¹ See the comments by Hirsch, F., Social Limits to Growth (London, 1977), pp. 71–83Google Scholar, concerning the “economics of bad neighbouring”.

² Bédarida, F., “La Vie de quartier en Angleterre: enquêtes empiriques et approches théoriques”. Le Mouvement Social, 118 (1982), pp. 10–17Google Scholar, gives a concise summary of the diverse hypotheses and approaches.

³ Bulmer, M., Neighbours: The Work of Philip Abrams (Cambridge, 1986), pp. 3–14 (the quotation appears on p. 7).Google Scholar

⁴ Ibid., p. 91.

⁵ See, for example, Young, M. and Willmott, P., Family and Kinship in East London (Harmondsworth, 1972), ch. 7.Google Scholar

⁶ Bulmer, , Neighbours, p. 95.Google Scholar

⁷ Bédarida, , “La Vie de quartier”, pp. 18–20.Google Scholar

⁸ Stone, L., The Family, Sex and Marriage in England, 1500–1800 (London, 1977).Google Scholar

⁹ Bercé, Y.-M., Fête et révolte: Des mentalités populaires du XVIe au XVIIIe siècle (Paris, 1976).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Heal, F., Hospitality in Early Modern England (Oxford, 1990), pp. 303–304, 333–336, 350, 393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹ Archer, I. W., The Pursuit of Stability: Social Relations in Elizabethan London (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 63–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹² Roodenburg, H., “‘Freundschaft’, ‘Brüderlichkeit’ und ‘Einigkeit’: Städtische Nachbarschaften im Westen der Republik”, in Dekker, T. et al. (eds.), Ausbreitung bürgerlicher Kultur in den Niederlanden und Nordwestdeutschtand (Münster, 1991), pp. 10–24.Google Scholar See also Haks, D., Huwelijk en gezin in Holland in de zeventiende en achttiende eeuw. Processtukken en moralisten over aspecten van het laat-zeventiende en achttiende-eeuwse gezinsleven (Assen, 1982), pp. 60–64Google Scholar, and Davids, C. A., “De migratiebeweging in Leiden in de achttiende eeuw”, in Diederiks, H. A. et al. (eds.), Armoede en sociale spanning: Sociaal-historische studies over Leiden in de achttiende eeuw (Hilversum, 1985), pp. 151–152.Google Scholar

¹³ Garrioch, D., Neighbourhood and Community in Paris, 1740–1790 (Cambridge, 1986), pp. 209–217.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Varenbcrg, E., “Les Voisinages de Gand”, Bulletin de l'Académie royale de Belgique, 2nd series, 35 (1868), pp. 364–386Google Scholar; Claeys, P., Pages de l'histoire locale gantoise, II (Ghent, 1888), pp. 34–52Google Scholar; van Severen, G., Het gebuurte en dekenijleven te Gent, vroeger en nu (Ghent, 1977)Google Scholar; Decavele, J., “De gebuurten tot omstreeks 1800”, in Deeavele, J. (ed.), Gebuurleven en dekenijen te Gent, 14de-20ste eeuw (Ghent, 1992), pp. 9–52.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Bulmer, , Neighbours, p. 10.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Sec especially Mauss, M., “Essai sur le don: forme et raison de l'échange dans les sociétés archaiques”, Années Sociologiques, new series, 1 (1925), pp. 30–186Google Scholar; Gouldner, A. W., “The Norm of Reciproeity: A Preliminary Statement”, American Sociological Review, 25 (1960), pp. 161–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Blau, P., Exchange and Power in Social Life (New York, 1964)Google Scholar; Hirsch, , Social Limits.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Anderson, M., Family Structure in Nineteenth-Century Lancashire (Cambridge, 1971).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Meacham, S., A Life Apart: The English Working Class, 1890–1914 (Cambridge, Mass., 1977), pp. 44–52.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Daunton, M. J., “Public Place and Private Space: The Victorian City and the Working-Class Household”, in Fraser, D. and Sutcliffc, A. (eds.), The Pursuit of Urban History (London, 1983), pp. 212–233.Google Scholar

