(PDF) Endowment Studies – Interdisciplinary Perspectives

endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 brill.com/ends Endowment Studies – Interdisciplinary Perspectives Zachary Chitwood, Tillmann Lohse, Ignacio Sánchez and Annette Schmiedchen Executive Editors, Endowment Studies

Abstract This article serves as an introduction to the new journal Endowment Studies (ends). Besides laying out the scope and goals of the periodical, it also charts the broader arc of historical scholarship on endowments. More specifically, the development of the research on foundations is summarized in four fields, namely Medieval Studies, Byzan- tine Studies, Islamic Studies and Indology. Furthermore, a general vocabulary for the core features of foundations is also proposed. Keywords endowments – foundations – charities – ideal-type – comparative history Introduction For about five millennia endowments have been employed by humankind to sustainably satisfy the needs of their respective societies. The basic idea be- hind such practices has always been the same: The surplus of certain assets is designated for particular groups of persons, in order to encourage them to act on behalf of and in line with their benefactor; sometimes temporarily, usually for an indefinite period, in short: forever. The tradition of such intergenerational claims of validity can be traced back to Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia.1 Since that time, one finds ­endowments – albeit in quite different quantity and quality – wherever humans g­ enerate 1 Borgolte 2017. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi 10.1163/24685968-00100004 2 Chitwood et al. more than they need for survival, have cultural techniques to transmit the by-laws of the founder and act according to ethical norms that label certain behavioral patterns as meritorious. However, it seems questionable that the countless variations of endowments established all over the globe are the result of a single evolution triggered by just one starting point. Although in- tercultural transfers might also be reasonably assumed to have occurred in the field of endowments,2 it has been rightly argued that the much-debated questions of origins, influences and stages of development essentially miss the point, namely that endowments constantly have to be (re-)invented, because at all times they react to specific (and that means different or “new”) social needs and frameworks.3 In premodern times, according to current scholarship, we find long-term or permanent endowments exclusively in North Africa, Asia and Europe. Only as a result of European colonization did such institutions became literally a universal phenomenon. Universal spread, however, did not at all lead to a uni- versally homogenous designation for foundations. Even at the beginning of the 21st century, as more and more foundations operate globally, terminological imprecision still prevails,4 as indeed has mostly been the case in the universal history of endowments. The earliest attempt to create a standardized terminology dates back to the 9th century ce, when two Muslim jurists successfully brought hitherto un- known uniformity to the diverse practices of religiously motivated gift-giving. Hilāl al-Raʾy and al-Khaṣṣāf in their groundbreaking treatises clarified the le- gal meaning of terms like ṣadaqa jāriya (everlasting charity), ṣadaqa mawqūfa (inalienable charity), waqf/ḥubs (endowment) and other derivative terms, and thus created a basis for the legal endowment doctrines later developed and adapted by the different Islamic schools of jurisprudence.5 Amongst the ad- herents of other world religions, however, analogous efforts were not made, although the funding of rituals and pious benevolence had been practiced by Buddhists, Jains, Hindus, Jews and Christians for a much longer time still. Yet 2 They have been poorly studied so far. Cf. Borgolte et al. 2017. 3 Borgolte 2002: 338. Cf. furthermore Borgolte 2005: 21. 4 This is especially true of the English language, which alternates between “endowment” and “foundation” (both of which are equally valid terms) for the German “Stiftung” or French “fondation”. English “endowment”, however, has the additional meaning of a foundation’s capital, which in certain instances can cause confusion. Regarding the term trust cf. n. 25 below. 5 Hennigan 2004. Cf. al-Khaṣṣāf, Treatise on the Law of Trusts. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 ENDOWMENT STUDIES – INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES 3 neither in Sanskrit nor in Hebrew, Greek, Latin or any vernacular language of premodern times was the meaning of “endowment” based on an unambigu- ous relationship between the signifier and the signified. The latter usually was referred to by various terms, whilst even the most common of the former could designate things other than “endowments”. In order to more concretely illus- trate the development of terminology for endowments in premodern cultures, it is worth discussing in greater detail the vocabulary for foundations in three of the most richly transmitted traditions, namely in Sanskrit, Greek and Latin. In Sanskrit the rather unspecific noun dāna denotes “the act of giving” as well as a “gift” in general,6 including endowments; and the expression prati- ṣṭhāpana means “the act of founding [a building]” as well as “the foundation [of a building]”.7 In endowment documents, several different terms were used to highlight the specific character of the objects granted. The compound akṣayanīvī, literally “undecaying capital”,8 intimates that certain assets were provided for perpetuity. Originally, this noun was a typical expression for the bestowal of money for a religious purpose.9 Later, it became a more general term for “permanent endowment”. The classical, although semantically not totally clear, compound to denote grants of land and villages was agrahāra / agrāhāra.10 Its connotation can only be deduced from its epigraphic use. With this noun, whole villages and plots of land were characterized as tax-exempted religious donations, initially exclusively in favor of Brahmins. Later, this expres- sion is sometimes also attested for endowments favoring other beneficiaries. The broad spread of this term is proven by the fact that °agrahāra / °agrāhāra could be the second element of place names. In these cases, it can be assumed that those settlements had once been founded for and/or bestowed upon Brahmins. Often the terminology itself emphasizes the religious character of endowments. The compound brahmadāya or brahmadeya delineates a “grant 6 Monier-Williams 1899: 474: “1. dāna, n. the act of giving …; donation, gift”. 7 Monier-Williams 1899: 671: “prati-ṣṭhāpana, n. fixing, placing, locating; (esp.) the erection or consecration of the image of a deity …; establishment”. 8 Monier-Williams 1899: 3: “a-kṣaya, mf(ā)n. exempt from decay, undecaying”; 3: “a-kṣaya- nīvī, f. a permanent endowment”; 567: “nīvi or nīvī, f. … capital, principal stock”. 9 For akhayanīvi in Prakrit inscriptions, see Njammasch 1971; for akṣayanīvi in Epigraphical Hybrid Sanskrit, see Damsteegt 1978: 175, 180, 255, 258; for akṣayanīvī in Buddhist Sanskrit texts, see Schopen 1994: 529-535. 10 Monier-Williams 1899: 6: “agra-hāra, m. royal donation of land to Brāhmans; land or vil- lage thus given”. Sircar 1966: 10-11: “agrahāra …, rent-free land given to Brāhmaṇas; a rent- free village; a Brāhmaṇa village; sometimes suffixed to names of localities especially in South India. … sometimes spelt agrāhāra”. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 4 Chitwood et al. in favor of a Brahmin”,11 but it was sometimes also used for other beneficia- ries. The noun devadāna, devadāya, or devadeya primarily denotes an “endow- ment in favor of a deity”,12 i.e. favoring a Hindu temple. It was at times also applied for grants in favor of Buddhist monasteries, but not for endowments favoring Brahmins. Supposedly, this expression was to define grants in favor of institutions (temples, monasteries), in contrast to endowments benefitting individuals or groups of people (Brahmanical priests). A more general term for “religious endowment” was dharmadāna / dharmadāya / dharmadeya,13 apparently introduced to denote donations in favor of different beneficiaries in a more neutral way. Reflecting the lack of a definition of foundations in law, no term for “endow- ment” was employed in either classical or medieval Greek.14 The intention of a founder to create an endowment was expressed in ancient Greek via the sub- stantive epangelia “pronouncement”, as well as the verbs epangellomai “to pro- fess” and hypischneomai “to promise”.15 Though different forms of the word to give (didomi “to give”, anatithemi “to erect” and epididomi “to give in addition”) were the three terms most used in sacral donations, a particular verb meaning “to found” was never developed.16 Unlike medieval Greek, there was no wide- spread term for founder in ancient Greek. Along with the Christianization of the Roman Empire, so also a new vocabulary for Christian foundations was developed. This took place most notably in the second half of the fourth cen- tury among the Cappadocian fathers – Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa – as well as John Chrysostom, all of whom encouraged rich Christians to give away their wealth as a means of attaining salvation. This 11 Monier-Williams 1899: 738: “2. brahma-dāya, … m. the earthly possession of a Brāhman”; 738: “brahma-deya, … n. gift to Brāhmans”. Sircar 1966: 60-61: “brahmadāya … gift to a Brāhmaṇa; the rent-free holding of Brāhmaṇas; same as brahmadeya”; 61: “brahmadeya … land or village given as gift (generally tax-free) to Brāhmaṇas; land to be granted to or in the possession of Brāhmaṇas”. 12 Sircar 1966: 87: “devadāna …, gift made to a god; rent-free land in the possession of a temple”; 88: “devadāya …, a rent-free holding in the possession of a temple; a gift made in honour of a god”; 88: “devadeya …, grant made in favour of temples”. 13 The term deyadharma was a predecessor of the expression dharmadeya; cf. Monier-­ Williams 1899: 492: “deya-dharma, m. ‘the duty of giving’, charity”; Sircar 1966: 90: “de­ yadharma … a pious gift; an appropriate religious gift; an expression used in numerous ­donative inscriptions”. For the other terms, see Monier-Williams 1899: 511: “dharma-dāna, n. a gift made from duty”; Sircar 1966: 92: “dharmadāna …, a religious gift; a gift for reli- gious merit; grant of tax-free land”; 92: “dharmadeya …, a religious grant in general”. 14 For a fuller treatment of the Greek terminology for foundations, see Chitwood 2014c. 15 Laum 1914: vol. 1, 118-119. 16 Laum 1914: vol. 1, 120-126. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 ENDOWMENT STUDIES – INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES 5 gift or donation was conceived of as a psychikon, a “part for the soul”, which would correspond to an heir’s portion of the family fortune.17 Over time, the psychikon became an umbrella term not only for pious gifts, but also endow- ments, alongside other terms like dorea (“donation”) and aphierosis (“dedica- tion”). Foundations in Byzantium were primarily articulated through the per- son of the founder. Already in the Justinianic legislation of the 6th century we learn that the term ktistes (“founder”) was a sought-after epithet.18 After the turn of the millennium ce, the word ktetor became by far the most common word for founder. Along with Byzantine cultural influence more generally, the term ktetor was exported to the Balkans, the Caucasus and Eastern Europe: it appears as a loanword in both Church Slavonic as well Rumanian.19 In Western Christendom the noun fundatio – the etymological root of English “foundation”, French “fondation” and so on – in medieval as well as in classical Latin denoted literally the act of laying a building’s cornerstone. Metaphorically, this term was also adapted to all sorts of acts of establishing something.20 Only at the end of the Middle Ages did fundatio also describe the result of such a process.21 Fifteenth-century dictionaries even suggest that “to found” had become the principal meaning of fundare.22 Nonetheless, a “found- ed” institution was not usually called a fundatio. Much more common were terms referring to its purpose or organization, such as anniversarium (anniver- sary) or pitancia (pittance), monasterium (monastery) or hospitale (hospital). Accordingly, a medieval founder in the language usage of his contemporaries did not necessarily have “to found”; likewise, he could “construct”, “erect”, “in- stitute”, “initiate”, “build”, “bequeath”, “donate”, “endow” or simply “give”.23 In fact, there was no formalized procedure for becoming a founder. Some per- sons fancied themselves founders, even if they had never done anything which could have justified such an honorary title. Others were claimed as erstwhile founders by later generations, who wished that thereby some of the glory of these imagined patrons would shine on them, too.24 17 The classic study on the development of the psychikon is Bruck 1956. His narrative of the development of the “part for the soul”, and in particular the importance he ascribes to Basil of Caesarea in its articulation, has been attenuated by Holman 2001: 14-16. 18 Justinian, Novels 345 (Nov. 67.2). 19 Miklosich 1886: 145; Miklosich 1882-1885: 320. 20 Detailed references are given in Lohse 2014: 25. 21 As was already noted by Feenstra 1956: 441. Cf. Feenstra 1998: 317-318. 22 Vocabularius teutonicus, vol. 2: 781; Stralsunder Vokabular, no. 10755, p. 390; cf. Diefenbach 1857: 252. 23 Lohse 2014: 25-26. 24 Borgolte 2016. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 6 Chitwood et al. A coherent and legally-binding doctrine of foundation law emerged in the West only after the end of the Middle Ages, taking different directions in the legal systems of Common, Civil and Canon Law.25 In none of these legal tradi- tions did the new doctrine lead to a new terminology;26 rather the semantics of key categories were narrowed or shifted underhandedly and uncontrolledly in long-lasting processes. That is why modern researchers from the European continent using terms like “foundation”, “trust” or “Stiftung” may refer to quite different phenomena than their colleagues in England or the United States. To overcome the confusion created by both the inconsistency of historical documentation and the everyday language of modern times, Michael Borgolte and others have proposed defining an ideal type of what scholars interested in diachronic or intercultural comparisons may designate as a “foundation”.27 All attempts made so far agree that “foundation” should be understood as a social system which survives the death of all persons involved in its initial es- tablishment, administration and execution.28 However, there is still some dis- agreement as to what point of reference – whether its aim, endowment, orga- nization, performance or the like – should be used to evaluate a foundation’s resilience to historical change. Considering that any ideal type – according to Max Weber – has to be formed by the “one-sided accentuation of one or more points of view and by the synthesis of a great many diffuse, discrete, more or less present and occasionally absent concrete individual phenomena, which are arranged (…) into a unified analytical construct",29 it seems reasonable to state that the permanency of an ideal-type foundation includes: (1.) an immu- table purpose, (2.) an imperishable asset, (3.) a continuous administration for the income generated and (4.) a fixed recipient who makes use of the founda- tion’s surplus. In contrast to modern legal-historical doctrines, cultural, social and eco- nomic historians do not understand permanency as an essential or natural quality of foundations, but rather as a precarious feature.30 It is viewed as a characteristic that has to be defended against historical change from genera- tion to generation by particular groups of persons. Thus, to acquire perpetuity endowments via vicarious acts of their “staff” tend to immunize their purposes 25 Inter alia Jones 1969; Schulze 1989; Helmholz 2005. 26 As was the case in the Israeli doctrine of endowments established in the second half of the twentieth century. Cf. Koch 2014: 53-54. 27 Programmatically Borgolte 2005b: 10. 28 Inspired by the widely-quoted wording of Borgolte 1996. 29 Weber 1949: 90. 30 Lohse 2011. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 ENDOWMENT STUDIES – INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES 7 and assets as well as their organizational structures against modification. As every modern historian would have to object, in the long run the intent of the founder can only persevere through compromise, if at all. Time transforms ev- erything. However, for cultural studies not the “objective” achievement may be considered the decisive criterion, but rather the vainglorious aspiration of the historical agents. Only scholars who take the anti-historical impetus of endow- ments as seriously as their originators and continuators once did will be able to accurately comprehend the accrued results of their respective thoughts and actions. Therefore, not only from a juridical, but furthermore – and even more im- portantly – from a heuristic point of view, it seems very useful to distinguish foundations or endowments from donations, i.e. all sorts of gifts that enrich the donee uno actu without committing him to something pro futuro.31 For centuries, legacies and bequests, offerings of alms, books, wax or oil as well as the promotion of arts and sciences have indeed served spiritual purposes quite similar to those of foundations. Frequently, these manifestations of patronage were even directed to essentially the same recipients.32 But though gifts also had larger effects on the societies in which they were made, these ramifica- tions differed in type and magnitude from those of endowments, because they lacked the “fundamental contradiction” of “establishing a timeless arrange- ment with temporary means“.33 It is in the nature of things that no endowment in world history has ever and will ever correspond completely to the ideal type specified above. But this does not mean that its definition is inaccurate or useless. Already Weber taught that all ideal types in their conceptual purity “cannot be found empiri- cally anywhere in reality”, which is why “historical research faces the task of determining in each individual case, the extent to which this ideal-construct approximates to or diverges from reality”.34 It is precisely this procedure which shall enable future scholarship to ascertain the individual character of single endowments as well as to compare certain endowments, networks of endow- ments or even whole endowment systems of different cultures. 31 Conditional donations (in German Schenkungen unter Auflage) are obviously a border- line case. However, in the long run the enrichment of the recipient usually overcomes its conditionality in such legal instruments, because the fulfillment of the conditions does not have to be financed by the donated property. 32 Lusiardi 2000a: 50-65; 119-137. 33 Borgolte 2003: 23: “Schon im begründenden Akt liegt der Grundwiderspruch der Stiftung beschlossen, eine dauernde Ordnung mit zeitgebundenen Mitteln errichten zu wollen.” 34 Weber 1949: 90. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 8 Chitwood et al. To undertake this task is the special prerogative of the newly-established journal Endowment Studies. Its editors are completely convinced that interdis- ciplinary cooperation will considerably accelerate the progress of research in all disciplines dealing with endowments and their social status and influence in universal history. To facilitate intellectual exchange beyond the Gedanken- bild (unified analytical construct) outlined above, a shared vocabulary to de- note the establishment and performance of foundations seems indispensable. Due to the history of scholarship, most terms used for this purpose are bor- rowed from the technical language of modern jurists, who employ terminology much more systematically and consistently than the authors of premodern documents thought necessary. Endowment Studies, as a diachronic periodical, has to take this into account by reflecting on and highlighting the semantic tensions between the descriptive vocabularies “borrowed” from modern legal scholarship and the individual language use representative of different histori- cal traditions. In any case, in modern scholarship key categories for the descrip- tion and analysis of foundations are generally: (1.) their purpose (alternatively aim, goal or mission), (2.) their assets (also capital, funds or endowment), (3.) their beneficiaries (also donees, grantees), (4.) their administrators or man- agers (technically speaking their “organs” or “internal bodies”) and finally (5.) their supervisory authority or board, usually called custodians or wardens. The general purpose of any given foundation is normally further specified by stipulations regarding the proper use of the endowment’s revenues. The initial endowment provided by the founder mostly serves as an (indispensable) basic asset. It may be increased by reinvested surpluses or additional endowments from third parties (also called sub-foundations, in German Zustiftungen). Since before 1800 ce endowments only very rarely – if at all – were considered to be legal entities35 and even in modern times there exist innumerable depen- dent foundations, administrators or beneficiaries may act as depositaries36 of the foundation’s assets. In any case both parties usually take responsibility for the foundation’s execution: The former manage the assets and distribute the earnings among the intended recipients, the latter fulfill the founder’s require- ments for the consumption of the revenues. Despite these functionally sophis- ticated roles within the foundation’s framework, administrators and beneficia- ries can also be the same persons or groups of persons, whereas the recipients 35 In some disciplines there is still an ongoing debate on this issue. Regarding the current state of discussion see the references given below. 