In a provocative study that bristles with contemporary relevance, Himmelfarb demonstrates that the material and moral dimensions of poverty were inseparable in the minds of late Victorians, be they radical or conservative.
Gertrude Himmelfarb, also known as Bea Kristol, was an American historian. She was a leader and conservative interpretations of history and historiography. She wrote extensively on intellectual history, with a focus on Britain and the Victorian era, as well as on contemporary society and culture.
This is less compelling than its prequel, "The Idea of Poverty", which is a much more coherent, detailed, and interesting book. This one is somehow more of a grab-bag of different narratives and episodes, without much of a unifying theme (or themes). This perhaps reflects the great diversity of the subject matter, but I can't help but feel Himmelfarb was maybe just a bit less interested in the late Victorians than she was in their forebears 50-100 years earlier. That said, it's still a vitally important work on the history of ideas - one which would be much more widely known if the structural bias in the Western academy against conservative thought was less strong.
I'm halfway through this book, but putting it aside even though I had plans to push my way through. It's a history of philanthropy in the Victorian era, and while I definitely learned from it, the style is academic, which makes it slow-going. The most interesting parts were about the people/movements and their accomplishments: Octavia Hill and her low-cost housing for the working poor, Charles Booth and his seventeen volume study of the poor which is foundational in the field of social research, and the Salvation Army whose aim was to reach criminals and alcoholics, the people Octavia Hill and Charles Booth wouldn't touch. Amusingly, the Salvation Army had its protesting counterpart, the Skeleton Army, which used to organize mock revivalist meetings. Perhaps I'll pick this book up again in the future, but I feel it's more important to learn about what's happening now rather than back then.
I really did not care for this book as much as the other two texts I've read in my history of philanthropy course. That's not to say it's not well researched and engaging. I just didn't care for the organizational method and style in comparison. That said, if you're interested in historic AND contemporary issues of poverty, this is a must read (I can direct you to key chapters if you don't want to read the whole book).