²⁰ Burke, P., “Some Reflections on the Pre-Industrial City”, Urban History Yearbook, 2 (1975), p. 19CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Clark, P. and Slack, P., English Towns in Transition, 1500–1700 (Oxford, 1976), p. 142.Google Scholar

²¹ Chartier, R., “Introduction: la communauté, l'Etat et la famille. Trajectoires et tensions”, in Ariés, P. and Duby, G. (eds.), Histoire de la vie privée, III, De la Renaissance aux Lumières (Paris, 1986), p. 410Google Scholar; Spierenburg, P., De verbroken betovering: Mentaliteitsgeschiedenis van pre-industrieel Europa (Hilversum, 1988), pp. 14–17, 314–317.Google Scholar

²² See, for example, Bramwell, B., “Public Space and Local Communities: The Example of Birmingham, 1840–1880”, in Kearns, G. and Whithers, C. W. J. (eds.), Urbanising Britain: Essays on Class and Community in the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 31–54.Google Scholar

²³ For references to the literature on this topic see Merriman, J., “Introduction: Images of the Nineteenth-Century French City”, in Merriman, J. (ed.), French Cities in the Nineteenth Century (London, 1982), pp. 32–35Google Scholar; Johnson, J. H. and Pooley, C. G. (eds.), The Structure of Nineteenth-Century Cities (London, 1982)Google Scholar; Dennis, R., English Industrial Cities of the Nineteenth Century: A Social Geography (Cambridge, 1984), pp. 250–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Metsenaere, M. DC, Taalmuur: sociale muur? De negentiende-eeuwse taalverhoudingen te Brussel als resultaat van geodemografische en sociale processen (Brussels, 1988), pp. 48–50, 59–60.Google Scholar

²⁴ See, for instance, Lees, L. H., Exiles of Erin: Irish Migrants in Victorian London (Manchester, 1979)Google Scholar; Fritzsche, B., “Das Quartier als Lebensraum”, in Conze, W. and Engelhardt, U. (eds.), Arbeiterexistenz im 19. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart, 1981), pp. 92–113Google Scholar; Moch, L. P., Paths to the City: Regional Migration in Nineteenth-Century France (Beverly Hills, 1983).Google Scholar

²⁵ Boulton, J., Neighbourhood and Society: A London Suburb in the Seventeenth Century (Cambridge, 1987), p. 258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁴ Wright, S. J., “Sojoumers and Lodgers in a Provincial Town: The Evidence from Eighteenth-Century Ludlow”, Urban History Yearbook, 17 (1990), pp. 14–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar (and the literature cited there). See also Lees, L. H., “The Survival of the Unfit: Welfare Politics and Family Maintenance in Nineteenth-Century London”, in Mandler, P. (ed.), The Uses of Charity: The Poor on Relief in the Nineteenth-Century Metropolis (Philadelphia, 1990), p. 86.Google Scholar

²⁷ Borchert, J., “Urban Neighbourhood and Community: Informal Group Life 1850–1970”, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 11 (1981), p. 620CrossRefGoogle Scholar, has remarked that during the last quarter of the nineteenth century most black labourers' families in Washington D.C. provided board and lodging to non-related immigrants not so much in return for immediate material benefits as with a view to mutual assistance in times of future need: “What alley dwellers did […] was to expand the numbers of people that the family could rely on for support and in doing so gained greater assurance that some resources and help would always be available for emergencies. This process not only increased the potential earning power and helped to increase it, but it also provided a variety of services.”

²⁸ Lis, C., Social Change and the Labouring Poor: Antwerp, 1770–1860 (New Haven and London, 1986), pp. 150–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁹ Willmott, P., Kinship and Urban Community: Past and Present (Leicester, 1987), pp. 8–15.Google Scholar

³⁰ Anderson, , Family Structure, p. 171.Google Scholar In a recent contribution (“Indicators of Population Change and Stability in Nineteenth-Century Cities: Some Sceptical Comments”, in Johnson and Pooley (cds.), Structure, pp. 283–298)Google Scholar he takes a less categoric position and stresses that “we need to know much more than we have usually gathered in the past about neighbourhood activity space”.