36 By using this rather open term instead of “trustees”, “baillees” or “fiduciaries” certain con- ceptual definitions given by Common or Civil Law may be avoided. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 ENDOWMENT STUDIES – INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES 9 of the foundation’s material and spiritual benefits only rarely are identical.37 Consequently, scholars usually distinguish between two classes of recipients, namely those beneficiaries who profited materially from the endowment, on the one hand, and those who benefited spiritually, on the other.38 Depending on individual frameworks, the general concept of a foundation has been realized in innumerable manifestations. This adaptability generated quite a “differentiated isomorphism”39 over the course of world history. In each and every case, however, foundations tended to permeate all sectors of human existence: notably law, religion and politics as well as society, the economy and culture. Accordingly, foundations have been characterized as “total social phenomena”, to use the famous phrase of the French anthropologist Marcel Mauss.40 Hence endowments have been studied by almost all disciplines deal- ing with past iterations of human society, without, however, arousing very much epistemological interest. In most cases the notoriously generous docu- mentation of foundations was merely used for research on other topics like genealogy, feudalism, concepts of the hereafter, etc. Only recently has the history of foundations become a sui generis topic of inquiry. The formation of a specialized discipline that can be called “Endow- ment Studies” (Stiftungsforschung) has thus far mainly been a German devel- opment.41 It was inculcated in particular by medieval historians seeking inter- disciplinary cooperation.42 Initially, such discussions took place mainly during conferences,43 and over the years appeared in several noteworthy collected 37 The personal identity of the founder, the spiritual beneficiary as well as the first material beneficiary seems to be a singularity of the Muslim endowment system. 38 Lohse 2014: 32. 39 Gemelli 2006: 178. 40 Cf. Borgolte 1993, in connection with Mauss 2016. 41 Wagner 2001; Scheller 2005; Mühle 2013. On the development of waqf studies see Hoexter 1998; Faroqui 2005. 42 The legal historical and legal sociological approaches of earlier scholars did not recog- nizably concern themselves with this; they have also proven to be methodological dead ends, because of their enshrinement of the modern idea of a foundation. Cf. Schnorr von Carolsfeld 1933: 47-50; Emilia 1953; Rassem 1952. A shift away from the mere legal compari- sons was initiated by Gabriel Baer in 1981. Cf. Baer 2005. 43 Without a claim to comprehensiveness, the following conferences, workshops, panels and lecture series, some of them of a diachronic character, can be mentioned: “Materielle Kultur und religiöse Stiftung im Spätmittelalter” (Krems, 1988); “Stiftungen und Stiftung- swirklichkeiten” (Frankfurt am Main, 1998); “Fundationes / Stiftungen: memoria, solidari- età e convenienze fra medioevo ed età moderna” (Trent, 2001); “Stiftungen in den großen Kulturen des alten Europa” (Berlin, 2003); “Foundations and Donations – a Common Fea- ture in European History” (Berlin, 2007); “Spätmittelalterliche ­Privatkapellenstiftungen endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 10 Chitwood et al. volumes.44 Just now, a new attempt at a transdisciplinary approach to the study of endowments has been made with the publication of the Enzyklopädie des Stiftungswesens in mittelalterlichen Gesellschaften.45 In its three volumes the state of scholarship is compiled and the most urgent desiderata are named. To conclude these introductory remarks, the previous achievements and future challenges of international research will be summarized briefly be- low. Since the scholarship on endowments is as yet an interdisciplinary field in statu nascendi, it seems to the editors unavoidable – and for most readers convenient – to articulate such remarks with special reference to “traditional” disciplines, namely: Medieval Studies, Byzantine Studies, Islamic Studies and Indology.46 Medieval Studies Compared to the source material of other premodern endowment cultures, the occidental tradition is remarkably large and varied, despite its oft-bemoyned patchiness. Without a doubt foundations have been reflected in almost every imaginable kind of written documentation, works of art or other material remains. Most written testimonies were produced in connection with the establish- ment and execution of endowments. In medieval times, “to found” was not just one single legal act, but a rather lengthy process, in which besides the founder other parties – especially the future administrators, beneficiaries and im europäischen Vergleich” (Bonn, 2008); “Für Zeit und Ewigkeit – Stiftungen zwischen Mittelalter und Moderne” (Weingarten, 2008); “Seelenheil – Gemeinwohl – Ansehen. Stifter und Stiftungen im Rheinland vom Mittelalter bis in die Gegenwart” (Bonn, 2009); “Stiftungskulturen: Ein Dialog zwischen Geschichte und Gegenwart” (Freiburg im Bre- isgau, 2011); “Stifter und Mäzene und ihre Rolle in der Religion” (Hamburg, 2011); “The Pre-Modern Educational Foundations of Christians, Muslims, Brahmins and Buddhists” (Groningen 2014); “Endowments, Renewal and Reform” (Leeds, 2015); “Foundation and Migration” (Kalamazoo, 2015); “Foundations, Stiftungen and Awqaf: Historical Instances, Perpetual Institutions, Evolving Social Needs” (Paris, 2016); “Imperial Subjects and Social Commitment: An Endowment History from 1750 to 1918” (Vienna, 2016); “Stiftungen in der Weltgeschichte” (Berlin, 2017). 44 Jaritz 1990; Dufour and Platelle 1999; Borgolte 2000; Borgolte 2005a; Schuler 2013; Von ­Reden 2015. 45 Published by De Gruyter (Berlin/Boston) 2014-2017. 46 In the future further surveys of research hopefully will be provided by colleagues from other disciplines. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 ENDOWMENT STUDIES – INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES 11 supervisors – were involved.47 Since for a long time all negotiations took place only orally, the documents with the utmost temporal proximity to the process of foundation usually are deeds (charters, testaments, wills) which stipulat- ed or confirmed the perpetual earmarking of endowed property. Countless specimens of such legal content have been preserved in archives all over the continent, whether as original copies on single leaves of parchment or pa- per, or as later transcripts or extracts in registers, rolls, chartularies,48 donor books,49 chronicles50 and the like. In the later Middle Ages, occasionally even stone inscriptions of foundation deeds were engraved.51 Much more frequent, however, remained inscriptions that documented the foundation process in a much more abbreviated manner.52 The most rudimentary, but widespread form of such an inscription, commonly placed right on the endowed object it- self, could consist of the founder’s name only.53 Beyond that one comes across simple statements, which specified the given asset, the spiritual addressee, the production or dedication of the gift, often in combination with a request for intercessory prayers (orate pro me).54 Whereas the documentary evidence mostly came into being at the instiga- tion of the founders themselves, narrative testimonies of foundation processes usually were created in retrospect by the endowment’s depositaries. Before the first turn of the millennium literate persons would have rarely written down such legends on parchment.55 But afterwards the fundatio emerged as a discernible historiographical genre.56 These stories embellished the initial 47 Inter alia Jacob 1962; Rexroth 1992; Carvalho Andrade 2005. 48 Exemplary is Moddelmog 2012: 143-147. 49 Molitor 1990. 50 Exemplary is Bijsterveld 2007: 124-157. 51 Müller 1975: 13-17, 33-34; Neumüllers-Klauser 1995. 52 A very useful overview on the scholarly editions of medieval inscriptions is given by Koch 2007. Studies on specific examples are most comprehensively compiled by Koch 1987; Koch et al. 1994; Koch, Glaser and Bornschlegel 2000; Koch and Bornschlegel 2005. 53 Lange 2007. 54 Favreau 1992. For intercessory prayers as a countergift see in general Oexle 1976. 55 Examples are discussed by Zwanzig 2010. 56 Such a “generic” self-description appears already in manuscripts from the 12th century. Cf. Fundatio claustri in Bǒmburch (dated soon after 1155). During the 19th century scholars extended this designation to all texts of this sort, even if they were given different titles by their authors. Cf., e. g., Fundatio monasterii Comburgensis (actually: Hystoria de construc- toribus monasterii Komburgensis; probably penned during the 12th century). Recently a diametrically-opposed approach has been adopted, as the Fundatio Domus Bellelande of 1197 in its new edition became entitled historia fundationis (Foundation History of Byland and Jervaulx 1; cf. ibid., ix, n. 10). endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 12 Chitwood et al. endowment, the consecration of the building site or other milestones of the foundation process as a vanishing point of collective memory.57 Besides the actual foundation, the later story of each stage of the foundation’s history was regularly told with special emphasis on its continuity. While the narrators almost always remained anonymous, their dual aim cannot be overlooked. On the one hand, the fundationes promoted the worldly fame of the founder, his or her profane memoria. On the other hand, the his- toriographical evidence of the foundation’s godliness was a means to gain le- gal security. For between 500 and 1500 ce, occidental societies had only very ­rudimentary laws for endowments58 and, in addition to that, mostly weak and competing bureaucracies to monitor their compliance.59 Therefore it is nowa- days quite an exhausting endeavour to use medieval foundation histories as a repository of historical “facts”.60 Consequently, recent scholarship has paid more attention to the commemorative need that shaped the stories to be told according to the foundation’s endangered permanency.61 Methodologically such readings are possible, because from many medieval endowments of Latin Europe documents have been preserved which reflect the running operations of the managers in charge as well as the enforcement of the foundation’s aims by the beneficiaries. To this day thousands of medieval inventories enumerating the possessions and earnings of specific foundations have survived.62 So far, only a fraction of 57 Regarding formal studies of the genre cf. Kastner 1974; Goetz 1988; Lohse 2011: 295-319. 58 In Western Europe, the knowledge of Justinian’s Code and Novels decreased dramatically already in the early Middle Ages. Cf. Siems 1998; differently, but not convincingly argued by Theisen 2002. During the Middle Ages neither ecclesiastical nor secular legislation ever produced a comprehensive law of endowments. Even the ius patronatus that de- termined the fate of many foundations since the 12th century did not apply to all sorts of endowments. Cf. Wood 1955; Landau 1975; Hergemöller 1986; Sieglerschmidt 1987. Nev- ertheless, legal historians until recently tried to reconstruct the development of a coher- ent legal doctrine in medieval times. Cf. Reicke 1933; Liermann 1963; Feenstra 1998. Then again, some scholars dealt with legal validation strategies of medieval founders without mentioning laws at all. Cf. Neiske 1986; Goez 2000. 59 Lohse 2016a: 519; 525-528. 60 Holzfurtner 1984; Pelizaeus 2008. 61 Remensnyder 1995; Härtel 2000; Ehlers 2002; Burton 2009. 62 A unique collection of such registers comprises the bulk of “chantry certificates” that were prepared by special commissions in the course of the dissolution of chantries under the English kings Henry viii and Edward vi. Cf. Kitching 1980. Many of their editions are listed by Kreider 1979: 266-268. Regarding the prehistory of the parliamentary acts 37 Henr. viii c. 4 and 1 Edw. vi c. 14 cf. ibid.: 165-208; Lindley 2011. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 ENDOWMENT STUDIES – INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES 13 them has undergone scholarly editing63 and an even smaller proportion has been analyzed with special focus on the economic activities of the endow- ment’s managers and their auxiliary staff.64 The same is true for the yearly ac- counts that have been systematically archived by many foundations from the 14th century onwards. In contrast to the inventories, these documents hand down not only the nominal, but the actual value of the endowment’s surplus. Furthermore, they record the real disbursements of foundation revenues to the beneficiaries as a “reward” for the fulfilment of the stipulated duties. Based on a longstanding series of such accounts, recently some relevant case studies have gained impressive insights into the actual performance of foundations over long periods of time, including also the Early Modern period.65 To com- pletely understand the internal organization of a concrete institution, however, it is worthwhile to read through the preserved protocols and other dossiers of its “organs”, too; even though this usually implies visiting an archive or library, because abstracts – let alone full texts – of such testimonies are still lacking.66 For the purpose of realizing a foundation’s mission, various types of texts were created during the Middle Ages. Naturally, all sorts of statutes – ­initially formulated by the founder and later on revised by the depositaries or supervisors – turn out to be especially informative.67 In addition, the effective performance of intercessory prayers can be traced by analysing commemora- tive books that sometimes have been used for centuries.68 Endowments for the divine office and private masses, in turn, have been documented in other (para-)liturgical manuscripts and incunabula.69 Finally, material remains are of particular importance. Since most medieval foundations had a specific site70 for the performance of their aims, surviving architectural structures give 63 From the bishopric of Würzburg, for example, roughly 10 percent of the available docu- ments have so far been published. Cf. Bünz et al. 1998. 64 One example: Lohse 2011: 84-95. 65 Setting the methodological standards: Haas 2011. Cf. also Moddelmog 2012: 58-60; ­242-244, 251-253, 259-260, 264. 66 Meanwhile there are, however, some meritorious projects of publication. Cf., for instance, Protokolle des Kölner Domkapitels. 67 Just two examples: Marti 1966; Goodall 2001. 68 Hugener 2014. Exemplary case studies: Wagner 2000; Lepine 2010; Stanford 2011. An exem- plary edition: Libro de Regla del Cabildo. 69 Behrend 2015; Lohse 2017a. 70 The foundation’s “site” should not be confused with its “space”, which can be understood as a centripetal network constituted mainly by the social and economic relations of the endowment’s managers and beneficiaries. Cf. Lohse 2017b. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 14 Chitwood et al. a precise idea of former practices and traditions.71 The same is true with re- spect to specific objects once used by the beneficiaries to fulfil their duties, for example, books, paraments, chalices or the like.72 Over the last two centuries scholars of the Middle Ages have carried out in- numerable investigations on occidental endowments based on a broad range of sources.73 However, a genuine branch of research that could be labelled “­Endowment Studies” has not yet been fully established within Medieval ­Studies. Talking at cross purposes still characterizes the scholarship not only of ­different nations, but also of different historical bodies of scholarship. Even at the beginning of the 21st century, national blinders too often nar- row the scope of examination. Almost forty years ago, for example, Jacques Chiffoleau, analysing the testaments of Late Medieval Toulouse, argued that the dogmatization of Purgatory by the 1274 Council of Lyon led to a revolution- ary change in occidental foundation culture. For according to this doctrine, it was much better for the departed to gain many missal offerings during a short interval immediately after one’s demise than to receive endlessly recur- ring commemorations on the anniversary of his or her day of passing. Hence, endowments for a limited period of time supplanted largely perpetual ones.74 Chiffoleau’s assumption was promptly verified by means of further testaments from Southern France.75 After one and a half decades had elapsed, however, the Dutch scholar Douwe J. Faber proved that there is no evidence for a similar de- velopment north of the Alps.76 Later on, the Portuguese academic Domingues da Costa Carvalho made observations similar to those of Chiffoleau based on testaments from Braga, whilst the German researcher Ralf Lusiardi confirmed the results of Faber – both unaware of the respective earlier findings.77 Many similar examples of inadequate scientific exchange could be added, but a positive counterexample might be more encouraging for future research- ers: In the later Middle Ages a specific sort of foundation emerged in Latin Christendom which nowadays the English call “chantry”, the French “chapel- lenie”, Spaniards “capellanía”, Italians “cappellani”, Dutch “kapellanij” and Ger- mans “Kaplanei”. More than fifty years ago, the first attempt to compare these 71 Scheller 2004: especially 145-151; Gilchrist 2005; Roffey 2007. 72 Scase 1992; Fuhrmann 2002; Heard 2011; Schlotheuber 2012; Beuckers 2013. 73 Thus, the references to medievalist scholarship given in this article are mostly exemplary, not exhaustive. 74 Chiffoleau 1980; Chiffoleau 1981. 75 Lorcin 1981: 140; Marandet 1998: 526. 76 Faber 1995. 77 Domingues da Costa Carvalho 2001/02: 17 (chart 1); 31; Lusiardi 2000a; idem 2000b; idem 2005. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 ENDOWMENT STUDIES – INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES 15 institutions was undertaken.78 Anyhow, for many decades explorations with a local or, at best, a regional scope continued to predominate within the field of research.79 Only recently has a fruitful debate on the origins and varying trajectories of development of this sort of benefice aroused fresh interest in cross-“national” comparative scholarship.80 Apart from limited language skills, it is notably the multidisciplinary nature of endowment studies that impedes the progress of research. In a rather her- metical manner scholars interested in medieval religion, politics, economics, law, art, music or society still deal with quite particular issues within scholar- ship, use their “own” concepts and restrict their examinations to specific seg- ments of the available source material. However, there is also evidence sug- gesting that endowments are currently becoming a unique field of research in Medieval Studies, an object of investigation in and of itself. More and more scholars are courageous enough to conduct transdisciplinary research, which actually seems to be the most appropriate approach for a “total social phenom- enon” like endowments.81 Just to mention one example: A few years ago, it was neither a canonist nor an economist, but a musicologist who identified a privi- lege of indulgence effective for all beneficiaries present at mass to be the basic endowment of an episcopal foundation situated in the cathedral of Reims.82 In the future, most scholarship on foundations in Occidental history will probably continue to deal just with particular endowments or even just with certain aspects of particular endowments. Such a research approach seems mandatory in many cases in view of the outstanding plethora of preserved documents and material remains. Still, the suitability of the analytical cate- gories employed might be evaluated with a firm hand, especially in the light of comparative research. Besides cross-cultural and diachronic comparisons, which are special endeavors by their very nature, two constellations of intra- cultural likening might be heuristically useful: between foundations of the same sort as well as between the ones of different types. Over the course of the medieval millennium, as is well known, the basic idea of endowments in the Occident has been manifested in various phenotypes, 78 Wood-Legh 1965. 