Goingplaces
French,Swiss,BritishandAmericanvisitorstointernationalsocialreformcongresses,1876-19131
ChrisLeonards&NicoRanderaad
1.Introduction2
Thispaperwillbecomepartofabook,tobepublishedinFrench,ofwhichtheotherchaptersdelve
deepintothepeopleandorganizationsengagedinurbancharitiesaround1900.Byturninglocal
charitydirectoriesinsideouttheauthorshavebeenabletoidentifyprominentactorsandnetworks
connectingthem,aswellasreconstructtheclassificationsandspecificvocabulariesthatconstituted
theworldsofphilanthropyinParis,London,GenevaandNewYork.Becauseofthenatureofthekey
sourcestheemphasisisonthesocial,physicalandsymbolicspaceswithintheboundariesofthese
cities.
Thehorizonoftheactors,however,wasnotconfinedtotheselocalenvironments.Theywere
connectedoutsidetheircitiestoo.Ourcontributionaimsataddingan‘extra-urban’scaleofanalysis:
othercities,othercountries,andothercontinents.So,whereasthepreviouschapterszoominon
theurbancontexts,wezoomouttothewiderworld,inparticulartotherelationsbetweenthelocal
andinternationallevels,inordertocapturethetransnationalentanglementsofprivateandpublic
welfareand,moregenerally,socialreformintheperiodaroundtheturnofthecentury.Althoughwe
occasionallyreturntothefourmajorcitiesofthisvolume,wecastournetsfurther.Wefrequently
resorttotheadjective‘transnational’tocapturetransfersandinterconnectionsacrossborders
(Patel,2015,p.4).Usingthewordimpliesadoptingadynamicresearchperspectiveratherthan
denotingafixedgeographicalplace.Forconceptualclaritywetrytoreservetheword‘international’
fororganizationsoperatinginseveralcountriesorforactivitiestakingplaceatalevelbeyondthe
nation-state.
Westartlocallythough.Ourpointofdepartureare72internationalcongressesonsocialreform,
heldinEuropeanandAmericancities,inthelastdecadesofthenineteenthandthefirstofthe
twentiethcentury.Our72congressesarejustasmallsectionofthelargeamountofinternational
congressesorganizedinthisperiod(Congrès,1989;Leonards,2015;Rabault-Feuerhahn&
Feuerhahn,2010;Randeraad,2015).ThemainsitesofthecongresseswerecitiesofWesternEurope
(bothinoursampleasintotal),butgradually,followingthepaceofindustrializationand
globalization,congresscitiescouldbefoundallovertheworld.Oursamplefollowsthistrend,with
68congressesinEuropeancitiesand4intheUSA(ofwhich3around1910).
1
Tobecitedas:Leonards,C.,&Randeraad,N.(2017).GoingPlaces.French,Swiss,BritishandAmerican
VisitorstoInternationalSocialReformCongresses,1876-1913.Workingpaper.Maastricht/GhentUniversity,
TICCollaborative.Retrievedfromhttp://www.tic.ugent.be/
2
WewouldliketothankJudithWolffforhelpingusenteringnames,placesandorganizationsintoour
database,HansBlomme,PimvanBree,andGeertKesselsfortheirpatienceinexplainingustheinsandoutsof
thedatabaseprogram(Nodegoat),andtheNetherlandsOrganizationforScientificResearchforafinancial
contribution.WegreatlybenefitedfromcommentsbytheparticipantstoEHESSseminar‘Lanébuleuse
réformatriceetsesréseaux,XIXe-XXIesiècle’coordinatedbyChristianTopalov.
1
Figure1.VenuesofcongressesstudiedinEuropeandUnitedStates(1876-1913)3
Inordertomaintainastronglinkwiththerestofthevolume,weconcentrateonFrench,Swiss,
BritishandAmericanvisitors,andtakeintoaccountonlythose(3240individuals)whoattended
congressesorganizedoutsidetheirhomecountriesintheperiod1876-1913.Thecongresscauses
includeprivateandpubliccharity(‘bienfaisance’,‘assistancepublique’),butzoomouttoabroader
rangeofissuesrelatedtosocialreform:sanitation,education,anti-alcoholism,affordablehousing,
industrialaccidentinsurance,prisonreform,socialstatistics,Sundayrest,andthelike.Weregard
socialreformasadiffusefield,coveringawidevarietyofactivitiestryingtocountertheadverse
effectsofindustrialization,urbanizationandglobalization(Leonards&Randeraad,2010;Topalov,
1999).Ourassumption,basedonourownearlierresearchandtheexistingliteratureinthefield,is
thatpeopleactiveinthisfieldwereoftencrossingborders,notonlybetweenreformthemesbut
alsobetweenlocal,regional,nationalandinternationalscenes.Itwasthereforenotunlikely,we
thoughtwhenweembarkedontheresearchforthischapter,thatwewouldencounterthesame
personsmentionedinthelocalcharitydirectoriesalsoininternationalcongressesonsocialreform.