³¹ Garrioch, , Neighbourhood, pp. 227–228.Google Scholar

³² See, for example, Thernstrom, S., “Urbanization, Migration and Social Mobility in Late Nineteenth-Century America”, in Callow, A. B. (ed.), American Urban History: An Interpretive Reader with Commentaries (New York, 1969), pp. 263–273Google Scholar, and Daunton, M. J., Coal Metropolis: Cardiff, 1870–1914 (Leicester, 1977), pp. 131–142.Google Scholar

³³ For general surveys of the literature, see De Metsenaere, , Taalmuur, pp. 61–64Google Scholar, and Bleck, S., “Mobilität and Seβhaftigkeit in deutschen Groβstädten während der Urbanisierung”, Geschichte und Gesellschaft, 15 (1989), pp. 5–33.Google Scholar

³⁴ Lees, , Exiles, p. 58Google Scholar; Garrioch, , Neighbourhood, pp. 228–230.Google Scholar

³⁵ The theoretical speculations of Norbert Elias often underpin such interpretations. See, for example, Spierenburg, , Verbroken betovering, pp. 10–17Google Scholar, and Ariès, P., “Pour une histoire de la vie privée”Google Scholar, in Ariès, and Duby, (eds.), Histoire de la vie privée, III, pp. 7–19.Google Scholar The ideas of Elias have also inspired Muchembled, R., L'Invention de l'homme moderne: Sensibilités, mœurs et comportements collectifs sous l'Ancien Régime (Paris, 1988)Google Scholar, though Muchembled provides some fundamental correctives to Elias’ ideas.

³⁶ Farge, A., Vivre dans la rue à Paris au XVIIIe siècle (Paris, 1979)Google Scholar, and La Vie fragile: Violence, pouvoirs et solidarités à Paris au XVIIIe siècle (Paris, 1986).Google Scholar

³⁷ Roche, D., Le Peuple de Paris. Essai sur la culture populaire au XVIIIe siècle (Paris, 1981), pp. 100–130, 253–256.Google Scholar

³⁸ See the remarks by Farr, J. R., Hands of Honor: Artisans and their World in Dijon, 1550–1650 (Ithaca and London, 1988), pp. 161–162, 165–166.Google Scholar

³⁹ Garrioch, , Neighbourhood, pp. 16–55 (the quote appears on p. 33).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Farge, , Vivre, pp. 105–107, 110–123Google Scholar; Garrioch, D., “Verbal Insults in Eighteenth-Century Paris”, in Burke, P. and Porter, R. (eds.), The Social History of Language (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 104–119Google Scholar; Lecharny, H., “L'Injure à Paris au XVIIIe siècle. Un aspect de la violence au quotidien”, Revue d'Histoire Moderne et Contemporaine. 36 (1989), pp. 559–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See, too, in this context the important remarks by Farr, , Hands of Honor, pp. 180–189Google Scholar, and Muchembled, , Invention, pp. 218–222, 307–309.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Brennan, T., Public Drinking and Popular Culture in Eighteenth-Century Paris (Princeton, 1988), p. 63.Google Scholar See also Daussy, T., “Le Cabaret, lieu de sociabilité à Tourcoing (fin XVIIIe siècle – début XIXe siècle)”, Tourcoing et le Pays de Ferrain, 1 (1983), pp. 25–37.Google Scholar

⁴² In 1783 a French traveller remarked that the merchants of Ghent associated only with one another and with the nobility, and that none of them frequented the estaminets à bière any more. Derival (pseudonym of P. de Gomicourt), Le Voyageur dans les Pays-Bas autrichiens, V (Amsterdam, 1783), p. 12. This was also the case in other West European cities. Cf. Muchcmblcd, , Invention, pp. 269–271.Google Scholar

