor was no longer an opportunity to perform charitable deeds for the sake of one’s soul but became the community’s obligation to assist those who were unable to work. The poor relief system had to identify the deserving poor.

Tallinn’s 1621 ordinance that established the God’s Chest (Gotteskasten) charity for supporting the city’s poor also stated the need to group the needy. It categorised the poor into three groups: the house-poor, the street-poor, and the infirmary or hospital’s poor. Lists of the needy were compiled for the purpose of organising welfare. The first extant list of the house-poor dates from 1528, and the most comprehensive and informative are the lists of the urban poor from 1731 and 1732. Based on those data, it can be estimated that at that time, about 150 people qualified for annual municipal welfare support.

Assistance was given to the poor in the form of money or free lodging in a house for the destitute. Cash was paid to the house- and street-poor, with support ranging from 22 to 80 kopecks per month. The average amount of support cash was sufficient for a poor person to buy half a kilogram of meat, one kilogram of bread, one litre of beer, and one litre of milk per week, and to have some kopecks left for other expenses.

In the 1730s, three-quarters of those on the lists were women, and only a quarter were men. Women’s poverty risk was significantly higher due to the social structure of the time, which did not allow them to act independently. Many poor women were widows. Men had better opportunities for coping, but it was more challenging for them to gain the right to receive support. Men were expected to work until death and support all members of their household. Men’s primary poverty risk was health; poor men were blind, crippled, or very old. Local poor people were the preferred recipients of support. Others had to make greater efforts to justify their need for assistance. Foreign recipients of aid were individuals whose standard of living had plummeted due to accident or war.

Analysis of the lists revealed that in 18th-century Tallinn, poverty threatened not only the lowest-ranking members of society. The poor also included merchants and literati, but in the higher social classes, poverty risk primarily affected female family members. To some extent, assistance for foreign poor people was stratified. Foreigners needed more compelling reasons to obtain support, and foreigners from higher social classes were clearly given priority.

The lists from the early 1730s provide a diverse picture of Tallinn’s poor. The circle of people seems quite varied, but closer examination reveals the principles by which support was determined. Several population groups that were not included in the lists also emerge, such as unmarried mothers, who were considered undeserving poor and did not merit support.