Andwedid.Wefound145personsthatwerementionedinboththecharitydirectoriesofthefour
citiesandtheproceedingsofcongressesweselectedforthisproject.4Thisinitselfisaremarkable
finding,inparticularbecauseweexcluded–forreasonswefurtherexplainlater–participantswho
residedinthecountrywherethecongresswasheld.IfthecongresstookplaceinParis,wedidnot
taketheFrenchmenatthatcongressintoaccount.Forouranalysis,however,wedidnotwantto
3
Foreverycitywereatleastonecongressfromtheselectiontookplace(blackcircles),thesizeofthecircleis
proportionaltothenumberofcongresses.FurthermorefourcongressestookplaceintheUnitedStates.Graph
madewithNodegoat.
4
Weonlyincludedapersoninthelistofco-occurrencesiffamilyname,firstname,sex,countryandplaceof
residencewereidentiticalacrossthesourcesweused.Whentakingonlylastnamesintoaccount,thenumber
couldriseto180.
2
limitourselvestothis‘coregroup’of145.Therearetworeasonsforthis.First,byconcentratingon
thesharednamesonlywewouldnotbeabletoevaluateextensivelytherelationsbetweenthe
selectedgroupandotherpersonsactiveontheinternationalscene.Second,ouroverallobjectiveis
toexploretransnationalconnections,andtherebytoaddaspecificdimensiontotheotherchapters
inthisvolume,whichislessvisiblewhenlookingatthelocalscaleonly,butisequallyrelevantfor
understandingthevariousdimensionsofsocialreformintheperiodunderconsideration.
Ourstudyistoalargeextentquantitative,andmostlyreliesonaggregatefigures:ofcongresses,of
peopleattendingcongressesindifferentperiods,andoforganizationstheywereaffiliatedwith.In
viewofthisquantitativeorientationwehavetried,asmuchaspossible,tojustifyourselectionand
subsequentanalysis.Inordertogivethetopicahumanfacewenowandtheninterlardour
numericalreasoningwithexamplesofindividualswhoarerepresentativeofthetopicsweanalyze,
anddrawagrouppicturewherepossible.Ourquantitativefocus,however,impliesthatweshyaway
fromdeeplyresearchingthedeliberationsduringcongressesandfromassessingthepolicyimpactof
theknowledgeexchange.
Ourobjectiveistoshowtowhatextentandinwhichwayssocialreformerswereactivebeyond
nationalborders(andnotonlyattendingcongresses‘athome’),inordertounderlinethe
transnationalembeddednessofthereformissuesinquestion.‘Thehistoryofsocialpolicy’,Daniel
Rodgersrecentlyobserved,‘isinthemidstofaglobalandtransnationalturn’(Rodgers,2014,p.
301).State-centeredapproacheshavebeensupplementedbystudiesthatemphasizeconnections,
transfer,diffusion,exchangeandappropriationacrossborders(Conrad,2011).Toattendacongress
abroadisofcoursejustanindicationofatransnational‘radar’,butonethatshowsacertain
commitmentandrequiressomeeffort.Afterall,around1900internationaltravelwaslessselfevidentinpracticaltermsthanitwouldbefiftyorahundredyearslater.Moreover,theinternational
congresses,whichrapidlyroseinnumbersandreputeinthesecondhalfofthenineteenthcentury,
werethemselveshubsofformalandinformalknowledgeexchangeforagrowingdiversityofsocial
reformthemes.
Wefirstelucidateourselectioncriteriaandmethodology.Then,weexplainingreaterdetailwhothe
selectedpeoplewere,wheretheycamefrom,whichandhowmanycongressestheyattended,who
themostactiveparticipantswere,andwhattheratioofmentowomenwas.Inthesectionthat
followsweexplorethetransnationalconnectionsofoursample,inotherwordsweasktowhat
extentthecongressparticipantswere‘boundaryspanners’5betweenlocalengagementand
internationalactivity,andtherebyshapedthe‘transnationalsphere’(Rodogno,Struck,&Vogel,
2015,p.2).Subsequently,welookmorecloselyintothelocalandnationalorganizationsthe
congressvisitorswereaffiliatedwith,andtrytoassesstowhatextenttheorganizationscanbe
clustered.Andfinally,wefurtherinvestigatethecausesthatunderlayandtosomeextentconnected
thecongressesweselected.Thecauses,wehypothesize,werethemaindriversforreformersto
engageininternationalactivities.Thisdoesnotmean,however,thattheiraimswereexclusively
international.Participationininternationalcongressescouldalsobeameanstoboostone’s
authorityathome.