⁴³ Brcnnan, , Public Drinking, p. 227.Google Scholar See also Soly, H., “Kroeglopen in Brabant en Vlaanderen, 16de–18de eeuw”, Spiegel Historiael, 18 (1983), pp. 570–571Google Scholar, and for a later period Hannagan, M. P., The Logic of Solidarity: Artisans and Industrial Workers in Three French Towns, 1871–1914 (Urbana, 1980), pp. 102–105.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Schlumbohm, J., “Traditional” Collectivity and ‘Modern’ Individuality: Some Questions and Suggestions for the Historical Study of Socialization. The Examples of the German Lower and Upper Bourgeoisie around 1800”, Social History, 5 (1980), pp. 71–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁵ See especially David, N. Z., “Charivari, Honor and Community in Seventeenth-Century Lyon and Geneva”, in MacAloon, J. J. (ed.), Rite Drama, Festival, Spectacle: Rehearsals toward a Theory of Cultural Performance (Philadelphia, 1984), pp. 42–57Google Scholar, and the contributions by Blok, A., Jacobs, M. and Rooijakkers, G. to the special issue of Volkskundig Bulletin, 15/3 (10 1989)Google Scholar: “Charivari in de Nederlanden. Rituele sancties op deviant gedrag”.

⁴⁶ Malcolmson, R. W., Popular Recreations in English Society, 1700–1850 (Cambridge, 1973)Google Scholar; Chartier, R., “Dominants et dominés: du partage à exclusion”, in Le Roy Ladurie, E. (ed.), Histoire de la France urbaine, III, La Ville classique, de la Renaissance à la Révolution (Paris, 1981), pp. 180–198Google Scholar; Le Goff, J. and Schmilt, J.-C. (eds.), Le Charivari. Actes de la Table Ronde organisée à Paris (25–27 avril 1977) par l'Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales et le Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (Paris, 1981)Google Scholar; Pellegrin, N., Les Bachelleries. Organisations et fêtes de la jeunesse dans le Centre-Ouest, XVe-XVIUe siècles (Poitiers, 1982)Google Scholar; Soly, H., “Openbare feesten in Brabantse en Vlaamse steden, 16de–18de eeuw”, Het openbaar initiatief van de gemeenten in België: Historische grondslagen (Ancien Régime). Handelingen van het 11de Intemationaal Colloquium te Spa, 1–4 sept. 1982 (Brussels, 1984), pp. 627–630.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Garrioch, , Neighbourhood, p. 220.Google Scholar See also Tilly, C., “Charivaris, Repertoires and Urban Politics”, in Merriman (ed.), French Cities, pp. 73–91Google Scholar, and Tilly, C., The Contentious French: Four Centuries of Popular Struggle (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1986), pp. 30–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁸ Medick, H., “Plebeian Culture in the Transition to Capitalism”, in Samuel, R. and Jones, G. Stedman (eds.), Culture, Ideology and Politics. Essays for Eric Hobsbawm (London, 1982), pp. 84–112.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Lis, C. and Soly, H., “Policing the Early Modern Proletariat, 1450–1850”, in Levine, D. (ed.), Proletarianization and Family History (New York, 1984), pp. 212–213 (see also the literature cited there).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Ross, E., “Survival Networks: Women's Neighbourhood Sharing in London before World War One”, History Workshop, 15 (1983), pp. 4–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵¹ Lis, C. et al. , Op vrije voeten? Sociale politiek in West-Europa, 1450–1914 (Leuven, 1985), pp. 34–36, 124–127, 200–204.Google Scholar

⁵² Garrioch, , Neighbourhood, p. 41.Google Scholar

⁵³ Lis, C. and Soly, H., Te Gek om los te lopen? Collocatie in de 18de eeuw (Turnhout, 1990).Google Scholar In eighteenth-century Paris, too, neighbours played an important role in cases of imprisonment. See Farge, A. and Foucault, M., Le Désordre des familles. Lettres de cachet des archives de la Bastille au XVIlIe siècle (Paris, 1982), pp. 35–37.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Farge, A., “Familles: l'honneur et le secret”Google Scholar, in Ariès, and Duby, (eds.), Histoire de la vie privée, III, pp. 596–607.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Garnot, B., Le Peuple au Siècle des Lumières. Echec d'un dressage culturel (Paris, 1990), pp. 71–74.Google Scholar See also the unpublished doctoral thesis of Roets, A.-M., “‘Rudessen, dieften ende andere crimen’. Misdadigheid te Gent in de zeventiende en achttiende eeuw: een kwantitatieve en kwalitatieve studie” (University of Ghent, 1987), pp. 269–276Google Scholar, and appendices 102–103, 128–130.