79 Bünger and Delius 1967; Bériou 1971; Burgess 1985; Dormeier 1985; Graf 1998; Rikhof 2006; Wood 2010; Speetjens 2011; Inde 2013. 80 Colvin 2000; Crouch 2001; McNeill 2011. 81 Borgolte 1993. 82 Bowers 2004: 37-41. Music historians, incidentally, were the first to use “historical reenact- ment” as a means of academic scholarship. Cf. Bloxam and Bull 2010; Bloxam 2011. Regard- ing the non-scientific revival of medieval foundations, see Lohse 2011: 12 with n. 10; 211-212. Groundbreaking for musicological research on foundations was Haggh 1996. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 16 Chitwood et al. which can be categorized notably with respect to their purpose, their assets or their organization.83 Now, with the Enzyklopädie des Stiftungswesens at hand, medievalists for the first time are able to see the full wealth of endowment forms that developed in Latin Christendom, primarily since the High Middle Ages. Like the aforementioned chantries, all of them deserve many more studies inquiring after common features and differences from a European perspective. However, researchers would do well not to carry the strong spe- cialisation of scholarship – for example on hospitals,84 almshouses,85 univer- sity colleges,86 bridges87 or the like – to new extremes. It is worth the effort of crossing the traditionally narrow borders of expertise for two reasons: Firstly, such an approach is the only way to realize the almost unlimited adaptability of a simple, yet specific behavioural pattern to satisfy social needs of all kinds. Secondly, it is the only way to understand how and why almost all areas of the Late Medieval social environment in Western Europe (at least in the cities) were pervaded by the execution of foundations.88 Byzantine Studies The importance of foundations or endowments for the history of the East- ern Roman or Byzantine Empire, as well as for broader cultural spheres such as the “Byzantine Commonwealth” or the Orthodox world, is incontestable. Endowments constitute, moreover, the outstanding surviving cultural legacy of the Byzantine world. This applies to Mount Athos, where nineteen of the twenty contemporary governing monasteries were founded during the medi- eval period; to Bačkovo, Bulgaria, in which place Gregory Pakourianos created a monastic foundation in the eleventh century which survives to this day; or indeed to monastic establishments across the Eastern Mediterranean, Balkans, Caucasus and Eastern Europe. Many of these places, despite vastly changed circumstances and transformations over the past centuries, were either cre- ated as medieval foundations or profoundly influenced by later benefactions and endowments. 83 Lohse 2014b. 84 Pohl-Resl 1996; Pauly 2007; Hensel-Grobe 2007. 85 Tietz-Strödel 1982; Orme 1988; Cullum 1994; Rexroth 2005. 86 Gabriel 1961; Denley 1992; Wagner 1999. 87 Boyer 1976: 31-60; Brooks 1995: 25-29; Harrison 2004: 193-207. 88 Lohse 2016b. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 ENDOWMENT STUDIES – INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES 17 Despite the salience of foundations in Byzantine history, their prominent role in Eastern Roman and medieval Orthodox society has not been articulat- ed as such. Instead, as the examples mentioned above suggest, scholarship on foundations within Byzantine Studies has been subsumed within the broader rubric of research on monasticism. This is an unsurprising development, given that the vast majority of source material for Byzantine foundations stems from a monastic context. Thus researchers on Byzantine monasticism, even though they have often extensively analyzed foundations, do not generally understand endowed monasteries as a distinct category of historical phenomena, worthy of being studied in and of themselves. This state of affairs is partially due to the peculiarities of the articulation of foundations in Byzantium itself, as well as to the way in which the field of modern Byzantine Studies has developed. Among the three main categories of endowments in the Byzantine context, namely churches, monasteries and philanthropic institutions, monasteries proved to be the most durable and effective form of foundation. After the turn of the first millennium, even churches and philanthropic institutions were to be found only in a monastic context. This development reflected the increas- ing cultural, political and economic power of monasteries over the course of the Middle Ages, especially as the Byzantine state itself gradually contracted economically and territorially. Though both foundations and monasteries, and in particular monastic en- dowments, grew in importance over the course of Byzantine history, the pre- cise relationship between the two was often murky. Not every monastery was endowed; many, perhaps even the majority, of monastic communities arose with no capital at all, and simply comprised a group of like-minded a­ scetics.89 The earliest monastic communities were not created by or substantially depen- dent upon a founder. This is especially apparent in late antique Egypt, where none of the leading families comprising the senatorial aristocracy is attested to have founded a monastery.90 Estate records from Oxyrhynchus for the Apion family – a wealthy Egyptian senatorial clan – show that they financed a network of 47 churches, eleven monasteries, two monasteries and four ­philanthropic institutions.91 Monks largely supported themselves via an impressive array of economic activities, including weaving, basketry, ­wine-making, ­milling, oil 89 This “classic” mode of monastic founding is a diachronic feature of Eastern Christian and Orthodox monasticism, and was still to be found in Early Modern Russia: cf. Romanenko 2016: 25. 90 Wipszycka 2011: 168. 91 Thomas 1987: 83, 98-104. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 18 Chitwood et al. production and baking.92 Extensive landholding, the primary source of wealth in the premodern world, was a relatively late development in Byzantine mo- nasticism: the first major endowment of land to a Byzantine monastic institu- tion is attested from the end of the eighth century, and monasteries did not begin to accumulate landholdings on a significant scale until the ninth and tenth centuries.93 Increasing monastic wealth, and concurrently the greater societal role of endowments, is reflected in the changing meaning of the Byzantine Greek word ktetor, which could designate either the person who provided a church or monastery with an endowment or the monastic leader who created the com- munity itself.94 Indeed, it is through the person of the founder or ktetor that the conception of Byzantine foundations was articulated. Like most other me- dieval cultures – with Islamic lands being the major exception – a legal defini- tion as to what a foundation is was never developed. The honorific epithet kte- tor was a medieval development: appearing around the year 1000 ce, it quickly supplanted the more traditional designation for a founder of ktistes, as well as other less commonly used words.95 The changing meaning of the word ktetor coincided with the appearance of a new type of document which enabled Byzantine founders to express their in- tentions for their endowments in minute detail. So-called ktetorika typika con- stituted a quintessentially Byzantine genre, a combination of an endowment charter and a monastic rule.96 These texts vary enormously in terms of their length and content, and were written as last wills and testaments, inscriptions, within saints’ lives, etc. Again underlining that the construal of foundations as legal entities was exceptional in the premodern world, ktetorika typika were only in a very limited sense legal documents.97 Rather, their observation and enforcement depended on the good will of the monastic community to respect the founder’s wishes. The history of scholarship on Byzantine foundations, like the articulation of Byzantine endowment praxis itself, is closely connected with the analysis of the ktetor. As already stated, the understanding that Byzantine endowments 92 Wipszycka 2011: 172-196. 93 Chitwood 2016b: 325-328. 94 Krumbacher 1909; Puza 1982. 95 According to Krumbacher 1909: 404 the first securely-dated example of the use of ktetor as “founder” or “patron” is from the year 1037 (Vat. Gr. 1650, fol. 185v.): Ἔγραφη αὓτη ἡ δέλτος διὰ χειρὸς θεοδώρου κληρικοῦ Σικελιώτου κατ’ἐπιτροπὴν Nικολάου ἐπισκόπου κτήτορος αὐτῆς. 96 Chitwood 2014b: 401-403. 97 On the legal status of ktetorika typika, see Stolte 2007. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 ENDOWMENT STUDIES – INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES 19 constituted a subfield of study in and of itself is a quite recent development. The earliest and still predominant strand of the examination of foundations in the Byzantine world is legal history.98 This arc of scholarship began with the hugely influential study of the Austrian historian of the Orthodox Church Josef von Zhishman of the ktetorikon dikaion, the supposed Byzantine analogue to the Western “founder’s right” or ius patronatus.99 Though Zhishman exagger- ated the standardization of a founder’s privileges, his study was pioneering in that he not only utilized the normative sources of Byzantine canon and civil law, but also archival documents, above all the at-the-time recently published edition of the acts of the sitting council of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. After Zhishman, scholars continued to mine the rich legal heritage of the Byzantine Empire in studies on the legal status of churches, monasteries and piae causae.100 The actual implementation of the extensive imperial legisla- tion on foundations, particularly that of the emperor Justinian, was called into question as the extensive papyrus finds from late antique Egypt were subjected to scholarly evaluation in the first half of the twentieth century. The Austrian papyrologist Artur Steinwenter in particular highlighted the discrepancy be- tween the picture of church and monastic institutions presented in the Jus- tinianic legislation, which presupposed well-regulated coenobitic monasteries subject to ecclesiastical control and the doctrine of res sacrae (“sacred things”, and thus outside the purview of private property and not able to be sold or exchanged), to the highly entrepreneurial nature of ecclesiastical institutions found in the papyri.101 No diachronic synthesis of the history of Byzantine foundations appeared until John Philip Thomas’ Private Religious Foundations in the Byzantine Empire, published in 1987 and in many respects still the best survey on the development of Byzantine religious institutions. Despite the word “foundations” in the title, Thomas’ monograph did not treat endowments as a special category of reli- gious institution, with the emphasis instead lying on “private” churches, mon- asteries and philanthropic institutions: “In the broadest sense, private religious foundations can be held to encompass all those churches, monasteries, and philanthropic institutions (e.g., nosokomeia, or ‘hospitals,’ gerokomeia, or ‘old age homes,’ and ophanotropheia, or ‘orphanages’) founded by private individu- als (usually laymen) and retained for personal administration, ­independent of 98 Chitwood 2014a: 234-236. 99 Von Zhishman 1888. 100 Granić 1929/1930; Granić 1931; Knecht 1905; Hagemann 1953. 101 Steinwenter 1930; Steinwenter 1932. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 20 Chitwood et al. the public authorities of the state and church.”102 Given his emphasis on eccle- siastical institutions which were to some degree outside of the jurisdiction of the authorities of the state and church, Private Religious Foundations nonethe- less converged with the broader history of Byzantine foundations, especially after the emergence of “independent” and “self-governing” foundations from the tenth century onwards, which Thomas subsumed under the rubric of an “Ecclesiastical Reform Movement”.103 The further development of the scholarship on Byzantine foundations is connected, once again, to the person of the Byzantine founder, the ktetor, and in particular founder’s charters. Already while working on Private Religious Foundations, Thomas had planned an annotated collection of translations of all the Byzantine founder’s charters (ktetorika typika), an endeavor that finally came to fruition in the year 2000.104 The resulting five-volume work, Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents, was a significant step in the understanding of foundations not only for Byzantinists, but also (because of its translations) for non-specialists. Since the turn of the millennium, Byzantine foundations have for the first time been understood as a discrete sub-field, closely related to but not synony- mous with Byzantine monasticism. The first steps in this breakthrough were the result of collaboration between German medievalists, whose scholarly tra- dition on foundations, as expounded upon above, was much further developed than in its Anglophonic counterpart.105 A more comprehensive treatment of Byzantine foundations qua endowments has appeared within the last three years.106 The question of which future direction the study of Byzantine founda- tions should move towards needs at this point to be asked. Besides various topics touching upon foundations within Byzantine Studies that remain ­understudied – memoria being a noteworthy example – basic questions about the composition and extent of “Byzantine” foundations remain.107 Most schol- arship on “Byzantine” foundations, including the articles of the Enzyklopädie des Stiftungswesens (where the Byzantines are described as Greek Orthodox Christians), are restricted to the Hellenistic cultural and linguistic milieu. 102 Thomas 1987: 2-3. 103 Thomas 1984; Thomas 1985a; Thomas 1985b; Thomas 1987; Thomas 1994. 104 Thomas and Hero 2000. 105 Horden 2005; Thomas 2005; Geelhaar and Thomas 2011. 106 See the Byzantine (labelled “Greek Orthodox Christians”) in Borgolte 2014; Borgolte 2016; Borgolte 2017. 107 On memoria in Byzantine foundations, see Chitwood 2016b. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 ENDOWMENT STUDIES – INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES 21 While this approach is perhaps defensible for certain epochs of Byzantine his- tory, it is completely inadequate after the Fourth Crusade and sack of Constan- tinople in 1204, as Byzantine foundation culture became less Hellenocentric and the role of other potentates and aristocracies within the Orthodox world supplanted that of the Byzantine emperor and elite. Indeed, the postulation of an Orthodox rather than Byzantine foundation culture would be a sensible ap- proach in many respects. Thus a desideratum in this direction would be more research on Orthodox foundations in the Slavic world, particularly the Balkans and Rus’, which has been well-served in recent years by the work of Ludwig Steindorff.108 Comparisons between Russian and Late Medieval monasticism of the Latin West, and implicitly also foundations, have recently borne fruit;109 yet a more productive comparison would be between Byzantium and the wid- er Orthodox world, or, as argued here, treating both regions as part of a shared foundation culture. Less obvious and more problematic would be how to define, from the standpoint of foundations, other Eastern Christian traditions not in commu- nion with the imperial church. The Syriac churches, both the Syrian Orthodox and the Church of the East, certainly had foundations of their own. From the standpoint of material evidence, the Armenian tradition is among the richest of all medieval cultures, with thousands of inscriptions, many of them relating to endowments. The Coptic and Ethiopic evidence would also be very interest- ing to evaluate. At the very least, more research, much of it of a basic nature (the idea of foundations and their terminology, etc.) on these Eastern Christian traditions needs to be done. The larger question of whether one could treat such tra- ditions as variants of a vast Eastern Christian endowment culture, with Byz- antium being merely its largest and best-attested component, or rather as separate foundation cultures, is worth discussing. Such considerations reflect larger debates within the field of Byzantine Studies itself, which has increas- ingly been subjected to appeals to construe Byzantium more broadly and less monolithically than traditionally thought.110 That the study of foundations can inform these conversations, as well as vice versa, is a promising sign for the continued study of Byzantine foundations. 108 E.g. Steindorff 2005. 109 Steindorff and Auge 2016. 110 This debate, under the leitmotif of “Worlds of Byzantium”, was the subject of the 2016 Dumbarton Oaks Symposium on Byzantine Studies: https://www.doaks.org/research/ byzantine/scholarly-activities/worlds-of-byzantium (accessed 09.03.2017). endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 22 Chitwood et al. Islamic Studies The pious endowment (waqf, ḥubs in the Arabic Islamic West) is one of the most characteristic institutions in Islam. Some of them, such as madrasas, mosques or hospitals, present a series of common characteristics and show a family resemblance that transcends the particularities of Islamic societies. These waqfs can be broadly compared to cognate institutions in other cultures, but subsuming the varied notions of the Islamic pious foundations into a func- tional definition of endowment is a rather challenging undertaking. Islamic endowments, like similar institutions in Christendom or in India, are often in- alienable and economically self-dependent properties endowed in aeternum to a particular community under the condition that they be used for charitable purposes. This definition has evident heuristic advantages as a practical frame- work for comparative studies, but it does not entirely capture the differences between legal schools, the wide variety of manifestations of Islamic endow- ment practices, and the versatile nature of the waqf as a legal instrument. It is true that many waqf institutions are donated in perpetuity111 but, in the lands under Mālikī law, an endowment can also be a temporary donation, the ownership of which reverts to the original owner after a fixed period of time. Likewise, and in contrast to other traditions, perishable objects such as books or animals can also hold the status of endowments in Islam, and not only sim- ple donations. And, when seen from the perspective of other cultures, the aims of some waqfs might seem to be founded on a rather lenient understanding of charity, since the beneficiaries of the so-called family endowment (waqf ahlī) are the family of the benefactor and, quite often, also the endower himself. The most basic definition found in the earliest Ḥanafī sources (3rd/9th cen- tury) presents the waqf as an everlasting act of charity (ṣadaqa jāriya) for the cause of God (fī sabīl Allāh).112 Later scholars came up with more elaborate def- initions. For instance, the Mālikī al-Burzūlī (d. 841/1438) reported varied opin- ions on the meaning of voluntary charity (ṣadaqa) and endowment (ḥubs) that emphasize the provisory status of the latter. The endowment consists of the re- linquishment of property rights over a good for a given period of time, limited or unlimited; during this period, the good is inalienable and its use subjected to the conditions stipulated by the endower (shurūṭ). These stipulations do not govern normal acts of charity: ṣadaqa is a single pious act that the benefactor 111 In fact, many endowment deeds emphasize this status by quoting a Qur’anic verse: “until God inherits the Earth” (Q 19:40). 112 Sánchez 2014a. On the development of the law on waqf see Hennigan 2004. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 ENDOWMENT STUDIES – INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES 23 cannot control once it has been performed. If someone desires to oversee the uses of this charitable works over time, an endowment is compulsory.113 The eschatological implications of this notion are perfectly illustrated by a prophetic hadith often quoted in endowment deeds: “When a man dies, his good deeds come to an end, except for three things: everlasting charity (ṣadaqa jāriya), the knowledge he has left behind and from which people benefit, and a pious descendant who prays for him”.114 In virtue of its duration, a waqf is a bond between the living and the dead that provides a recurrent currency for the hereafter, so that the souls of the benefactors might benefit from the ef- fects of this everlasting charity while waiting for the Day of Resurrection.115 The legal faculty to subject the endowment to the stipulations of the endower allows him to – theoretically – keep control over the aims of his endowed good after his death, thus ensuring that no fraudulent use will endanger his soul. This particular belief had evident effects on the formation of the many Islamic institutions that would became vehicles for charity and that, as Yaacov Lev has eloquently put it, allow us to conceive of the waqf as the “embodiment of ṣadaqa”.116 The Islamic endowment is also – and above all – a legal act. The solid norma- tive basis laid down by Muslim scholars as early as 3rd/9th century determined to a great extent both the legal interpretations and the spectrum of possible – formal and informal – uses of the endowment in the following centuries. But waqfs have always proved to be highly flexible institutions that allowed the circumvention of some aspects of the sharīʿa – especially inheritance law –, and to enable a variety of organizational forms. Needless to say, Islam is not a monolithic entity and the study of endow- ment practices should take into consideration the varied social and historical contexts. The second edition of the Encyclopaedia of Islam, which begins with an introductory section on classical Islamic Laws divides the study of the topic into the following sections: Arab Lands, Persia, the Ottoman Empire to 1924, Central Asia, Muslim India to 1900, Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa.117 These geographical and chronological divisions reflect a plurality of social, 113 See the varying opinions on the difference between ṣadaqa and waqf in al-Burzūlī, Fatāwā, vol. 5, 344. 114 Muslim, Musnad, vol. 5, 1255 [no. 1631]. 115 This idea is also encapsulated in a hadith: “Whoever builds a mosque for God, even if it is small as a bird’s nest, God will build a palace for him in Paradise.” This is quoted in a template for an endowment deed offered in al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ, vol. 14, 353. See also the article of Johannes Pahlitzsch in this issue. 116 Lev 2005: 2 and 64. 117 Peters et al. 2002. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 24 Chitwood et al. l­inguistic, religious, and legal phenomena that this article cannot encompass, but we believe that a survey on the scholarship of premodern endowments might shed some light on the state of the field. The most determining factor in the study of premodern Islamic endow- ments is, probably, the nature of the sources. There is no doubt that ­written ­documents were common in Islam from a very early period and narrative sources provide abundant information about bureaucratic and archival practices;118 however, only a scarce portion of this documental information has come down to us. The reasons to explain the lack of Muslim archival materials in the pre-1500 period remain unclear, although historians seem to agree when pointing to a combination of negative factors such as the frailty of the main material for writing – paper –, archival malpractices, and the devastating effect of wars, invasions and dynastic changes. Due to the proliferation of waqf from a very early period, it is no wonder that the majority of the surviving documents are related to endowments, since they were needed to keep control of the property rights and the administration of these institutions and their assets over long periods of time. The geographi- cal and chronological distribution of these documents is, however, extremely uneven. Whilst hardly anything has survived from early Islam and the ʿAbbāsid period apart from some Egyptian papyri,119 we have some documental infor- mation about Ayyubid endowment practices, and, especially more abundant sources for Mamluk Egypt, from which some 250 endowment deeds have sur- vived.120 There are, of course, exceptional documents that have allowed de- tailed studies, such as the long holograph waqfiyya of the Mongol vizier Rashīd al-Dīn.121 On the other hand, Ottoman archives are particularly rich in docu- mentary sources, so that Ottoman waqfiyyas and the qāḍī’s court records have been extensively used by historians.122 Many of these documents have been edited and studied by Turkish scholars from a very early date, and published in a journal especially devoted to the study of waqfs, Vakıflar Dergisi, funded by the Turkish Directorate of Pious Foundations in 1938. In contrast with other fields of knowledge where scholars have devoted many efforts to the edition of medieval sources, the state of the art in Islamic 118 Sijpesteijn even referred to the Islamic attitude towards bureaucracy as an “archival mind”, see Sijpesteijn 2006. On narrative sources describing archival practices see, for in- stance, Van Berkel 2014. 119 See, for instance, Ragib 1982. 120 See Amīn 1980 and Catalogue. 121 Hoffmann 2000; Ben Azzouna 2014. 122 See Faroqhi 1999. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 ENDOWMENT STUDIES – INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES 25 studies is rather poor and only a minor part of the documentary sources have been edited. The same can be said about a second kind of source of invaluable worth for the study of endowment practices, the fatwas. Mālikī fatwas have been widely used for the study of endowments in the Islamic West and impor- tant collections written in the Islamic West have been edited.123 In contrast, the edition of the rich tradition of Mamluk fatwas is still very deficient, and the use of these sources in waqf-studies for the pre-1500 period is still very lim- ited.124 Epigraphic sources have also provided important information about the Islamic waqfs and have been widely used,125 as well as the material culture researched by art historians. In this regard, the journal Muqarnas deserves es- pecial mention due to the many articles focusing on waqfs institutions, patron- age and endowment practices in the context of art history. In a 1998 article reviewing the state of the art in waqf studies, Miriam Ho- exter identified three stages in scholarships, respectively focused on the legal aspects of the institution; the economic and social implications of the waqf; and its role in the formation of ideological and cultural conceptions.126 The first studies on the waqf institution carried out in the nineteenth centu- ry were certainly focused on law, and often pragmatically aimed at accommo- dating waqf institutions within the colonial legal framework. The first publica- tions on the concept of waqf were studies written by French scholars such as Marcel Morand, professor at the École de Droit in Algiers;127 Eugène Clavel, who was a lawyer by profession,128 or the historian Ernest Mercier, born in Constan- tine, in French-colonized Algiers.129 Likewise, the Italian David Santillana, who wrote a seminal study of Mālikī law in which the concept of legal endowment is discussed at length,130 was the author of the report on which the civil and commercial Tunisian legal codes of 1906 were inspired.131 A second framework of inquiry to approach research of the waqf was the study of the origins of Islamic law vis-à-vis late antique or medieval legal 123 The most important of them, al-Wansharīsī’s Miʿyār, is the basis of the most relevant monograph on al-Andalus (García Sanjuán 2006). Other important Mālikī collections assembled in the 15th century are al-Burzūlī, Jāmiʿ al-masāʾil and al-Maghīlī, al-Durar al-maknūna. 124 For some examples of works based on fatwas see Melcak 2012; Hernandez 2013. 125 See, for instance, Sharon 1966, idem 1997; and Cytryn-Silverman 2010: 5-23. 126 Hoexter 1998. For a general overview of the state of the field see also Sánchez 2014b. 127 Morand 1904. 128 Clavel 1896. 129 Mercier 1895. 130 Santillana 1925. 131 Gabrieli 1933: 55-59. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 26 Chitwood et al. ­traditions. The earliest speculations concerning the foreign origins of the waqf looked at the Byzantine piae causae,132 and the Roman res sacrae and fidei com- missum.133 Later on, the origins of the legal status of Islamic endowments have also been sought in Zoroastrian religious stipulations by scholars like Maria Macuch,134 who points out the similitude between Iranian endowments and the public waqf. Endowments have also been discussed in the light of the Jew- ish definition of the hekdesh, although in this case it seems that the Jewish endowments have been influenced by Islamic law rather than the opposite.135 As pointed out by Hoexter, scholarship on waqfs experienced a paradigm shift in the decade of the 1980s.136 This change is clearly discernable when we compare the articles on this subject which appeared in the first and second editions of the Encyclopaedia of Islam. Whilst the first edition was essentially focused on the legal nature of the institution, the second edition, mainly based on the scholarship produced during the 1980s, approaches the phenomenon from a social and economic perspective. The inspiration of the studies on the Genizah is evident in this shift, both in the efforts to exhume archival evidence and in the direction of further studies based on these documents.137 The research of the Israeli scholars – many of them students of Goitein – set a landmark in the scholarship on Islamic en- dowments, which can be traced back to 1979, when an international seminar on the study of Islamic pious foundations was held in Jerusalem. The organiz- ers, leaded by Gabriel Baer, invited 27 scholars from different disciplines to address the study of waqfs as an all-encompassing phenomenon, and to focus their papers on the significance of endowments as providers of social services, their economic and political implications, their relationship with inheritance law, and their effect on patrimonial transmission. This seminar was a signifi- cant turning point in the development of waqf studies, and set the agenda for future research on this subject. 132 The first scholar calling attention to this parallelism was Domenico Gatteschi, in his study on Ottoman property law (Gatteschi 1877). This thesis is still defended by scholars such as Barnes 1986: 15-16, but it has been rejected by Cahen 1961: 31-56, Schacht 1957 and Hen- nigan 2004: 54-55. For a recent reevaluation of the problem, see Obenauer 2013. 133 For a general discussion of this topic, cf. Hennigan 2004: 52-66. 134 Macuch 2009: 19-38. 135 Elon and Levitats 22007. For a comparative study of hekdesh and waqf, see Toukabri 2011. 136 Hoexler 1998: 475. 137 The documents on pious foundations preserved in the Genizah have been published in Gil 1976. The paradigmatic study of the Jewish communities based on these materials is Goitein 1967-93. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 ENDOWMENT STUDIES – INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES 27 Ever since, the study of waqf has been approached from different perspec- tives. As charitable institutions, waqfs have merited the special attention of scholars occupying themselves with social history. The most relevant mono- graphs addressing the role of Islamic endowments in Muslim societies are, de facto, studies on charity and poverty.138 Research on medieval Sufism and as- cetic practices has also been intimately related to the study of waqfs, since the life of these communities was to a great extent articulated around a network of charitable foundations.139 As an eminent urban phenomenon, waqf institutions have also been one of the preferred subjects of inquiry within urban-studies. Several mono- graphs and collective works have been published on this particular topic.140 ­Non-urban institutions such as frontier ribāṭs and shrines have also deserved the attention of scholars.141 Particular mention should be given to the research of the roles played by women in Islamic endowment practices, which have re-evaluated the figure of Muslim women as economic and social agents.142 The role of Muslim women as endowers has from an early stage attracted interest among scholars. Already in 1983 Gabriel Baer published a pioneering study of an endowment deed is- sued by a woman in Istanbul in 1546 with the significant title of “Woman and Waqf ”.143 But it was also in the decade of 1990 when the research on women in the context of waqf studies gained momentum. In 1991, Carl Petry published an article discussing the concepts of class and gender solidarity in the light of the role of women as custodians of property in Later Medieval Egypt.144 Also in 1991, Beshara Doumani criticized the traditional patrilineal definition of Ottoman families by discussing the role of women in endowments.145 In 1997 two articles denounced the shortcomings of the research on waqfs from the point of view of gender studies.146 Attention to women has also increased 138 On charity in Islam, see the monographs: Sabra 2000; Singer 2002; Cohen 2005; Talmon- Heller 2007; and the collective works: Bonner, Ener and Singer 2003; Frenkel and Lev 2009. 139 A good example of the scholarship in this field are the studies on the khanqāh of Fer- nandes 1998. 140 See, for instance, Deguilhem 1995; Van Leeuwen 1999; Wolper 2003; and Loiseau 2010. 141 On ribaṭs, see Picard and Borrut 2003; Franco 2004; De la Vaissière 2008. For a seminal study of a shrine in Balkh, see McChesney 1991. 142 For an overview of gender in the context of waqf studies, see La Martire 2017a. 143 Baer 1983. 144 Petry 1991. 145 Doumani 1991. 146 Fay 1997; Meriwether 1997. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 28 Chitwood et al. a­ ccordingly in art history, where the role of women as endowers and Maecenas has been the subject of numerous publications.147 Further research eventually adopted a holistic and comparative perspec- tive focused on institutions such as lodges and hospitals,148 or interreligious contacts.149 And collective publications have addressed the study of waqfs as an all-comprehensive phenomenon, such as Les fondations pieuses (waqf ) en Méditerranée (2004), edited by Randi Deguilhem and Abelamid Hénia; and the works published under the aegis of Michael Borgolte: Stiftungen in Chris- tentum, Judentum und Islam vor der Moderne (2005); Islamische Stiftungen zwischen juristischer Norm und Praxis (2009); and especially, the three volume Enzyklopädie des Stiftungswesens in mittelalterlichen Gesellschaften (2015-2017). Within the field of economic and institutional history, research on waqfs has needed to overcome the stigma that the dichotomy Islam/West cast upon their role in the development of economic and organizational structures. This negative stance is well illustrated by the often-quoted opinion that Goitein expressed in a 1973 article, where he referred to the waqf as “This strange sys- tem by which the dead provide for the living is typical for a society which is becoming static and ceases to be competitive and enterprising”.150 Over time, this perspective has changed and scholars have subsequently approached the Ayyubid and Mamluk conversion of lands and properties into waqfs from rather different perspectives. Stefan Heidemann, for instance, studied how the waqf lands helped to monetize the Ayyubid economy,151 and how endowments played a central role in the economic politics of the Zangid rulers in the 6th/12th century.152 Mamluk scholars have also emphasized the role of the waqf as a prop for the social system,153 its importance to sustain the Mamluk institution,154 and its instrumental value for the elites.155 Critiques of the waqf system, such as that of Goitein, have their roots in the impact in the field of modernization theories and the thesis of the economic 147 See, for instance, Tolmacheva 1998, Blake 1998. 148 See Constable 2003; Ragab 2015. 149 Toukabri 2011. 150 Goitein 1973: 30. For a recent critique of this statement focused on the agency of the administrators and beneficiaries of waqfs see Meier 2015: 122: “Es sind auch in der isla- mischen Welt weit stärker die Lebendigen, die in diesem ‘seltsamen System’ des Stiftung- swesens den Toten ihren Willen aufzwingen, als umgekehrt.” 151 Heidemann 2009a. 152 Heidemann 2009b. 153 Baer 1997. 154 Haarmann 1984; Conermann and Saghbini 2002. 155 Layish 2008; Sabra 2005; idem 2006; La Martire 2017b. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 ENDOWMENT STUDIES – INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES 29 decline of the Muslim world. In this regard, the comparative study of European and Islamic institutions played an important role in the scholarly treatment of waqfs from a very early date. In his Introduction to Islamic Law Schacht made a polemical statement regarding the lack of the concept of legal personality in Islamic law.156 Makdisi referred to this lack of a concept for the waqf when he pointed out that the European university, “as a form of organization, owes nothing to Islam”, since Islamic law recognizes only the physical person as a subject with legal personality.157 Makdisi also argued that the figure of the in- corporated guild was never developed in Islam, as corporations are based on a fictitious legal personality.158 The concept of legal personality and, as a consequence, the lack of corpora- tions in Islam, underlines many of the studies of Muslim institutions and com- mercial organizational forms. The versatile nature of waqfs has always been emphasized by scholars who denounced the rigidity of categorizations based on Islamic normativity and the flaws of the comparisons with European insti- tutions.159 Over the preceding decades, New Institutional History has proved to be a great source of inspiration, especially after the seminal studies of Avner Greif.160 The most conspicuous representative of this approach and the theory of the institutional causes of the stagnancy of the economy in Islamic societies is Timur Kuran, who has discussed the causes that hindered the development of Muslim economies and the role of waqfs.161 The most comprehensive study on the economic effects of Islamic endowment practices is his monograph The Great Divergence: How Islamic Law Held Back the Middle East (2012), which is an innovative approach to this topic and sheds new light onto the field. Indology Indology as a discipline is traditionally dedicated to the study of the cultures of the premodern Indian subcontinent before the advent of Islam. A general normative literature on the law of foundations and endowments most prob- ably never existed in pre-Islamic India. But the extensive Brahmanical and Buddhist legal texts also contain rules regarding religious gifts. In Brahmanical 156 Schacht 1964: 125-126. 157 Makdisi 1981: 224. 158 Makdisi 2003: 51. 159 See, for instance, the studies of Çizakça 1996; idem 2007; idem 2012. 160 Greif 2006. 161 See Kuran 1997; idem 2001; idem 2003; idem 2004; idem 2005a; idem 2005b; idem 2012. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 30 Chitwood et al. texts, kings are advised to bestow grants on worthy individuals, particularly on learned Brahmins. Under the rubric of “royal duties” (rājadharma), endow- ments of land are described as most suitable gifts for Brahmanical priests,162 and details regarding the execution of title-deeds are given as well. In the Yājnavalkyasmṛti, a Brahmanical law book from late antiquity, it is said: “After he has granted land and has issued an assignment, the ruler should have a doc- ument produced to inform future [and] subordinate kings. On a piece of cloth or a copper plate, furnished with his seal, the ruler should have the [names of the] members of his dynasty and his own [name] written down and should have a permanent charter produced, which contains the measurement of the gift [and] the description of the [consequences of a] violation of the grant and which is endued with his signature and the date [specification].”163 The canonical texts of the different schools of Buddhism also contain nu- merous references to gifts and grants. These were, however, not regulations of a Buddhist law of foundations and endowments, but other accompanying stipulations which mention such permanent religious donations. This applies, for instance, to the exemption clauses listed in the Theravādavinaya which al- lowed a monk to (shortly) interrupt his rainy season retreat if a lay follower intended to found a monastery or another building dedicated to the Buddhist order.164 The evidence is even more extensive in the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya, which explains how endowments of money (akṣaya[nīvī]) came into being in order to maintain monastic buildings.165 A paracanonical text, the Sphuṭārthā- vyākhyā of Yaśomitra, lists different opportunities to gain religious merit and thus describes the ideal sequence of founding, endowing and making gifts in favor of the Buddhist order: to grant a plot of land, to found a monastery, and to provide the means for furnishing it, supplying food to its inhabitants, accom- modating guests, and tending to the sick.166 The majority of documentary evidence for foundations and endowments from the Indian subcontinent in the premodern period consists of stone in- scriptions and title-deeds engraved on copper plates. Given the narrow scope of the extant administrative and archival material in general, the extraordi- narily huge numbers of preserved endowment records from ancient and par- ticularly medieval India are quite striking. Thousands of stone epigraphs and 162 King, Governance and Law in Ancient India 99; Schmiedchen 2014e: 413-414. 