⁵⁶ Farge, A. and Zysberg, A., “Les Théâtres de la violence à Paris au XVIIIe siècle”, Annales, Economies, Sociétés, Civilisations, 34 (1979), pp. 984–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Kaplan, S. L., “Note sur les commissaires de police à Paris au XVIIIe siècle”, Revue d'Histoire Moderne et Contemporaine, 28 (1981), pp. 669–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁷ Davis, J., “Prosecutions and their Context: The Use of the Criminal Law in Later Nineteenth-Century London”, in Hay, D. and Snyder, F. (eds.), Policing and Prosecution in Britain, 1750–1850 (Oxford, 1989), pp. 413–419.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Phillips, R., Family Breakdown in Late Eighteenth-Century France: Divorces in Rouen, 1792–1803 (Oxford, 1980), pp. 129, 180–187Google Scholar; Garrioch, , Neighbourhood, pp. 45–48Google Scholar; Brennan, , Public Drinking, p. 39Google Scholar; Peveri, P., “Voisinage et contrôle social au XVIIIe siècle: les Cartou-chiens sous le regard des honnêtes gens”, Mentalités, 4 (1990), pp. 101–102.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Thompson, E. P., Customs in Common (London, 1991), pp. 57, 63, 65–71.Google Scholar See also Reddy, W., “The Textile Trade and the Language of the Crowd at Rouen, 1752–1871”, Past and Present, 74 (1977), pp. 62–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁰ Scott, J. C., Domination and the Arts of Resistance. Hidden Transcripts (New Haven and London, 1990), pp. 150–151.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Lucas, C., “The Crowd and Politics between Ancien Régime and the Revolution in France”, Journal of Modern History, 60 (1988), p. 430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶² Lefebvre, G., “Foules révolutionnaires”, in Lefebvre, G., Etudes sur la Révolution française (Paris, 1934), pp. 371–392Google Scholar; Rudé, G., The Crowd in the French Revolution (Oxford, 1959)Google Scholar; Lucas, C., “Résistances populaires à la Révolution dans le sud-ouest”, in Nicolas, J. (ed.), Mouvements populaires et conscience sociale (Paris, 1985), pp. 473–485.Google Scholar See also Cobb, R., The Police and the People: French Popular Protest, 1789–1820 (Oxford, 1970), p. 245.Google Scholar

⁶³ Monnier, R., Le Faubourg Saint-Antoine, 1789–1815 (Paris, 1981), p. 122.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Lucas, , “The Crowd”, pp. 429, 437.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ According to Andrews, R. M., “The Justices of the Peace of Revolutionary Paris, September 1792 – November 1794 (Frimaire Year III)”, Past and Present, 52 (1971), pp. 56–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar, the sansculotte movement should be situated in the context of the neighbourhood rather than in that of the workplace. Sec also in this context Kaplan, S., “Les Corporations, les ‘faux ouvriers’ et le faubourg Saint-Antoine au XVIIIe siècle”, Annales, Economies, Sociétés, Civilisations, 43 (1988), pp. 373–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁶ Roberts, M. J. D., “Public and Private in Early Nineteenth-Century London: The Vagrant Act of 1822 and its Enforcement”, Social History, 13 (1988), pp. 290–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁷ See, for example, Bosch, M. and Jagt, G., Al is de Krim nog zo min… Geschiedenis van een Enschedese volksbuurt, 1861–1934 (Hengelo, 1984), pp. 108–109.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Hearn, F., Domination, Legitimation and Resistance: The Incorporation of the Nineteenth-Century English Working-Class (Westport and London, 1984), pp. 108–109.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Sennett, R., The Fall of Public Man (New York, 1977), pp. 214–215.Google Scholar See also Scott, , Domination, pp. 64, 120–122.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Lis et al., Op vrije voeten, pp. 157, 162, 178–179, 185–186 (with additional references). See also De Beider, J., “Situering van het arbeiderssparen”, in Witte, E. and De Preter, R. (eds.), Samen sparen. De geschieden'a van de spaarbank Codep en haar voorlopers (Leuven, 1989), pp. 15–31.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Bramwell, , “Public Space”, pp. 39–40, 54.Google Scholar

⁷² Ross, E., “Hungry Children: Housewives and London Charity, 1870–1918”, in Mandler, (ed.), Uses of Charity, pp. 166–175.Google Scholar See also Heal, , Hospitality, pp. 359–370Google Scholar; Areher, , Pursuit of Stability, pp. 94–97Google Scholar; Bennett, J. M., “Conviviality and Charity in Medieval and Early Modern England”, Past and Present, 134 (1992), pp. 37–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷³ Bosch, and Jagt, , Al is de Krim, p. 77Google Scholar; Ross, , “Hungry Children”, p. 169Google Scholar; Bramwell, , “Public Space”, p. 41.Google Scholar See also the useful comments by Sennett, R. and Cobb, J., The Hidden Injuries of Class (New York, 1972), pp. 207–210Google Scholar; Schwartz, O., Le Monde privé des ouvriers: Hommes et femmes du Nord (Paris, 1990), p. 65Google Scholar; Scott, , Domination, p. 65.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ See, for example, Campbell, A., The Lanarkshire Miners: A Social History of their Trade Unions, 1775–1874 (Edinburgh. 1979).Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Bramwell, , “Public Space”, p. 32.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Crew, D. F., “Class and Community: Local Research on Working-Class History in Four Countries”, in Tenfelde, K. (ed.), Arbeiter und Arbeiterbewegung im Vergleich (Munich, 1986), pp. 282–283.Google Scholar See also Calhoun, C. J., “Community: Toward a Variable Conceptualization for Comparative Research”, Social History, 5 (1980), p. 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷⁷ Scott, , Domination, pp. 119, 190–192.Google Scholar See also Thompson, E. P., The Making of the English Working Class (Harmondsworth, 1966), pp. 471, 611, 719Google Scholar, and Steinberg, M. W., “The Re-Making of the English Working-Class?” Theory and Society, 20 (1991), pp. 177, 191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷⁸ Burdy, J.-P., Le Soleil noir: Un quartier de Saint-Etienne, 1840–1940 (Lyon, 1989), pp. 233–234.Google Scholar See also the comments by Foster, J., Class Struggle in the Industrial Revolution (London, 1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fritzsche, , “Das Quartier”, pp. 105–106Google Scholar; Accampo, E., “Entre la classe sociale et la cité: identité et intégration chez les ouvriers de Saint-Chamond, 1815–1880”, Le Mouvement Social, 118 (1982), pp. 51–52, 54–55Google Scholar; Lequin, Y., “Les Citadins, les classes et les luttes sociales”, in Duby, G. (ed.), Histoire de la France urbaine, IV, La Ville á l'âge industriel (Paris, 1983), pp. 527–531Google Scholar; Fritzsche, B., “Mechanismen der sozialen Segregation”, in Teuteberg, H. J. (ed.), Homo Habitons: Zur Sozialgeschichte da ländlichen und städtischen Wohnens in der Neuzeit (Münster, 1985), p. 165Google Scholar; Bleck, , “Mobilität”, pp. 32–33Google Scholar; Altena, B., “Een broeinest der anarchie”. Arbeiders, arbeidersbeweging en maatschappelijke ontwikkeling: Vlissinsen, 1875–1929 (Haarlem, 1989), pp. 500–501Google Scholar; Schwartz, , Le Monde privé, p. 73.Google Scholar