163 Yājñavalkyasmṛti 186, stanzas 1.314-316. 164 Book of the Discipline, paragraph 3.5. 165 Schopen 1994: 529-535. 166 Sphuṭārthā Abhidharmakośavyākhyā 352-353. For Early Medieval Jaina compendia on gift-giving, see Heim 2004. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 ENDOWMENT STUDIES – INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES 31 copper-plate charters bear testimony to the highly developed culture of dona- tions and grants as a whole. However, the information on individual endow- ments which one can derive from the sources is frequently rather limited. More or less shortly after he or she had established a foundation or an endowment, the benefactor or benefactress seems to have had this legal act recorded on a durable material. Often, however, any direct information on the implementa- tion of his or her stipulations is entirely lacking, to say nothing of the further history of the religious endowment. At times, some conclusions can be drawn from indirect evidence, as e.g. the circumstances under which the respective title-deeds were discovered. Yet the rough reconstruction or evolution of an individual endowment over several decades or even centuries would be pos- sible only for very few sites. Stone epigraphs served a wide range of purposes, and different kinds of do- native inscriptions were engraved on stone: foundation documents for Bud- dhist, Hindu, and Jaina monasteries and temples, endowment deeds for the maintenance of these institutions, and votive records on idols, etc. The oldest extant stone epigraphs referring to foundations in India date from the 3rd cen- tury bce: these are some east Indian Prakrit inscriptions from the time of the Maurya king Aśoka.167 The number of (the mostly very short) donative records in Prakrit increased in the last century bce and the first centuries ce dramati- cally. Most of these foundation documents, endowment deeds, and votive in- scriptions were related to a Buddhist context.168 The first extant specimen of a new and rather unique medium to record religious grants – the copper-plate charter – dates from the late 3rd century ce and records the endowment of a  king of the southeast Indian Ikṣvāku dynasty in favor of a Buddhist mon- astery.169 This and a few other early copper-plate charters are still in Prakrit. But the bulk of the title-deeds which were engraved on copper plates in late antiquity and in the early medieval period are composed in Sanskrit (only later were proto-regional languages also used), and the vast majority of them register bestowals of land or villages on Brahmanical priests. It even seems as though the extensive use of this epigraphic form was due to the growing influ- ence of Brahmanism, and the use of portable metal plates was in line with the mobility of Brahmins, who had no affiliation to any permanent temple 167 Falk 2006: 255; Schmiedchen 2014d: 314-315. Aśoka and one of his successors donated caves to the Ājīvikas. 168 Schopen 1985: [48], n. 40; Dehejia 1992: 43-44; Burgess 1883: 82-96, 99-102, 104-108, 1­ 14-115; Ray 1986: 221. 169 Pātagaṇḍigūdem Copper-Plate Grant 275-283. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 32 Chitwood et al. b­ uilding. Whereas all kinds of benefactors used stone inscriptions, most of the extant copper-plate charters were issued by royal donors. In Indian contexts, not every foundation had to be accomplished via an endowment. On the contrary, foundation and endowment seem to have been rather frequently separate legal acts performed by different parties. The infor- mation on the foundation of a Buddhist, Hindu, or Jaina monastery or temple was habitually engraved somewhere in the newly erected building. The length of these epigraphs incised on the entrances, façades, walls, ceilings, pillars of cave monasteries, rock temples, or other architectural structures made of stone could range from a single line to long, elaborate texts. Ideally, a donor mentioned his name, title, profession, and place of residence or origin, his motivation, the donative object, the beneficiary, and a date. Royal foundation documents were presented in a more panegyric form, and the actual purpose of the epigraph is mostly mentioned towards the end of the text. In complex compositions, not only were the foundations of religious buildings recorded, but also idols and cult utensils were dedicated and means for the maintenance of the institution provided. However, foundation inscriptions are only extant for a relatively small percentage of those ancient and medieval Indian mon- asteries and temples for which archaeological or architectural remains are known and preserved. The separation between foundation and endowment is well attested in many copper-plate charters, the endowment records par excellence. In the ma- jority of the title-deeds engraved on copper plates, the question of document- ing a foundation did not occur, as they were issued to grant the income from villages and land to religious individuals, i.e. to Brahmanical priests without any affiliation to a temple or other permanent building. Copper-plate charters in favor of Buddhist, Hindu, and Jaina monasteries or temples, on the other hand, usually record endowments of villages or land to support institutions which were already in existence. In contrast to Latin Christendom, an initial dotation was not compulsory for an Indian monastery or temple. A typical en- dowment pattern was rather that a regional ruler or member of the local elite founded such an institution in his area and later asked the king to grant the income from a village or some land170 for the maintenance of the building, the support of the religious personal, and the image cult in perpetuity.171 In this context, many copper-plate charters indirectly also refer to foundations, even if they do not actually record these legal acts. On the other hand, various religious edifices mentioned in the copper-plate charters have so far not been 170 See, e.g., Indian Museum Copper Plate Inscription of Dharmapala 150-152. 171 Schmiedchen 1993: 585-593; Schmiedchen 2014c: 230-238. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 ENDOWMENT STUDIES – INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES 33 able to be identified with any known archeological or architectural remains of such structures. The formal composition of copper-plate charters was, in contrast to stone inscriptions, very much standardized. These rather official documents consist of (1.) a genealogy and panegyric of the (usually royal) donor, (2.) a detailed description of the endowment, its beneficiaries, and the donor’s stipulations, as well as (3.) a number of formulas and stanzas for the protection of the grant.172 Early title-deeds consisted of only one or two plates each, but some particularly large charters were produced under the 11th-century kings of the south Indian Coḷa dynasty. The so-called “Karandai Tamil Sangam Plates” are 57 in number and weigh 112 kg.173 The expanse of this bilingual text (Sanskrit and Tamil) is not only due to the length of the genealogical account, which includes the historical predecessors as well as mythological ancestors, but also to the fact that all 1083 Brahmanical beneficiaries are mentioned by name. Copper-plate charters were intended to be handed over to the beneficiaries and to be kept by them as a proof of their rights. To protect them from theft, they were often buried under the ground – like a “treasure” –, and this is the reason why many copper-plate charters have been discovered by chance alone, during agricultural or other excavation activities. Besides inscriptions, there is also non-epigraphic documentary evidence for endowments. The most important group of such sources consists of colophons of religious manuscripts.174 Ideally, a colophon contains information on the text copied, the scribe, the sponsor, the place, and the date of the copy. In this respect, many Indian colophons are not complete, and often they are even en- tirely absent. Given the large number of extant Indian manuscripts, it is not easy to assess to what extent copies of religious texts were regarded as proper endowments. Because the materials most commonly used for manuscripts, palm leaves and also birchbark, suffered a great deal in the climate of India, texts had to be regularly copied in order to be preserved. The sponsors of such copying activities must have been aware of the fact that the manuscripts were not made “for eternity”. But besides the oral transmission in a preferably unin- terrupted line of teachers and disciples, the writing down of the relevant texts was another option to ensure the survival of religious doctrines. Many religious and literary texts from ancient and medieval India also pro- vide scattered random evidence for foundations and endowments,175 and the 172 Salomon 1998: 115-117; Chhabra 1995: 121-136. 173 Karandai Tamil Sangam Plates. For another Coḷa charter consisting of 21 plates, see Larger Leiden Plates. 174 E.g. Von Hinüber 1980: 49-82; Schopen 1994: 544. 175 Dejenne 2015. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 34 Chitwood et al. travel reports of foreign visitors, first and foremost the Chinese Buddhist pil- grims, contain information on Indian endowment practices as well.176 A distinct and theoretically-elaborated body of research on foundations and endowments, as it is known from Medieval Studies, does still not exist in In- dology. However, foundation and endowment records have always played an important, even central, role in history-related studies on premodern India. On the one hand, donative inscriptions outweigh all other types of epigraphic material in most regions at all times. On the other hand, inscriptions are of- ten the only sources to reconstruct the political, economic, and social history of pre-Islamic India, and they are also important documents for religious his- tory, their great advantage being that the origin and the date can usually be far better verified for them than for any other texts. The genealogies from royal foundation and endowment deeds have been used to establish dynastic lists of kings. Studies on the structural history of premodern Indian kingdoms have also drawn extensively on endowment records,177 as a large-scale policy of roy- al bestowals of villages and land was a basic characteristic of late antiquity and the early medieval period. It is striking that, in contrast to other regions of the world, endowments are the omnipresent, albeit indirect, object of research in almost all historical explorations on premodern India, regardless of whether they are conducted by the proponents of an “Indian feudalism”,178 by the rep- resentatives of the “conventional” school of thought,179 or by the advocates of the theory of the “segmentary state”.180 Through such works, endowments have been investigated as a social and economic phenomenon of supraregional importance. Although Indian donative inscriptions mainly record foundations and en- dowments in favor of religious beneficiaries, grants have not been in the focus of research in history of religion for a long time. This is probably due to the fact that religious normative texts, in contrast to sources for political, social and economic history, are preserved in large numbers. The advantages of epigraph- ic material in terms of its authenticity regarding religious practices have been systematically harnessed only in the last decades, to a larger extent in Buddhist 176 Cf. Record of Buddhistic Kingdoms; Si-Yu-Ki; Life of Hiuen-Tsiang; Record of the Buddhist Religion. 177 Kulke 1997. 178 Sharma 1957/58; Sharma 1965; Sharma 1985; Njammasch 1984. For a short description of the research on foundations and endowments, see also Schmiedchen 2014b. 179 See, e.g., Sircar 1969. 180 Stein 1977. For general observations on these three different approaches, see Kulke 1982; Kulke 1995. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 ENDOWMENT STUDIES – INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES 35 Studies, to a lesser extent in research on Hinduism. As the textual tradition in Jainism is more problematic than in Buddhism and Hinduism, scholars inves- tigating the history of the Jainas already long ago realized the importance of donative inscriptions.181 Thanks to the works of Gregory Schopen, foundations and endowments have received more attention in Buddhist Studies since the 1980s and 1990s. Schopen has systematically analyzed donative inscriptions for his research on the relevance of Mahāyāna Buddhism; on the relation between monks / nuns and lay followers; on the transference of religious merit; on the filial obliga- tions of Buddhist monks towards their parents; on the introduction of the im- age cult into Indian Buddhism; on the property of monks; on the lay ownership of monasteries; and on the beneficiaries of endowments.182 Whereas endow- ments are rarely mentioned in general outlines on Hinduism, they have been used extensively by Alexis Sanderson, Hans Bakker, Leslie Orr, Cynthia Talbot, and others for research on particular aspects of this vast field.183 The second- ary literature on the temple economy, including money transactions and royal control of endowments, is especially rich for premodern south India.184 Stud- ies on the donative culture in east India have paved the way for further re- search on donations in Bengal and Orissa.185 The very few articles discussing individual questions of the law of endow- ments in premodern India have been well received. This is particularly true for Günther-Dietz Sontheimer’s essay “Religious Endowments in India: The Juristic Personality of Hindu Deities”, published in the Zeitschrift für verglei- chende Rechtswissenschaft in 1965, where he contrasts the normative prescrip- tions with the epigraphic evidence. From the inscriptional material, he derives the following observation: “If property is dedicated to a god, he is invariably mentioned in the dative case (…). It is significant that gifts to a deity are never made to the image of the deity or to the temple of the deity, but that the gift is always directed to the god indicating his name, and sometimes the place in which he is supposed to reside. (…) Very often the god is mentioned alone as the recipient of a gift, often the priest and the deity are mentioned jointly, and 181 Guérinot 1908; Deo 1956; Diskalkar 1959; Granoff 1994; Granoff 1994/95. 182 Schopen 1979; Schopen 1985; Schopen 1988/89; Schopen 1990; Schopen 1992; Schopen 1994; Schopen 1995; Schopen 1996. 183 Sanderson 2003/04; Sanderson 2004; Sanderson 2009; Bakker 2014; Orr 1998; Orr 2000a; Orr 2000b; Orr 2007; Orr 2011; Talbot 1988; Talbot 1991; Talbot 2001. 184 Choudary 1991; Heitzman 1987; Heitzman 1991; Pandeya 1984; Spencer 1968; Tirumalai 1986. 185 Bhattacharya 1985; Karunatillake 1987; Morrison 1970; Morrison 1974; Niyogi 1967; Niyogi 1972/73. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 36 Chitwood et al. frequently we find examples of the priest acting as a ‘trustee’, the deity being the ‘beneficial owner’.”186 Several trends have been followed in recent research on premodern Indi- an endowments: On the one hand, specific problems of religious history are being investigated on a broader source basis and from a supraregional and comparative perspective. Some of the latest works of Alexis Sanderson on the competition between Brahmanical chaplains and Śaiva priests for influence at the royal court belong to this category.187 On the other hand, dynastic or re- gional corpora of endowment deeds are being critically examined as complex sources, not only analyzing the stipulations of the grant proper, but also the portrayal of the donor and further information for the contextualization of the donative culture.188 As in other disciplines, there is also a strand of research focusing on the specific characteristics of female protagonists in religious pa- tronage, as the works by Leslie Orr, Cynthia Talbot, Janice Willis, Harihar Singh, and several others indicate.189 But the question “whether a woman’s gift is in any way gender-bound”190 still remains to be answered. Further desiderata of research are the early history of waqf in India, the development of the donative culture in the early modern centuries, and the possible influence of Indian en- dowment practices on other traditions, particularly in Southeast and East Asia. Horizons of Future Scholarship With the founding of a new journal, the editors are above all pursuing two objectives: Endowment Studies should (1.) aid in consolidating scholarly efforts that have hitherto ensued with little or no coordination and thus have ­oftentimes deliv- ered fragmentary results. With elucidations on the developments of ­scholarship within Medieval Studies, Byzantine Studies, Islamic ­Studies and Indology, a first step has been made. These – at times painstakingly ­compromised  – sketches pursue not an authoritative, but rather an exemplary imperative. That is because far more disciplines have participated in the ­research of historical foundation traditions than the four mentioned here; naturally, in particular the numerous sub-disciplines of the humanities, ­apportioned by g­ eography 186 Sontheimer 1965: 70-71. 187 Sanderson 2004. 188 Ali 2000; Francis 2013; Schmiedchen 2014a. 189 Orr 1998; Orr 2000a; Orr 2000b; Orr 2007; Singh 1999; Spencer 1983; Talbot 1988; Willis 1992. 190 Findly 2000: 94. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 ENDOWMENT STUDIES – INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES 37 and chronology, but also regional studies and, not least of all, law, art, eco- nomics and education. In all disciplines it is in the main highly specialized re- searchers who advance the scholarship. Their expertise deserves to be fed into international scholarly discussion by a relevant periodical, in order to enable a broader reception of the results as has to date been the case. Endowment Studies should (2.) also stimulate comparative research on foundations. Such comparisons can be bounded in quite different ways. Ac- cording to the question posed, one might seek commonalities and differences either in intra- or intercultural, syn- or diachronic perspectives. Finally, each of these thought processes is suited to enable new insights. For comparing does not mean equating, but rather recognizing that which is unique about one thing in contrast with another, which is “simply” similar, but not identi- cal. Thus the uniqueness of a particular foundation structure, a certain kind of endowment or even an entire foundation culture is more clearly exposed. Its individual characteristic thus no longer seems “natural”, and therefore without alternatives, but requiring explanation. In this respect, simple answers are not to be expected. That is because to answer the question as to whether common features of foundation traditions are based on processes of reception or on parallel, yet autochthonous inventions, is one of the most methodologically demanding academic challanges. With the bundling of research activities and the fostering of international exchange, Endowment Studies aims to address scholars in quite different aca- demic contexts. In addition, the journal can also count on the interest of repre- sentatives from current endowment praxis. Potential founders, the administra- tors they commission and not least of all the ever more numerous lobbyists of the so-called third sector can – driven by the primordial hope of learning from history – acquaint themselves in its issues with the ambition and reality, the flourishing and infirmity of earlier endowments. Bibliography Primary Sources al-Khaṣṣāf, Treatise on the Law of Trusts = A Ninth Century Treatise on the Law of Trusts. Being a translation of al-Khaṣṣāf, Ahkām al-Waqūf. Trans. and ed. Gilbert Paul Verbit. s.l. 2008. Book of the Discipline = The Book of the Discipline. Vinaya-Piṭaka. Vol. 4: Mahāvagga. Trans. Isaline Blew Horner. London 1951. Burzūlī, Fatāwā = Fatāwā al-Burzūlī Jāmiʿ Masāʾil al-Aḥkām. Ed. M. al-Ḥabīb Hīla. Beirut 2002. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 38 Chitwood et al. Foundation History of Byland and Jervaulx = The Foundation History of the Abbeys of Byland and Jervaulx. Ed. Janet Burton. York 2006. Fundatio claustri in Bǒmburch = Fundatio claustri in Bǒmburch Ed. Oswald Holder- Egger. Monumenta Germaniae Historia. Scriptores. Vol. 15.2. Hannover 1888: 1061-1064. Fundatio monasterii Comburgensis = Fundatio monasterii Comburgensis. Ed. Oswald Holder-Egger. Monumenta Germaniae Historia. Scriptores. Vol. 15.2. Hannover 1888: 1028-1032. Indian Museum Copper Plate Inscription of Dharmapala = “Indian Museum Copper Plate Inscription of Dharmapala, Year 26: Tentative Reading and Study.” Ed. Ryosuke Furui. South Asian Studies 27.2, 2011, 145-156. Justinian, Novels = Iustiniani Novellae. Ed. Rudolfus Schoell and Guilelmus Kroll. Tenth Edition. Dublin and Zurich. 1972. Karandai Tamil Sangam Plates = Karandai Tamil Sangam Plates of Rajendrachola I. Ed. K. G. Krishnan. Delhi 1984. King, Governance and Law in Ancient India = King, Governance and Law in Ancient ­India: Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra. Trans. Patrick Olivelle. New York and Oxford 2013. Larger Leiden Plates = “The Larger Leiden Plates (of Rājarāja I).” Ed. K. V. Subrahmanya Aiyer. Epigraphia Indica 22, 1933/1934, 213-266. Libro de Regla del Cabildo = Libro de Regla del Cabildo (Kalendas I): Estudio y edición del manuscrito n° 43 de la Catedral de Oviedo. Ed. Víctor Manuel Rodríguez Villar. Oviedo 2001. Life of Hiuen-Tsiang = The Life of Hiuen-Tsiang by the Shaman Hwui Li. Trans. Samuel Beal. London 1911. Al-Maghillī, Durar = Al-Durar al-maknūna fī nawāzil Māzūna. Ed. Ḥassānī Mukhtār and Mālik Karshūsh al-Zawāwī. Algiers 2009. Muslim, Musnad = Al-Musnad al-Ṣaḥīḥ. Ed. Muḥammad Fuʾād ʿAbd al-Bāqī. Beirut s.d. Pātagaṇḍigūdem Copper-Plate Grant = “The Pātagaṇḍigūdem Copper-Plate Grant of the Ikṣvāku King Ehavala Cāntamūla.” Ed. Harry Falk. Silk Road Art and Archaeology 6, 1999/2000, 275-283. Protokolle des Kölner Domkapitels = Die Protokolle des Kölner Domkapitels. Vol. 1. Ed. Klaus Militzer. Düsseldorf 2009. Al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ = Ṣubḥ al-aʿshā fī ṣināʿat al-inshāʾ. Cairo 1963-1972. Record of Buddhistic Kingdoms = A Record of Buddhistic Kingdoms: Being an Account by the Chinese Monk Fa-Hien of His Travels in India and Ceylon (A.D. 399-414) in Search of the Buddhist Books of Discipline. Trans. James Legge. Repr. Delhi 1991. Record of the Buddhist Religion = A Record of the Buddhist Religion as Practised in India and the Malay Archipelago (ad 671-695). Trans. Junjiro Takakusu. London 1896. Si-Yu-Ki = Si-Yu-Ki. Buddhist Records of the Western World. Translated from the Chinese of Hiuen Tsiang (A.D. 629). Trans. Samuel Beal. London 1884. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 ENDOWMENT STUDIES – INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES 39 Sphuṭārthā Abhidharmakośavyākhyā = Yaśomitra. Sphuṭārthā Abhidharmakośavyākhyā. Ed. Unrai Wogihara. Tokyo 1971. Stralsunder Vokabular = Das Stralsunder Vokabular: Edition und Untersuchung einer mittelniederdeutsch-lateinischen Vokabularhandschrift des 15. Jahrhunderts. Ed. ­Robert Damme. Cologne and Vienna 1988. Vocabularius theutonicius = “Vocabularius theutonicus”: Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Edition des mittelniederdeutsch-lateinischen Schulwörterbuchs. Ed. Robert Damme. Cologne et al. 2011. Al-Wansharīsī, Miʿyār = Al-Miʿyār al-muʿrib wa-l-jāmiʿ al-mughrib ʿan fatāwā ʿulamāʾ a­ l-Andalus wa-l-Maghrib. Ed. Muḥammad Ḥajjī, Muḥammad al-ʿArāyīshī and Aḥmad al-Sharqāwī Iqbāl. Rabat 1981. Yājñavalkyasmṛti = The Yājñavalkyasmṛti: With the Commentary Bālākrīḍā of Viśvarūpācārya. Ed. Taruvagraharam Ganapati Sastri. Trivandrum 1921-1922. Repr. Delhi 1982. Secondary Literature Algazi 2014 = Gadi Algazi. “Comparing Medieval Institutions: A Few Introductory Re- marks.” Ed. John Hudson and Ana Rodríguez. Diverging Paths? The Shapes of Power and Institutions in Medieval Christendom and Islam. Leiden: 3-15. Ali 2000 = Daud Ali. “Royal Eulogy as World History: Rethinking Copper-plate Inscrip- tions in Cōḷa India.” Ed. Ronald Inden, J. S. Walters and Daud Ali. Querying the Medi- eval: Texts and the History of Practices in South Asia. New York and Oxford: 165-229. Amīn 1980 = Muḥammad Amīn. Al-Awqāf wa-l-ḥayāt al-ijtimāʿiyya fī Miṣr, 648-923/ 1250-1517. Cairo. Baer 1983 = Gabriel Baer. “Women and Waqf: An Analysis of the Istanbul Tahrir of 1546.” Asian and African Studies 17: 9-27. Baer 1997 = Gabriel Baer. “The Waqf as a Prop for the Social System (Sixteenth-­ Twentieth Centuries).” Islamic Law and Society 4.3: 264-297. Baer 2005 = Gabriel Baer. “The Muslim Waqf and Similar Institutions in Other Civi- lizations”. Ed. Michael Borgolte. Stiftungen in Christentum, Judentum und Islam vor der Moderne: Auf der Suche nach ihren Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschieden in religiösen Grundlagen, praktischen Zwecken und historischen Transformationen. ­Berlin: ­257-280 (posthumously published manuscript dated 1981). Bakker 2014 = Hans T. Bakker. The World of the Skandapurāṇa: Northern India in the Sixth and Seventh Centuries. Leiden. Barnes 1986 = John R. Barnes. An Introduction to Religious Foundations in the Ottoman Empire. Leiden. Behrend 2015 = Inga Behrendt. “Liturgie und Finanzen: Stiftungsvermerke im Liber ­Ordinarius A-Gu 756 von Seckau in Österreich.” Ed. Louis van Tongeren et al. Unitas in pluralitate: Libri ordinarii als Quelle für die Kulturgeschichte. Münster: 205-230. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 40 Chitwood et al. Ben Azzouna 2014 = Nourane Ben Azzouna. “Rashīd al-Dīn Faḍl Allāh al-Hamadhānī’s Manuscript Production Project in Tabriz Reconsidered.” Ed. Judith Pfeiffer. Politics, Patronage and the Transmission of Knowledge in 13th-15th Century Tabriz. Leiden: 187-200 Bériou 1971 = Nicole Bériou. “Les chapellenies dans la province ecclésiastique de Reims au xive siècle.” Revue d’histoire de l’église de France 57: 227-240. Beuckers 2013 = Klaus Gereon Beuckers. “Schatz und Stiftungen: Allgemeine Be- merkungen zu Stiftungsmotivationen im Früh- und Hochmittelalter.” Ed. Hedwig Röckelein. Der Gandersheimer Schatz im Vergleich: Zur Rekonstruktion und Präsen- tation von Kirchenschätzen. Regensburg: 21-34. Bhattacharya 1985 = Swapna Bhattacharya. Landschenkungen und staatliche Entwick- lung im frühmittelalterlichen Bengalen (5. bis 13. Jh. n. Chr.). Wiesbaden. Bijsterveld 2007 = Arnoud Jan A. Bijsterveld. Do ut des: Gift Giving, Memoria, and Con- flict Management in the Low Countries. Hilversum. Blair 2005 = Sheila S. Blair. “Islamic Art as a Source for the Study of Women in Premod- ern Societies.” Ed. Amira El-Azhary Sonbol. Beyond the Exotic: Women’s Histories in Islamic Societies. Syracuse (n.y.): 336-346. Blake 1998 = Stephen P. Blake. “Contributors to Urban Landscape: Women Builders in Safavid Isfahan and Mughal Shahjahanabad.” Ed. Gavin Hambly. Women in the Medieval Islamic World. New York: 407-428. Bloxam 2011 = M. Jennifer Bloxam. “Text and Context: Obrecht’s ‘Missa de sancto Dona- tiano’ in Its Social and Ritual Landscape.” Journal of the Alamire Foundation 3: 11-36. Bloxam and Bull 2010 = M. Jennifer Bloxam / Stratton Bull. “Obrecht and the Mass for St. Donatian: A Multi-Media Triptych.” Journal of the Alamire Foundation 2: 111-125. Borgolte 1993 = Michael Borgolte. ‘Totale Geschichte’ des Mittelalters? Das Beispiel der Stiftungen. Berlin. Repr. Michael Borgolte. Stiftung und Memoria. Ed. Tillmann Lohse. Berlin 2012: 41-59. Borgolte 1996 = Michael Borgolte. “Stiftung (abendländ. Westen).” Ed. Robert-Henri Bautier et al. Lexikon des Mittelalters. Vol. 8. München: 178-180. Borgolte 2000 = Ed. Michael Borgolte. Stiftungen und Stiftungswirklichkeiten: Vom Mit- telalter bis zur Gegenwart. Berlin. Borgolte 2002 = Michael Borgolte. “Von der Geschichte des Stiftungsrechts zur ­Geschichte der Stiftungen.” Hans Liermann. Handbuch des Stiftungsrechts. Vol. 1: ­Geschichte des Stiftungsrechts. Tübingen. Repr. ed. Axel Frhr. von Campenhausen and Christoph Mecking. Tübingen 2002: 13-69. Borgolte 2003 = Michael Borgolte, “Stiftung, Staat und sozialer Wandel: Von der Geg- enwart zum Mittelalter.” Ed. Franz-Josef Jakobi et al. Strukturwandel der Armenfür­ sorge und der Stiftungswirklichkeiten in Münster im Laufe der Jahrhunderte. Münster: 9-24. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 ENDOWMENT STUDIES – INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES 41 Borgolte 2005a = Ed. Michael Borgolte. Stiftungen in Christentum, Judentum und Islam vor der Moderne: Auf der Suche nach ihren Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschieden in religiösen Grundlagen, praktischen Zwecken und historischen Transformationen. Berlin. Borgolte 2005b = Michael Borgolte. “Einleitung.” Ed. Michael Borgolte. Stiftungen in Christentum, Judentum und Islam vor der Moderne: Auf der Suche nach ihren Ge- meinsamkeiten und Unterschieden in religiösen Grundlagen, praktischen Zwecken und historischen Transformationen. Berlin: 9-21. Borgolte 2016 = Michael Borgolte. “Stifter: Lateinische Christen.” Ed. Michael ­Borgolte. Enzyklopädie des Stiftungswesens in mittelalterlichen Gesellschaften, Bd. 2: Das ­soziale System Stiftung. Berlin and Boston: 359-380. Borgolte 2017 = Michael Borgolte. “Five Thousand Years of Foundations: A Typology from Mesopotamia to the u.s.a.” Endowment Studies 1: 60-95. Borgolte et al. 2017 = Michael Borgolte et al. “Inventionen, Innovationen und Imita- tionen im interkulturellen Kontakt.” Ed. Michael Borgolte. Enzyklopädie des Stif- tungswesens in mittelalterlichen Gesellschaften. Vol. 3: Stiftung und Gesellschaft. ­Berlin and Boston: 427-488. Bowers 2004 = Roger D. Bowers. “Guillaume de Machaut and his Canonry of Reims, 1338-1377.” Early Music History 23: 1-48. Boyer 1976 = Marjorie Nice Boyer. Medieval French Bridges: A History. Cambridge, Mass. Brooks 1995 = Nicholas Brooks. “Medieval Bridges: A Window onto Changing Concepts of State Power.” The Haskins Society Journal 7: 11-30. Bruck 1956 = Eberhard F. Bruck. Kirchenväter und soziales Erbrecht. Wanderungen re- ligiöser Ideen durch die Rechte der östlichen und westlichen Welt. Berlin, Göttingen and Heidelberg. Bünger and Delius 1967 = Hans-Jürgen Bünger and Walter Delius. “Altarpfründen im Bistum Brandenburg: Die mittelalterlichen Seelgerätstiftungen im Archidiakonat des Dompropstes von Brandenburg unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Altar- und Vikariestiftungen.” Jahrbuch für Berlin-Brandenburgische Kirchengeschichte 42: 7-76. Bünz et al. 1998 = Ed. Enno Bünz et al. Fränkische Urbare: Verzeichnis der mittelalterli- chen urbariellen Quellen im Bereich des Hochstifts Würzburg. Neustadt an der Aisch. Burgess 1883 = James Burgess. Report on the Buddhist Cave Temples and Their Inscrip- tions. London. Cahen 1961 = Claude Cahen. “Réflexions sur le Waqf ancient.” Studia Islamica 14: 37-65. Carvalho Andrade 2005 = Maria F. Carvalho Andrade. “O processo fundacional dos conventos de clarissas no Portugal medievo.” Ed. María Isabel Viforcos Marinas and María Dolores Campos Sánchez-Bordona. Fundadores, fundaciones y espacios de vida conventual: Nuevas aportaciones al monacato femenino. León: 79-101. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 42 Chitwood et al. Chhabra 1995 = Bahadur Chand Chhabra. “Diplomatic of Sanskrit Copper-Plate Grants.” Ed. Phanikanta Mishra. Researches in Indian Archaeology, Art, Architecture, Culture and Religion. Vijayakanta Mishra Commemoration Volume. Vol. 1. Delhi: 121-136. Chiffoleau 1980 = Jacques Chiffoleau. La comptabilité de l’au-delà: Les hommes, la mort et la religion dans la région d’Avignon à la fin du Moyen Âge (vers 1320-vers 1480). Rome. Chiffoleau 1981 = Jacques Chiffoleau. “Sur l’usage obsessionnel de la messe pour les morts à la fin du Moyen Âge.” Ed. André Vauchez. Faire croire: Modalités de la dif- fusion et de la réception des messages religieux du xiie au xve siècle. Rome: 235-256. Chitwood 2014a = Zachary Chitwood. “Forschungsgeschichten: Griechisch-orthodoxe Christen.” Ed. Michael Borgolte. Enzyklopädie des Stiftungswesens in mittelalterli- chen Gesellschaften. Vol. 1: Grundlagen. Berlin: 131-145. Chitwood 2014b = Zachary Chitwood. “Schriftzeugnisse: Griechisch-orthodoxe Chris- ten.” Ed. Michael Borgolte. Enzyklopädie des Stiftungswesens in mittelalterlichen ­Gesellschaften. Band 1: Grundlagen. Berlin: 397-410. Chitwood 2014c = Zachary Chitwood. “Stiftung – Mittelalterlicher Sprachgebrauch und moderner Begriff: Griechisch-orthodoxe Christen.” Ed. Michael Borgolte. En- zyklopädie des Stiftungswesens in mittelalterlichen Gesellschaften. Vol. 1: Grundlagen. Berlin: 57-70. Chitwood 2016a = Zachary Chitwood. “Gedenken und Kultus: Griechisch-orthodoxe Christen.” Ed. Michael Borgolte. Enzyklopädie des Stiftungswesens in mittelalterli- chen Gesellschaften. Vol. 2: Das soziale System Stiftung. Berlin and Boston: 147-165. Chitwood 2016b = Zachary Chitwood. “Religiöses Verdienst und weltliche Ambitionen: Griechisch-orthodoxe Christen.” Ed. Michael Borgolte. Enzyklopädie des Stiftung- swesens in mittelalterlichen Gesellschaften. Vol. 2: Das soziale System Stiftung. Berlin and Boston: 324-336. Choudary 1991 = D. Kiran Krant Choudary. “Endowments to the Srikalahastisvara ­Temple – An Analytical Study”. Journal of the Epigraphical Society of India 17: 68-73. Çizakça 1996 = Murat Çizakça. A Comparative Evolution of Business Partnerships: The Islamic World and Europe with Specific Reference to the Ottoman Archives. Leiden. Çizakça 2007 = Murat Çizakça. “Cross-cultural Borrowing and Comparative Evolution of Institutions Between the Islamic World and the West.” Ed. S. Cavaciocchi. Eu- rope’s Economic Relations with the Islamic World, 13th-18th Centuries. Vol. 2. Florence: 671-698. Çizakça 2012 = Murat Çizakça. “Long Term Causes of Decline of the Ottoman/Islamic Economies.” Ed. F. Ammannati. Religion and Religious Institutions in the European Economy, 1000-1800. Florence: 361-376. Clavel 1896 = Eugène Clavel. Droit musulman: Le wakf ou habous d’après la doctrine et la jurisprudence (rites hanafite et malékite). Cairo. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 ENDOWMENT STUDIES – INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES 43 Colvin 2000 = Howard Colvin. “The Origin of Chantries.” Journal of Medieval History 26: 163-173. Conermann and Saghbini 2012 = Stephan Conermann and Suad Saghbini. “Awlād al- Nās as Founders of Pious Endowments: The Waqfiyya of Yaḥyá ibn Ṭūghān ­al-Ḥasanī of the Year 870/1465.” Mamluk Studies Review 6: 21-50. Constable 2003 = Olivia R. Constable. Housing the Stranger in the Mediterranean World: Lodging, Trade and Travel in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Cambridge. Crouch 2001 = David Crouch. “The Origin of Chantries: Some Further Anglo-Norman Evidence.” Journal of Medieval History 27: 159-180. Cullum 1994 = Patricia H. Cullum. “‘For Pore People Harberles’: What was the Func- tion of the Maisondieu?” Ed. Dorothy J. Clayton, Richard Garfield Davies and Peter McNiven. Trade, Devotion and Governance: Papers in Later Medieval History. Stroud: 36-54. Cytryn-Silverman 2010 = Katia Cytryn-Silverman. The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām. Oxford. Damsteegt 1978 = Theo Damsteegt. Epigraphical Hybrid Sanskrit. Its Rise, Spread, Char- acteristics and Relationship to Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit. Leiden. Deguilhem 1995 = Randi Deguilhem. Le waqf dans l’espace islamique: outil de pouvoir socio-politique. Damascus. Dehejia 1992 = Vidya Dehejia. “The Collective and Popular Basis of Early Buddhist ­Patronage: Sacred Monuments, 100 bc-ad 250.” Ed. Barbara Stoler Miller. The ­Powers of Art. Patronage in Indian Culture. Delhi: 35-45. Dejenne 2015 = Nicolas Dejenne. “Une note sur les fondations civiles et religieuses dans la Rājataraṅgiṇī de Kalhaṇa.” Bulletin d’etudes indiennes 33: 111-136. De la Vaissière 2008 = Étienne De la Vaissière. “Le ribāṭ d’Asie Centrale.” Cahiers de Studia Iranica 39: 71-94. Denley 1991 = Peter Denley. “The Collegiate Movement in Italian Universities in the Late Middle Ages.” History of Universities 10: 29-91. D’Emilia 1953 = Antonio DʼEmilia. “Per una comparazione fra le piae causae nel diritto canonico il charitable trust nel diritto inglese el waqf khairi nel diritto musulmano.” Atti del primo congresso di diritto comparato. Rome: 188-230. Deo 1956 = Shantaram Bhalchandra Deo. History of Jaina Monachism from Inscriptions and Literature. Pune. Diefenbach 1857 = Lorenz Diefenbach. Glossarium Latino-Germanicum mediae et in- fimae aetatis: E codicibus manuscriptis et libris impressis. Frankfurt am Main. Repr. Darmstadt 1997. Díez Jorge 2012 = María Elena Díez Jorge. “Women and the Architecture of al-Andalus (711-1492): A Historiographical Analysis.” Ed. Therese Martin. Reassessing the Roles of Women as “Makers” of Medieval Art and Architecture. Leiden: 479-523. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 44 Chitwood et al. Diskalkar 1959 = D. B. Diskalkar. “Studies in Jain Inscriptions.” Journal of the Oriental Institute of Baroda 9: 23-31. Domingues da Costa Carvalho 2001/02 = Elisa Maria Domingues da Costa Carvalho. “A fortuna ao serviço da salvação da alma, da família e da memória, através dos tes- tamentos dos arcebispos e dignatários de Braga na idade média (séculos xii-xv).” Lusitania sacra 2. série 13/14: 15-40. Dormeier 1985 = Heinrich Dormeier. “St. Rochus, die Pest und die Imhoffs in Nürn- berg vor und während der Reformation: Ein spätgotischer Altar in seinem religiös-­ liturgischen, wirtschaftlich-rechtlichen und sozialen Umfeld.” Anzeiger des G ­ ermanischen Nationalmuseums 1985: 7-72. Doumani 1998 = Beshara Doumani. “Endowing Family: Waqf, Property Devolution, and Gender in Greater Syria, 1800 to 1860.” Comparative Study of Society and History 40: 3-41. Dufour and Platelle 1999 = Ed. Jean Dufour and Henri Platelle. Fondations et œuvres charitables au Moyen Âge. Paris. Ehlers 2002 = Caspar Ehlers. “Having the King – Losing the King.” Viator 33: 1-42. Elon and Levitats 22007 = Menachem Elon and Isaac Levitats. “Hekdesh.” Encyclopae- dia Judaica. Vol. 8. Second edition. Detroit: 775-780. Faber 1995 = Douwe J. Faber. “Een laat-middeleeuwse obsessie? Vroomheid in Leiden in het aangezicht van de dood.” Jaarboek der sociale en economische geschiedenis van Leiden en omstreken 7: 25-43. Falk 2006 = Harry Falk. Aśokan Sites and Artefacts: A Source-Book with Bibliography. Mainz. Faroqhi 1999 = Suraiya Faroqhi. Approaching Ottoman History: An Introduction to the Sources. Cambridge. Faroqhi 2005 = Suraiya Faroqhi. “Pious Foundations in the Ottoman Society of Ana- tolia and Rumelia: A Report on Current Research.” Ed. Michael Borgolte. Stiftun- gen in Christentum, Judentum und Islam vor der Moderne: Auf der Suche nach ihren Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschieden in religiösen Grundlagen, praktischen Zwecken und historischen Transformationen. Berlin: 223-256. Favreau 1992 = Robert Favreau. “Les Commanditaires dans les inscriptions du haut Moyen Âge occidental.” Committenti e produzione artistico-letteraria nell’alto medio- evo occidentale. Vol. 2. Spoleto: 681-722. Fay 1997 = Mary Ann Fay. “Women and Waqf: Property, Power, and the Domain of Gen- der in Eighteen-Century Egypt”. Ed. Madeline C. Zilfi. Women in the Ottoman Em- pire: Middle Eastern Women in the Early Modern Era. Leiden: 28-47. Feenstra 1956 = Robert Feenstra. “Lʼhistoire des fondations: À propos de quelques études récentes.” Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 24: 381-448. Feenstra 1998 = Robert Feenstra. “Foundations in Continental Law since the 12th Cen- tury: The Legal Person Concept and Trust-like Devices.” Ed. Richard Helmholz  endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 ENDOWMENT STUDIES – INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES 45 and  Reinhard Zimmermann. Itinera Fiduciae: Trust and Treuhand in Historical Per- spective. Berlin: 305-326. Fernandes 1998 = Leonor Fernandes. The Evolution of a Sufi Institution in Mamluk Egypt: The Khanqah. Berlin. Findly 2000 = Ellison Banks Findly. “Women’s Wealth and Styles of Giving: Perspectives from Buddhist, Jain, and Mughal Sites.” Ed. D. Fairchild Ruggles. Women, Patronage and Self-Representation in Islamic Societies. Albany (ny): 91-121. Francis 2013 = Emmanuel Francis. Le discours royal dans l’Inde du Sud ancienne: Inscrip- tions et monuments pallava. Vol. 1: Introduction et sources. Louvain-la-Neuve. Franco 2004 = Francisco Franco. La rábita en el Islam: Estudios interdisciplinares. Alicante. Fuhrmann 2002 = Hans Fuhrmann. “Balthasar von Neuenstadt († 1516), Dompropst von Halberstadt: Ein Stifter und seine Stiftungen.” Ed. Werner Freitag. Mitteldeutsche Lebensbilder: Menschen im späten Mittelalter. Cologne et al.: 203-225. Gabriel 1961 = Astrik L. Gabriel. “The College System in the Fourteenth-Century Uni- versities.” Ed. Francis L. Utley. The Forward Movement of the Fourteenth Century. ­Columbus, Ohio: 79-124. Gabrieli 1933 = Francesco Gabrieli. Orientalisti del Novecento. Rome. García Sanjuán 2006 = A. García Sanjuán. Till God Inherits the Earth: Islamic Pious En- dowments in al-Andalus (9-15th Centuries). Leiden. Gatteschi 1877 = Domenico Gatteschi. Étude sur la proprieté foncière en Egypte. Cairo. Geelhaar and Thomas 2011 = Ed. Tim Geelhaar and John Thomas. Stiftung und Staat im Mittelalter: Eine byzantinisch-lateineuropäische Quellenanthologie in kompara­ tistischer Perspektive. Berlin. Gemelli 2006 = Giuliana Gemelli. “Historical Changes in Foundation Functions and Legitimacy in Europe.” Ed. Kenneth Prewitt et al. The Legitimacy of Philanthropic Foundations: United States and European Perspectives. New York: 177-191. Gil 1976 = Moshe Gil. Documents of the Jewish Pious Foundations from the Cairo Geniza. Leiden. Gilchrist 2005 = Roberta Gilchrist. Norwich Cathedral Close: The Evolution of the English Cathedral Landscape. Woodbridge. Goetz 1988 = Hans-Werner Goetz. “Zum Geschichtsbewußtsein in der alamannisch- schweizerischen Klosterchronistik des hohen Mittelalters (11.-13. Jahrhundert).” Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 44: 455-488. Goez 2000 = Elke Goez. “Mißtrauische Stifter: Aus Testamenten und Schenkungs­ urkunden zugunsten der fränkischen Zisterze Ebrach.” Ed. Matthias Thumser, Ane­ gret Wenz-Haubfleish and Peter Wiegand. Studien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters. Jürgen Petersohn zum 65. Geburtstag. Stuttgart: 260-270. Goitein 1967-93 = Shlomo D. Goitein. A Mediterranean Society: The Jewish Communities of the Arab World as Portrayed in the Documents of the Cairo Geniza. Berkeley. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 46 Chitwood et al. Goitein 1973 = Shlomo D. Goitein. “Changes in the Middle East (950-1150) as I­ llustrated by the Documents of the Genizah”. Ed. Donald S. Richards. Islamic Civilisation 9­ 50-1150. London: 17-32. Goodall 2001 = John A. A. Goodall. God’s House at Ewelme: Life, Devotion and Architec- ture in a Fifteenth-Century Almshouse. Aldershot and Burlington. Graf 1998 = Sabine Graf. Das Niederkirchenwesen der Reichsstadt Goslar im Mittelalter. Hannover. Granić 1929/30 = B. Granić. “Die rechtliche Stellung und Organisation der griechischen Klöster nach dem justinianischen Recht.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 29: 6-34. Granić 1931 = B. Granić. “Das Klosterwesen in der Novellengesetzgebung Kaiser Leons des Weisen.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 31: 61-69. Granoff 1994 = Phyllis Emily Granoff. “Being in the Minority: Medieval Jain Reactions to Other Religious Groups.” Ed. Narendra Nath Bhattacharyya. Jainism and Prakrit in Ancient and Medieval India: Essays for Prof. Jagdish Chandra Jain. Delhi: 241-266. Granoff 1994/95 = Phyllis Emily Granoff. “Patrons, Overlords and Artisans: Some Com- ments on the Intricacies of Religious Donations in Medieval Jainism.” Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute 54/55: 269-291. Greif 2006 = Avner Greif. Institutions and the Path to the Modern Economy. Lessons from Medieval Trade. Cambridge. Guérinot 1908 = Armand Albert Guérinot. Répertoire d’épigraphie jaina: Precede d’une esquisse de l’histoire du jainism d’après les inscriptions. Paris. Haarmann 1984 = Ulrich Haarmann. “Sons of Mamluks as Fief-Holders in Late Medi- eval Egypt.” Ed. Tarif Khalidi. Land Tenure and Social Transformation in the Middle East. Beirut: 141-188. Haas 2011 = Irmgard Haas. Leben im Kollegiatstift St. Blasii in Braunschweig: Die litur- gischen Stiftungen und ihre Bedeutung für Gottesdienst und Wirtschaft. Braunschweig. Hagemann 1953 = Hans-Rudolf Hagemann. Die Stellung der Piae Causae nach justini- anischem Rechte. Basel. Härtel 2000 = Reinhard Härtel. “Klostergründungen und historische Erinnerung.” An- nali dell’Istituto storico itali-germanico in Trento 26: 409-426 Haggh 1996 = Barbara Haggh. “Foundations or Institutions? On Bringing the Middle Ages into the History of Medieval Music.” Acta Musicologica 68: 87-128. Al-Harithy 2005 = Howayda Al-Harithy. “Female Patronage of Mamluk Architecture in Cairo.” Ed. Amira El-Azhary Sonbol. Beyond the Exotic: Women’s Histories in Islamic Societies. Syracuse (n.y.): 321-335. Harrison 2004 = David Harrison. The Bridges of Medieval England: Transport and Soci- ety, 400-1800. Oxford. Heard 2011 = Kate Heard. “‘Such Stuff as Dreams Are Made on’: Textiles and the Medi- eval Chantry.” Journal of the British Archaeological Association 164: 157-168. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 ENDOWMENT STUDIES – INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES 47 Heidemann 2009a = Stefan Heidemann. “Economic Growth and Currency in Ayyubid Palestine”. Ed. Robert Hillenbrandt et al. Ayyubid Jerusalem: The Holy City in Context 1187-1250. London: 276-300. Heidemann 2009b = Stefan Heidemann. “Frömmigkeit und Wohltätigkeit für die städtische Erneuerung: Abgaben- und Stiftungspolitik in der Mitte des 12. Jahrhun- derts”. Ed. Astrid Meier, Johannes Pahlitzsch and Lucian Reinfandt. Islamische Stif- tungen zwischen juristischer Norm und sozialer Praxis. Berlin: 61-77. Heim 2004 = Maria Heim. Theories of the Gift in South Asia: Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain Reflections on Dāna. New York. Heitzman 1987 = James Heitzman. “Temple Urbanism in Medieval South India.” The Journal of Asian Studies 46.4: 791-826. Heitzman 1991 = James Heitzman. “Ritual, Polity and Economy: The Transactional Net- work of an Imperial Temple in Medieval South India.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 34: 23-54. Helmholz 2005 = Richard H. Helmholz. “The Law of Charity and the English Ecclesi- astical Courts”. Ed. Philippa Hoskin. Foundations of Medieval Ecclesiastical History: Studies Presented to David Smith. Woodbridge: 111-123. Hennigan 2004 = Peter C. Hennigan. The Birth of a Legal Institution: The Formation of the Waqf in Third-Century A. H. Ḥanafī Legal Discourse. Leiden. Hensel-Grobe 2007 = Meike Hensel-Grobe. Das St.-Nikolaus-Hospital zu Kues: Studien zur Stiftung des Cusanus und seiner Familie (15.-17. Jahrhundert). Stuttgart. Hergemöller 1986 = Bernd-Ulrich Hergemöller. “Verfassungsrechtliche Beziehungen zwischen Klerus und Stadt im spätmittelalterlichen Braunschweig.” Ed. Manfred Garzmann. Rat und Verfassung im mittelalterlichen Braunschweig: Festschrift zum 600jährigen Bestehen der Ratsverfassung, 1386-1986. Braunschweig: 135-186. Hermandez 2013 = Rebecca Skreslet Hernandez. “Sultan, Scholar, and Sufi: Authority and Power Relations in al-Suyūṭī’s Fatwā on Waqf.” Islamic Law and Society 20.4: 333-370. Hoexter 1998 = Miriam Hoexter. “Waqf Studies in the Twentieth Century: The State of the Art.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 41.4: 474-495. Hoffmann 2000 = Birgitt Hoffmann. Waqf im mongolischen Iran: Rašiduddins Sorge um Nachruhm und Seelenheil. Stuttgart. Holman 2001 = Susan R. Holman. The Hungry Are Dying: Beggars and Bishops in Roman Cappadocia. Oxford and New York. Holzfurtner 1984 = Ludwig Holzfurtner. Gründung und Gründungsüberlieferung: Quellenkritische Studien zur Gründungsgeschichte der bayerischen Klöster der Agil- olfingerzeit und ihrer hochmittelalterlichen Überlieferung. Kallmünz. Horden 2005 = Peregrine Horden. “Memoria, Salvation, and Other Motives of Byzan- tine Philanthropists.” Ed. Michael Borgolte. Stiftungen in Christentum, Judentum endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 48 Chitwood et al. und Islam vor der Moderne: Auf der Suche nach ihren Gemeinsamkeiten und Unter- schieden in religiösen Grundlagen, praktischen Zwecken und historischen Transfor- mationen. Berlin: 137-146. Hugener 2014 = Rainer Hugener. Buchführung für die Ewigkeit: Totengedenken, Ver- schriftlichung und Traditionsbildung im Spätmittelalter. Zurich. Inde 2013 = Tadao Inde. “Aspects économiques de la célébration des messes à la fin du Moyen Âge: Les chapellenies gérées par le chapitre cathédral d’Avignon au xive siècle.” Revue d’histoire de l’église de France 99: 5-23. Jacob 1962 = Ernest F. Jacob. “Founders and Foundations in the Later Middle Ages.” ­Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 35: 29-46. Repr. Ernest F. Jacob. ­Essays in Later Medieval History. Manchester and New York 1968: 154-174. Jaritz 1990 = Ed. Gerhard Jaritz. Materielle Kultur und religiöse Stiftung im Spätmittel- alter. Vienna. Jones 1969 = Gareth Jones. History of the Law of Charity. Cambridge. Karunatillake 1987 = P. V. B. Karunatillake. “Hindu Temples in Bihar and Orissa: Some Aspects of the Management of Their Monetary Endowments in Early Medieval Times.” The Sri Lanka Journal of the Humanities 13: 147-161. Kastner 1974 = Jörg Kastner. Historiae fundationum monasteriorum: Frühformen monas- tischer Institutionsgeschichtsschreibung im Mittelalter. Munich. Kitching 1980 = Christopher J. Kitching. “Introduction.” Ed. Christopher J. Kitching. London and Middlesex Chantry Certificate 1548. London: ix-xxxiv. Knecht 1905 = August Knecht. System des justinianischen Kirchenvermögensrechtes. Stuttgart. Repr. Amsterdam 1963. Koch 1987 = Walter Koch. Literaturbericht zur mittelalterlichen und neuzeitlichen Epigraphik (1976-1984). Munich. Koch 2007 = Walter Koch. Inschriftenpaläographie des abendländischen Mittelalters und der früheren Neuzeit. Vol. 1: Früh- und Hochmittelalter. Vienna and Munich. Koch et al. 1994 = Walter Koch et al. Literaturbericht zur mittelalterlichen und neuzeitli- chen Epigraphik (1985-1991). Munich. Koch, Glaser and Bornschlegel 2000 = Walter Koch, Maria Glaser and Franz-Albrecht Bornschlegel. Literaturbericht zur mittelalterlichen und neuzeitlichen Epigraphik (1992-1997). Hannover. Koch and Bornschlegel 2005 = Walter Koch and Franz-Albrecht Bornschlegel. ­Literaturbericht zur mittelalterlichen und neuzeitlichen Epigraphik (1998-2002). Hannover. Koch 2014 = Patrick Koch. “Stiftung – Mittelalterlicher Sprachgebrauch und moderner Begriff: Juden”. Ed. Michael Borgolte. Enzyklopädie des Stiftungswesens in mittelal- terlichen Gesellschaften. Vol. 1: Grundlagen. Berlin: 46-57. Kreider 1979 = Alan Kreider. English Chantries: The Road to Dissolution. Cambridge, Mass. and London. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 ENDOWMENT STUDIES – INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES 49 Krumbacher 1909 = Karl Krumbacher. “Kτήτωρ: Ein lexikographischer Versuch.” Indo- germanische Forschungen 25: 395-421. Kulke 1982 = Hermann Kulke. “Fragmentation and Segmentation versus Integration? Reflections on the Concepts of Indian Feudalism and the Segmentary State in ­Indian History.” Studies in History 4: 237-263. Kulke 1995 = Hermann Kulke. “Introduction: The Study of the State in Pre-modern ­India.” Ed. Hermann Kulke. The State in India. 1000-1700. Delhi: 1-47. Kulke 1997 = Hermann Kulke. “Some Observations on the Political Functions of ­Copper-Plate Grants in Early Medieval India.” Ed. Bernhard Kölver. Recht, Staat und Verwaltung im klassischen Indien. Munich: 238-243. Kuran 1997 = Timur Kuran. “Islam and Underdevelopment: An Old Puzzle Revisited.” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 153: 41-71. Kuran 2001 = Timur Kuran. “The Provision of Public Goods under Islamic Law: Origins, Impact and Limitations of the Waqf System.” Law and Society Review 35: 841-897. Kuran 2003 = Timur Kuran. “The Islamic Commercial Crisis: Institutional Roots of Economic Underdevelopment in the Middle East.” Journal of Economic History 63: 414-446. Kuran 2004 = Timur Kuran. “Why the Middle East is Economically Underdeveloped: Historical Mechanisms of Institutional Stagnation.” Journal of Economic Perspec- tives 18: 71-90. Kuran 2005a = Timur Kuran. “The Absence of the Corporation in Islamic Law: Origins and Persistence.” American Journal of Comparative Law 53: 785-834. Kuran 2005b = Timur Kuran. “The Logic of Financial Westernization in the Middle East.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 56: 593-615. Kuran 2012 = Timur Kuran. The Great Divergence: How Islamic Law Held Back the Middle East. Princeton. La Martire 2017a = Corrado La Martire. “Geschlecht: Muslime”. Ed. Michael Borgolte. Enzyklopädie des Stiftungswesens in mittelalterlichen Gesellschaften. Vol. 3: Stiftung und Gesellschaft. Berlin and Boston: 134-147. La Martire 2017b = Corrado La Martire. “Gesellschaftlicher Wandel. Muslime” Ed. ­Michael Borgolte. Enzyklopädie des Stiftungswesens in mittelalterlichen Gesell- schaften. Vol. 3: Stiftung und Gesellschaft. Berlin and Boston: 239-306. Landau 1975 = Peter Landau. Jus patronatus: Studien zur Entwicklung des Patronats im Dekretalenrecht und der Kanonistik des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts. Cologne and Vienna. Lange 2007 = Klaus Lange. “Mathildis, Theophanu et aliae: Funktionen des Eigenna- mens in Stifterinschriften.” Ed. Birgitta Falk, Thomas Schlip and Michael Schlag­ heck. “Wie das Gold den Augen leuchtet”: Schätze aus dem Essener Frauenstift. ­Essen: 95-110. Laum 1914 = Bernhard Laum. Stiftungen in der griechischen und römischen Antike. Ein Beitrag zur antiken Kulturgeschichte. Leipzig and Berlin. Repr. Aalen 1964. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 50 Chitwood et al. Layish 2008 = Aharon Layish. “Waqfs of Awlād al-Nās in Aleppo in the Late Mamlūk Period as Reflected in a Family Archive.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 51.2: 287-326. Lepine 2010 = David Lepine. “‘Their Name Liveth for Evermore’? Obits at Exeter Cathe- dral in the Later Middle Ages.” Ed. Caroline M. Barron. Memory and Commemora- tion in Medieval England. Donington (Lincolnshire): 58-74. Lev 2005 = Yaacov Lev. Charity, Endowments, and Charitable Institutions in Medieval Islam. Gainesville. Liermann 1963 = Hans Liermann. Geschichte des Stiftungsrechts. Tübingen. Repr. ed. Axel Frhr. von Campenhausen and Christoph Mecking. Tübingen 2002. Lindley 2011 = Lindley Phillip. “‘Pickpurse’ Purgatory, the Dissolution of the Chantries and the Suppression of Intercession for the Dead.” Journal of the British Archaeologi- cal Association 164: 277-304. Lohse 2011 = Tillmann Lohse. Die Dauer der Stiftung: Eine diachronisch vergleichende Geschichte des weltlichen Kollegiatstifts St. Simon und Judas in Goslar. Berlin. Lohse 2014 = Tillmann Lohse. “Stiftung – Mittelalterlicher Sprachgebrauch und mo­ derner Begriff: Lateinische Christen.” Ed. Michael Borgolte. Enzyklopädie des Stif- tungswesens in mittelalterlichen Gesellschaften. Vol. 1: Grundlagen. Berlin: 23-36. Lohse 2016a = Tillmann Lohse. “Stiftungsorganisation: Lateinische Christen.” Ed. ­Michael Borgolte. Enzyklopädie des Stiftungswesens in mittelalterlichen Gesell- schaften, Vol. 2: Das soziale System Stiftung. Berlin and Boston: 519-530. Lohse 2016b = Tillmann Lohse. Stiftungen im Okzident, ca. 500 bis 1500. Habilitations- schrift Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Lohse 2017a = Tillmann Lohse. “Die liturgischen Wiegendrucke der Goslarer ­Marktkirchen-Bibliothek.” Ed. Hartmut Liersch Marktkirchen-Bibliothek Goslar: ­Beiträge zur Erforschung der reformationszeitlichen Sammlung. Regensburg: 133-145. Lohse 2017b = Lohse Tillmann, “Raum: Lateinische Christen.” Ed. Michael Borgolte. En- zyklopädie des Stiftungswesens in mittelalterlichen Gesellschaften. Vol. 3: Stiftung und Gesellschaft. Berlin and Boston: 199-215. Loiseau 2010 = Julien Loiseau. Reconstruire la Maison du sultan: Ruine et recomposition de l’ordre urbain au Caire (1350-1450). Damascus. Lorcin 1981 = Marie-Thérèse Lorcin. Vivre et mourir en Lyonnaise: A la fin du Moyen Âge. Paris. Lusiardi 2000a = Ralf Lusiardi. Stiftung und städtische Gesellschaft: Religiöse und soziale Aspekte des Stiftungsverhaltens im spätmittelalterlichen Stralsund. Berlin. Lusiardi 2000b = Ralf Lusiardi. “Fegefeuer und Weltengericht: Stiftungsverhalten und Jenseitsvorstellungen im spätmittelalterlichen Stralsund.” Ed. Michael Borgolte. Stiftungen und Stiftungswirklichkeiten: Vom Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart. Berlin: 97-109. Lusiardi 2005 = Ralf Lusiardi. “Stiftung und Seelenheil in den monotheistischen Reli- gionen des mittelalterlichen Europa: Eine komparative Problemskizze.” Ed. Michael endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 ENDOWMENT STUDIES – INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES 51 Borgolte. Stiftungen in Christentum, Judentum und Islam vor der Moderne: Auf der Suche nach ihren Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschieden in religiösen Grundlagen, praktischen Zwecken und historischen Transformationen. Berlin: 47-69. Macuch 2009 = Maria Macuch. “Die sasanidische fromme Stiftung und der islamische waqf: Eine Gegenüberstellung.” Ed. Astrid Meier, Johannes Pahlitzsch and Lucian Reinfandt. Islamische Stiftungen zwischen juristischer Norm und sozialer Praxis. ­Berlin: 19-38. Makdisi 1981 = George Makdisi. The Rise of Colleges: Institutions of Learning in Islam and the West. Edinburgh. Makdisi 2003 = George Makdisi. “Universities: Past and Present.” Ed. Farhad Daftari and Joseph Meri. Culture and Memory in Medieval Islam: Essays in Honour of Wilferd Madelung. London: 43-63. Marandet 1998 = Marie-Claude Marandet. Le souci de l’au-delà. La pratique testamenta- ire dans la région toulousaine (1300-1450). Perpignan. Marti 1966 = Berthe M. Marti. The Spanish College at Bologna in the Fourteenth Century: Edition and Translation of Its Statutes, with Introduction and Notes. Philadelphia. Mauss 2016 = Marcel Mauss. The Gift. Selected, Annotated, and Translated by Jane I. Guyer. Boston (initial French publication 1925). McNeill 2011 = John McNeill. “A Prehistory of the Chantry.” Journal of the British A­ rchaeological Association 164: 1-38. Meier 2015 = Astrid Meier. “Stiftungen für die Blinden im osmanischen Damaskus: Ei- geninteresse und Altruismus im islamischen Stiftungswesen.” Ed. Sitta Von Reden. Stiftungen zwischen Politik und Wirtschaft: Geschichte und Gegenwart im Dialog. ­Berlin: 95-122. Melcak 2012 = Miroslav Melcak. “Reconstruction of the Lost Ayyubid Waqf: Madrasa al-Shamiya al-Juwwaniya in Damascus as Depicted in the Fatawa of Taqi al-Din ­al-Subki (d. 756/1355).” Archiv Orientální 80: 1-39. Mercier 1895 = Ernest Mercier. Le habous ou ouakof: Ses règles et sa jurisprudence. Algiers. Meriwether 1997 = Margaret L. Meriwether. “Women and Waqf Revisited: The Case of Aleppo, 1770-1840.” Ed. Madeline C. Zilf. Women in the Ottoman Empire: Middle Eastern Women in the Early Modern Era. Leiden: 128-152. Miklosich 1862-1865 = Franz Miklosich. Lexicon palaeoslovenico-graeco-latinum emen- datum auctum. Vienna. Miklosich 1886 = Franz Miklosich. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der slavischen Sprachen. Vienna. Molitor 1990 = Stephan Molitor. “Das Traditionsbuch: Zur Forschungsgeschichte einer Quellengattung und zu einem Beispiel aus Südwestdeutschland.” Archiv für Diplo- matik 36: 61-92. Monier-Williams 1899 = Monier Monier-Williams. A Sanskrit-English Dictionary. Oxford. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 52 Chitwood et al. Morand 1904 = Marcel Morand. Étude sur la nature juridique du hobous. Algiers. Morrison 1970 = Barrie M. Morrison. Political Centers and Cultural Regions in Early B ­ engal. Tucson (Ariz.). Morrison 1974 = Barrie M. Morrison. Lalmai, a Cultural Center of Early Bengal: An ­Archaelogical Report and Historical Analysis. Seattle. Mühle 2013 = Eduard Mühle. “Sakralstiftungen von Herzögen und Großen im piasti­ schen Polen: Forschungsgeschichtliche Kontexte und mittelalterliche Zusammen- hänge.” Ed. Eduard Mühle. Monarchische und adlige Sakralstiftungen im mittelal- terlichen Polen. Berlin: 7-35. Müller 1975 = Wolfgang Müller. Urkundeninschriften des deutschen Mittelalters. Kallmünz. Neiske 1986 = Franz Neiske. “Rechtssicherung und Praxis spätmittelalterlicher Gedenkstiftungen: Ein Beispiel des 14. Jahrhunderts.” Ed. Karl Hauck and Karl A. sp: Kroeschell. Sprache und Recht: Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte des Mittelalters. Fest- schrift für Ruth Schmidt-Wiegand zum 60. Geburtstag. Vol. 2. Berlin and New York: 515-531. Neumüllers-Klauser 1995 = Renate Neumüllers-Klauser. “Zur Dokumentation frommer Stiftungen in mittelalterlichen Städten.” Ed. Ulrich Knefelkamp. Stadt und Fröm- migkeit: Colloquium zum 70. Geburtstag von Gerd Zimmermann. Bamberg: 25-52. Niyogi 1967 = Pushpa Niyogi. Brahmanic Settlements in Different Subdivisions of Ancient Bengal. Calcutta. Niyogi 1972/73 = Pushpa Niyogi. “Endowments in Favour of Early Buddhist Monasteries in Bengal and Bihar.” Journal of Ancient Indian History 6: 160-165. Njammasch 1971 = Marlene Njammasch. “Akhayanīvi-Schenkungen an Klöster und Tempel im Dekhan unter den Sātavāhanas.” Acta Orientalia Hungarica 24.2: 203-215. Njammasch 1984 = Marlene Njammasch. Untersuchung zur Genesis des Feudalismus in Indien. Berlin. Obenauer 2013 = Norbert Obenauer. “Early Doctrines on Waqf Revisited: The Evolution of Islamic Endowment Law in the 2nd Century ah.” Islamic Law and Society 20.1-2: 1-47. Oexle 1976 = Otto Gerhard Oexle. “Memoria und Memorialüberlieferung im früheren Mittelalter.” Frühmittelalterliche Studien 10: 70-95 Orme 1988 = Nicholas Orme. “A Medieval Almshouse for the Clergy: Clyst Gabriel Hos- pital near Exeter.” The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 39: 1-15. Orr 1998 = Leslie C. Orr. “Jain and Hindu ‘Religious Women’ in Early Medieval Tamil­ nadu.” Ed. John E. Cort. Open Boundaries: Jain Communities and Cultures in Indian History. New York: 187-212. Orr 2000a = Leslie C. Orr. Donors, Devotees and Daughters of God: Temple Women in Medieval Tamilnadu. New York. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 ENDOWMENT STUDIES – INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES 53 Orr 2000b = Leslie C. Orr. “Women’s Wealth and Worship: Female Patronage of Hindu- ism, Jainism and Buddhism in Medieval Tamilnadu.” Ed. Mandakranta Bose. Faces of the Feminine in Ancient, Medieval, and Modern India. New York: 124-147. Orr 2007 = Leslie C. Orr. “Domesticity and Difference / Women and Men: Religious Life in Medieval Tamilnadu.” Ed. Tracy Pintchman. Women’s Lives, Women’ Rituals in the Hindu Tradition. Oxford: 109-129. Orr 2011 = Leslie C. Orr. “Religious Endowments and Gift Giving.” Ed. Knut A. Jacobsen, Helene Basu, Angelika Malinar et al. Brill’s Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Vol. 3: Society, Religious Specialists, Religious Traditions, Philosophy. Leiden: 151-155. Pandeya 1984 = Braj Kishore Pandeya. Temple Economy under the Coḷas, c. A. D. ­850-1070. Delhi. Pauly 2007 = Michel Pauly. Peregrinorum, pauperum ac aliorum transeuntium recep- taculum: Hospitäler zwischen Maas und Rhein im Mittelalter. Stuttgart. Pelizaeus 2008 = Anette Pelizaeus. “Legende oder Wirklichkeit? Das Wissen um städtische Klostergründungen in der Historiographie des Mittelalters und der Frühen Neuzeit.” Ed. Jörg Rogge. Tradieren – Vermitteln – Anwenden: Zum Umgang mit Wissensbeständen in spätmittelalterlichen und frühneuzeitlichen Städten. Berlin: 279-297. Peters et al. 22002 = Rudolph Peters et al. “Waḳf.” Encyclopaedia of Islam. Second ­Edition. Leiden: 59-75. Petry 1991 = Carl F. Petry. “Class Solidarity versus Gender Gain: Women as Custodians of Property in Later Medieval Egypt.” Ed. Nikki Keddie and Beth Baron. Women in Middle Eastern History: Shifting Boundaries in Sex and Gender. New Haven: 122-142. Picard and Borrut 2003 = Christophe Picard and Antoine Borrut. “Râbata, Ribât, Râbita: une institution à reconsidérer.” Ed. Nicolas Prouteau and Philippe Sénac. Chrétiens et musulmans en Méditerranée médiévale (viiie-xiiie siècle): Échanges et contacts. Poitiers: 33-65. Pohl-Resl 1996 = Brigitte Pohl-Resl. Rechnen mit der Ewigkeit: Das Wiener Bürgerspital im Mittelalter. Vienna. Puza 1982 = Richard Puza. “Gründer einer Gemeinde und Stifter einer Kirche oder eines Klosters in der christlichen Antike.” Archiv für katholisches Kirchenrecht 151: 58-72. Ragib 1982 = Yusuf Ragib. Marchands d’étoffes du Fayoum au iiie/ixe siècle d’après leurs archives (actes et lettres). I. Les actes des Banū ʿAbd al-Muʾmīn. Cairo. Rassem 1952 = Mohammed Rassem. Entwurf einer Stiftungslehre. Graz. Ray 1986 = Himanshu Prabha Ray. Monastery and Guild: Commerce under the Sātavāhanas. Delhi. Reicke 1933 = Siegfried Reicke. “Stiftungsbegriff und Stiftungsrecht im Mittelalter.” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Germanistische Abteilung 53: 247-276. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 54 Chitwood et al. Remensnyder 1995 = Amy G. Remensnyder. Remembering Kings Past: Monastic Founda- tion Legends in Medieval Southern France. Ithaca (ny). Rexroth 1992 = Frank Rexroth. Deutsche Universitätsstiftungen von Prag bis Köln: Die Intentionen des Stifters und die Wege und Chancen ihrer Verwirklichung im spätmit- telalterlichen deutschen Territorialstaat. Cologne, Weimar and Vienna. Rexroth 2005 = Frank Rexroth. “Armenhäuser: Eine neue Institution der sozialen Für- sorge im späten Mittelalter.” Ed. Michael Matheus. Funktions- und Strukturwandel spätmittelalterlicher Hospitäler im europäischen Vergleich. Stuttgart: 1-14. Rikhof 2006 = Frans Rikhof. “Kapelanieën in de middeleeuwse Utrechtse dom: Een introductie.” Jaarboek Oud-Utrecht 2006: 43-81. Roffey 2007 = Simon Roffey. The Medieval Chantry Chapel: An Archaeology. Woodbridge. Romanenko 2016 = Elena V. Romanenko. “Der soziale und kulturelle Status russischer Klostergründer (14.-17. Jahrhundert).” Ed. Ludwig Steindorff and Oliver Auge. Mo- nastische Kultur als transkonfessionelles Phänomen. Berlin and Boston: 25-36. Sabra 2005 = Adam Sabra. “Public or Private Charity? The Ambivalent Character of Islamic Charitable Endowments.” Ed. Michael Borgolte. Stiftungen in Christentum, Judentum und Islam vor der Moderne: Auf der Suche nach ihren Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschieden in religiösen Grundlagen, praktischen Zwecken und historischen Transformationen. Berlin: 95-118. Salomon 1998 = Richard Salomon. Indian Epigraphy. A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages. New York and Oxford. Sánchez 2014a = Ignacio Sánchez. “Stiftung – Mittelalterlicher Sprachgebrauch und moderner Begriff: Muslime.” Ed. Michael Borgolte. Enzyklopädie des Stiftungswesens in mittelalterlichen Gesellschaften. Band 1: Grundlagen. Berlin: 36-46. Sánchez 2014b = Ignacio Sánchez. “Forschungsgeschichten: Muslime.” Ed. Michael Borgolte. Enzyklopädie des Stiftungswesens in mittelalterlichen Gesellschaften. Band 1: Grundlagen. Berlin and Boston: 103-118. Sanderson 2003/04 = Alexis Sanderson. “The Śaiva Religion among the Khmers, Part 1.” Bulletin de l’École Française d’Extrême-Orient 91/92: 348-462. Sanderson 2004 = Alexis Sanderson. “Religion and the State: Śaiva Officiants in the Ter- ritory of the Brahmanical Royal Chaplain (with an appendix on the provenance and date of the Netratantra).” Indo-Iranian Journal 47: 229-300. Sanderson 2009 = Alexis Sanderson. “The Śaiva Age: The Rise and Dominance of Śaivism during the Early Medieval Period.” Ed. Shingo Einoo. Genesis and Develop- ment of Tantrism. Tokyo: 41-350. Santillana 1925 = David Santillana. Istituzioni di diritto musulmano malichita con ri- guardo anche al sistema sciafiita. Rome. Scase 1992 = Wendy Scase. “Reginald Pecock, John Carpenter and John Colop’s ‘­Common-Profit’ Books: Aspects of Book Ownership and Circulation in Fifteenth- Century London.” Medium Ævum 61: 261-274. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 ENDOWMENT STUDIES – INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES 55 Schacht 1953 = Joseph Schacht. “Early Doctrines on Waqf.” Ed. Osman Turan et al. 60. doǧum yılı münasebetiyle Fuad Köprülü armağanı. Istanbul: 443-52. Schacht 1957 = Joseph Schacht. “Droit byzantine et droit musulman.” Convegno di sci- enze morali storiche et filologiche. Rome: 197-230. Schacht 1964 = Joseph Schacht. An Introduction to Islamic Law. Oxford. Scheller 2004 = Benjamin Scheller. Memoria an der Zeitenwende: Die Stiftungen Jakob Fuggers des Reichen vor und während der Reformation (ca. 1505-1555). Berlin. Scheller 2005 = Benjamin Scheller. “A Brief Sketch on Some Main Results of Recent Research on the History of Medieval Foundations in Germany”. Ed. Giuliana Ge- melli. Fondazioni universitarie: Radici storiche e configurazioni istituzionali. Bologna: 23-42. Schlotheuber 2012 = Eva Schlotheuber. “Miserere mei deus: Stifter und Stifterinnen in Westfalen.” Ed. Olaf Siart. Goldene Pracht: Mittelalterliche Schatzkunst in Westfalen. Munich: 50-57. Schmiedchen 1993 = Annette Schmiedchen. “Formulas Determining the Purposes of Donations to Buddhist Monasteries in West and East India from the 5th to the 9th Century A.D.” Ed. Adalbert J. Gail and Gerd J. R. Mevissen. South Asian Archaeol- ogy 1991. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference of the Association of South Asian Archaeologists in Western Europe held in Berlin 1-5 July 1991. Stuttgart: 585-593. Schmiedchen 2014a = Annette Schmiedchen. Herrschergenealogie und religiöses Patro- nat: Die Inschriftenkultur der Rāṣṭrakūṭas, Śilāhāras und Yādavas (8. bis 13. Jahrhun- dert). Leiden. Schmiedchen 2014b = Annette Schmiedchen. “Forschungsgeschichten: Indien.” Ed. ­Michael Borgolte. Enzyklopädie des Stiftungswesens in mittelalterlichen Gesell- schaften. Vol. 1: Grundlagen. Berlin: 145-164. Schmiedchen 2014c = Annette Schmiedchen. “Typologisierungen: Indien.” Ed. Michael Borgolte. Enzyklopädie des Stiftungswesens in mittelalterlichen Gesellschaften. Vol. 1: Grundlagen. Berlin: 229-248. Schmiedchen 2014d = Annette Schmiedchen. “Periodisierungen: Indien.” Ed. Michael Borgolte. Enzyklopädie des Stiftungswesens in mittelalterlichen Gesellschaften. Vol. 1: Grundlagen. Berlin: 313-330. Schmiedchen 2014e = Annette Schmiedchen. “Schriftzeugnisse: Indien.” Ed. Michael Borgolte. Enzyklopädie des Stiftungswesens in mittelalterlichen Gesellschaften. Vol. 1: Grundlagen. Berlin: 412-430. Schnorr von Carolsfeld 1933 = Ludwig Schnorr von Carolsfeld. Geschichte der juristi­ schen Person. Vol. 1: Universitas, Corpus, Collegium im klassischen römischen Recht. Munich. Schopen 1979 = Gregory Schopen. “Mahāyāna in Indian Inscriptions.” Indo-Iranian Journal 21: 1-19. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 56 Chitwood et al. Schopen 1985 = Gregory Schopen. “Two Problems in the History of Indian Buddhism: The Layman / Monk Distinction and the Doctrines of the Transference of Merit.” Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 10: 9-47. Schopen 1988/89 = Gregory Schopen. “On Monks, Nuns and ‘Vulgar’ Practices: The In- troduction of the Image Cult into Indian Buddhism.” Artibus Asiae 49: 153-168. Schopen 1990 = Gregory Schopen. “The Buddha as an Owner of Property and Perma- nent Resident in Medieval Indian Monasteries.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 18: 181-217. Schopen 1992 = Gregory Schopen. “The Ritual Obligations and Donor Roles of Monks in the Pāli Vinaya.” Journal of the Pali Text Society 16: 87-107. Schopen 1994 = Gregory Schopen. “Doing Business for the Lord: Lending on Inter- est and Written Loan Contracts in the Mūlasarvāstivāda-Vinaya.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 114.4: 527-554. Schopen 1995 = Gregory Schopen. “Monastic Law Meets the Real World: A Monk’s Con- tinuing Right to Inherit Family Property in Classical India.” History of Religions 35.2: 145-173. Schopen 1996 = Gregory Schopen. “The Lay Ownership of Monasteries and the Role of the Monk in Mūlasarvāstivādin Monasticism.” Journal of the International Associa- tion of Buddhist Studies 19.1: 81-126. Schuler 2013 = Ed. Barbara Schuler. Stifter und Mäzene und ihre Rolle in der Religion: Von Königen, Mönchen, Vordenkern und Laien in Indien, China und anderen Kulturen. Wiesbaden. Schulze 1989 = Reiner Schulze. “Historischer Hintergrund des Stiftungsrechts.” Ed. Rolf Hauer et al. Deutsches Stiftungswesen 1977-1988: Wissenschaft und Praxis. Augsburg: 29-59. Sharma 1957/58 = Ram Sharan Sharma. “The Origins of Feudalism in India (A.D. ­400-650).” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 1: 297-328. Sharma 1965 = Ram Sharan Sharma. Indian Feudalism: c. 300-1200. Calcutta. Sharma 1985 = Ram Sharan Sharma. “How Feudal was Indian Feudalism?” The Journal of Peasant Studies 12.2/3: 19-43. Sharon 1966 = Moshe Sharon. “A Waqf Inscription from Ramlah.” Arabica 13: 77-84. Sharon 1997 = Moshe Sharon. “Waqf Inscription from Ramlah c. 300/912-13.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 6.1: 100-108. Sieglerschmidt 1987 = Jörn Sieglerschmidt. Territorialstaat und Kirchenregiment: ­Studien zur Rechtsdogmatik des Kirchenpatronatsrechts im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert. Cologne and Vienna. Sijpesteijn 2006 = Petra Sijpesteijn. “The Archival Mind in Early Islamic Egypt: Two Arabic Papyri.” Ed. Petra Sijpesteijn. From al-Andalus to Khurasān. Leiden: 163-186. Singer 2003 = Amy Singer. “Charity’s Legacies: Reconsideration of Ottoman Imperial Endowment-Making.” Ed. Michael D. Bonner, Mine Ener and Amy Singer. Poverty and Charity in Middle Eastern Contexts. Albany: 295-314. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 ENDOWMENT STUDIES – INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES 57 Singh 1999 = Harihar Singh. “Women’s Patronage to Temple Architecture.” Ed. ­Kumkum Roy. Women in Early Indian Societies. Delhi: 286-298. Sircar 1966 = Dinesh Chandra Sircar. Indian Epigraphical Glossary. Delhi. Sircar 1969 = Dinesh Chandra Sircar. Landlordism and Tenancy in Ancient and Mediae- val India as Revealed by Epigrapical Records. Lucknow. Sontheimer 1965 = Günther-Dietz Sontheimer. “Religious Endowments in India: The Juristic Personality of Hindu Deities.” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Rechtswissen- schaft 67: 45-100. Speetjens 2011 = Annemarie Speetjens. “The Founder, the Chaplain and the Ecclesias- tical Authorities: Chantries in the Low Countries.” Ed. Rolf de Weijert et al. Living memoria: Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Memorial Culture in Honour of Truus van Bueren. Hilversum: 195-206. Spencer 1968 = George W. Spencer. “Temple Money-Lending and Livestock Redistribu- tion in Early Tanjore.” The Indian Economic and Social History Review 5.3: 277-293. Spencer 1983 = George W. Spencer. “When Queens Bore Gifts: Women as Temple ­Donors in the Chola Period.” Ed. K. V. Raman. Srinidhiḥ: Perspectives in Indian ­Archaeology, Art and Culture. Shri K. R. Srinivasan Festschrift. Madras: 362-373. Stanford 2011 = Charlotte A. Stanford. Commemorating the Dead in Late Medieval Stras- bourg: The Cathedral’s Book of Donors and its Use (1320-1521). Farnham. Stein 1977 = Burton Stein. “The Segmentary State in South Indian History.” Ed. Richard G. Fox. Realm and Region in Traditional India. Durham: 3-51. Steindorff 2005 = Ludwig Steindorff. “Glaubenswelt und Prestige. Stiftungen in der Geschichte Altrußlands.” Ed. Michael Borgolte. Stiftungen in Christentum, Judentum und Islam vor der Moderne: Auf der Suche nach ihren Gemeinsamkeiten und Unter- schieden in religiösen Grundlagen, praktischen Zwecken und historischen Transfor- mationen. Berlin: 159-177. Steindorff and Auge 2016 = Ed. Ludwig Steindorff and Oliver Auge. Monastische Kultur als transkonfessionelles Phänomen. Berlin and Boston. Steinwenter 1930 = Artur Steinwenter. “Die Rechtsstellung der Kirchen und Klöster nach den Papyri.” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Kanonistische Abteilung 19: 1-50. Steinwenter 1932 = Artur Steinwenter. “Byzantinische Mönchstestamente.” Aegyptus 12: 55-64. Stolte 2007 = Bernard Stolte. “Law for Founders.” Ed. Margaret Mullett. Founders and Refounders of Byzantine Monasteries. Belfast: 121-139. Talbot 1988 = Cynthia Talbot. Gifts to Gods and Brahmins: A Study of Religious Endow- ments in Medieval Andhra. Diss. phil. Madison (Wis.). Talbot 1991 = Cynthia Talbot. “Temples, Donors, and Gifts: Patterns of Patronage in Thirteenth-Century South India.” The Journal of Asian Studies 50.2: 308-340. Talbot 2001 = Cynthia Talbot. Precolonial India in Practice: Society, Region, and Identity in Medieval Andhra. Oxford. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 58 Chitwood et al. Theisen 2002 = Frank Theisen. Mittelalterliches Stiftungsrecht: Eine Untersuchung zur Urkundenüberlieferung des Klosters Fulda im 12. Jahrhundert. Cologne, Weimar and Vienna. Thomas 1984 = John Philip Thomas. “A Byzantine Ecclesiastical Reform Movement.” Medievalia et humanistica, n.s. 12: 1-16. Thomas 1985a = John Philip Thomas. “The Crisis of Byzantine Ecclesiastical Founda- tions, 964-1025.” Byzantinische Forschungen 9: 255-274. Thomas 1985b = John Philip Thomas. “The Rise of the Independent and Self-governing Monasteries as Reflected in the Monastic Typika.” Ed. Nomikos Michael Vaporis. Byzantine Saints and Monasteries. Brookline (Mass.): 21-30. Thomas 1987 = John Philip Thomas. Private Religious Foundations in the Byzantine Em- pire. Washington (dc). Thomas 1994 = John Philip Thomas. “Documentary Evidence from the Byzantine Mo- nastic Typika for the History of the Evergetis Reform Movement.” Ed. Margaret E. Mullett and Anthony Kirby. The Theotokos Evergetis and Eleventh Century ­Monasticism: Papers of the Third Belfast Byzantine International Colloquium. Belfast: 246-273. Thomas 2005 = John Thomas. “In Perpetuum: Social and Political Consequences of Byzantine Patrons’ Aspirations for Permanence for their Foundations.” Ed. Michael Borgolte. Stiftungen in Christentum, Judentum und Islam vor der Moderne: Auf der Suche nach ihren Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschieden in religiösen Grundlagen, praktischen Zwecken und historischen Transformationen. Berlin: 123-135. Thomas and Hero 2000 = Ed. John Thomas and Angela Constantides Hero. Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents. A Complete Translation of the Surviving Founders’ Typika and Testaments. Washington (dc). Tietz-Strödel 1982 = Marion Tietz-Strödel. Die Fuggerei in Augsburg: Studien zur Ent- wicklung des sozialen Stiftungsbaus im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert. Tübingen. Tirumalai 1986 = R. Tirumalai. “Rajaraja’s Measures of Administrative Control of En- dowments and Temple Services.” Journal of the Epigraphical Society of India 13: 59-67. Tolmacheva 1998 = Marina A. Tolmachev. “Female Piety and Patronage in Medieval Hajj.” Ed. Gavin Hambly. Women in the Medieval Islamic World. New York: 159-179. Toukabri 2011 = Hmida Toukabri. Satisfaire le ciel et la terre: Les fondations pieuses dans le Judaïsme et dans l’Islam au Moyen Âge. Paris. Van Berkel 2014 = Maaike van Berkel. “Reconstructing Archival Practices in Abbasid Baghdad.” Journal of Abbasid Studies 1: 7-22. Van Leeuwen 1999 = Richard Van Leeuwen. Waqfs and Urban Structures: The Case of Ottoman Damascus. Leiden. Van Steenbergen 2006 = Jo Van Steenbergen. Order out of Chaos. Patronage, Conflict and Mamluk Socio-Political Culture, 1341-1382. Leiden and Boston. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59 ENDOWMENT STUDIES – INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES 59 Von Hinüber 1980 = Oskar Von Hinüber. “Die Kolophone der Gilgit-Handschriften.” Stu- dien zur Indologie und Iranistik 5/6: 49-82. Von Reden 2015 = Ed. Sitta Von Reden. Stiftungen zwischen Politik und Wirtschaft: Ge- schichte und Gegenwart im Dialog. Berlin and Boston. Von Zhishman 1888 = Joseph Von Zhishman. Das Stifterrecht (τὸ κτητορικὸν δίκαιον) in der morgenländischen Kirche. Vienna. Wagner 1999 = Wolfgang Eric Wagner. Universitätsstift und Kollegium in Prag, Wien und Heidelberg: Eine vergleichende Untersuchung spätmittelalterlicher Stiftungen im Spannungsfeld von Herrschaft und Genossenschaft. Berlin. Wagner 2000 = Wolfgang Eric Wagner. “Von der Stiftungsurkunde zum Anniversar­ bucheintrag: Beobachtungen zur Anlage des Liber oblationum et anniversariorum (1442-ca. 1480) im Wiener Schottenkloster.” Ed. Michael Borgolte. Stiftungen und Stiftungswirklichkeiten: Vom Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart. Berlin: 145-170. Wagner 2001 = Wolfgang Eric Wagner. “Stiftungen des Mittelalters in sozialhistorischer Perspektive: Über neuere deutsche Forschungen.” Annali dell’Istituto storico italo- germanico in Trento 27: 639-655. Weber 1949 = Max Weber. “‘Objectivity’ in Social Science and Social Policy.” Max Weber. On the Methodology on the Social Sciences. Transl. by Edward A. Shils and Henry A. Finch. Glencoe: 50-112. Wipszycka 2011 = Ewa Wipszycka. “Resources and Economic Activities of the Egyptian Monastic Communities.” The Journal of Juristic Papyrology 41: 159-263. Wolper 2003 = Ethel Sara Wolper. Cities and Saints: Sufism and the Transformation of Urban Space in Medieval Anatolia. University Park(Pa). Wood 1955 = Susan Wood. English Monasteries and Their Patrons in the Thirteenth Cen- tury. London. Wood 2010 = Cindy Wood. “The Cage Chantries of Christchurch Priory.” Ed. Caroline M. Barron et al. Memory and Commemoration in Medieval England. Donington (Lin- colnshire): 234-250. Wood-Legh 1965 = Kathleen-Louise Wood-Legh. Perpetual Chantries in Britain. Cambridge. Zwanzig 2010 = Christopher Zwanzig. Gründungsmythen fränkischer Klöster im Früh- und Hochmittelalter. Stuttgart. endowment studies 1 (2017) 1-59