5
Insocialnetworkanalysis‘boundaryspanners’arecommonlydefinedasthepeopleaimingatovercominga
boundarybetweensystems,clustersofknowledgeororganizations,andfacilitatingcommunicationflows
acrossit,seeforexampleWilliams(2002,pp.103-124).
3
2.Caseselection,sourcesandmethodology
Letusfirstexplainingreaterdetailwhomweselectedandwhy.Peopleattendinginternational
congressesprovidedlegitimacytothecausesthatunderlaythem.Thenumberofnationaland
foreignvisitors,andtheirsocialandpoliticalstaturewereconducivetothesuccessofacongress.
OurinitialchoiceforFrench,Swiss,BritishandAmericancongressparticipantsissimplypromptedby
thefourcitiesthatfiguresoprominentlyinthisvolume.Inordertoevaluatethesalienceofthefour
citieswithintherespectivecountries,weselectedallFrench,Swiss,BritishandAmericanvisitors,
alsofromotherplaces.Weexpectthattherewillbeadifferencebetweentherelativeprominence
(vis-à-vistherestofthecountry)of,ontheonehand,thecapitalcitiesLondonandParisand,onthe
otherhand,GenèveandNewYork.Althoughitisdifficulttosaytowhatextentthefourcountries
arerepresentativefortheglobalarenaofsocialreform,theyconstituteaninterestingsampleof
smallerandlarger,(continental)European,andnon-Europeanstates.
Perhapsthemostcontestablechoicewemadeisourfocusoncongressparticipationoutsidethe
homecountry.Theprimaryreasonforthisisourinterestintransnational,cross-borderrelations.
Almostwithoutexceptioninternationalcongressesattractedmanyvisitorsfromthecountryin
whichtheeventtookplace,mostofthemevenfromthehostcity.Includingthesegroupsof
nationalswouldnoticeablycoloroursample.Thiswouldbeunfortunate,sincethevastmajorityof
nationalvisitorshaveneverattendedacongressabroad.Tobesure,thisdoesnotimplythat‘home
visits’couldnotbepartofatransnationalexperience,forexamplebylearningfromforeign
experiencesorbyliaisingwithguestsfromabroad,butwithoutafollow-upintheformofavisitto
aninternationalcongressinanothercountrythetransnational‘addedvalue’remainedlimited.A
secondreasonisthataconsiderablenumberofinternationalcongressesinoursampleof72
congressestookplaceinParis:overtheentireperiod33,withaconcentrationin1889(12)and1900
(15),theyearsofworldexhibitionsintheCityofLight.IncludingtheFrenchmenparticipatingin
thesecongresseswoulddramaticallyincreasetherelativeshareofFranceinoursample,and
therebyreducethevisibilityofinternationalexchange.Tobesure,ifaFrenchmanattendedaforeign
congressandcongressesathomethatalsoappearinourdatabase,hewouldnotbediscardedfrom
ourinitialselection.
Anotherimportantchoicerelatestothenumberandvarietyofinternationalsocialreform
congresses.Ourunderstandingofsocialreformis,asindicatedabove,open-endedandtherewill
alwaysbebordertopics,whereitisdifficulttomakeaclear-cutdistinctionbetweenreformmindednessand,forexample,scientificinterestorprofessionalrepresentation.Inannex1wehave
listedall72selectedcongresses,theirspreadoverreformcauses,andovertime.Wehaveselected
samplesofcongressesinfourtimeslots,around1880(10),1890(18),1900(23)and1910(21).The
amountofyearsincludedineachtimeslotisnotidentical,butthisdoeshardlyunderminethe
validityofthesamples,sincewemadesurethatthepercentageofselectedcongressesonthetotal
numberofreformcongressesineachperioddidnotdivergetoomuch(between15and27%).Inthe
lasttwotimeslotsoursamplesarerelativelysmaller,sincetheabsolutenumberofcongressestobe
enteredintothedatabasewouldhaveexceededwhatishumanlymanageable.Despiteallprogress
inthedigitalhumanities,enteringanddisambiguatingthedatainareliablewaycontinuestobea
laboriousjob.
4
Concentratingontheyearsaround1900only,asintheothercasestudiesofthisvolume,would
haveledtoamassiveoverrepresentationofinternationalcongressesheldinParisontheoccasionof
the1900worldexhibition.Wehavethereforeextendedthetimeframe,whichhastheadditional
advantageofenablingustofollowdevelopmentsovertime.Thenumberofselectedcongresses
steadilyincreasedovertheyears,butleveleddowntowardstheendofourperiod,whichtoalarge
extentreflectsthegeneraltrendinthedevelopmentofreformcongresses.Parisismarkedlypresent
ascongresscity(33outof72),withBrussels(6)andLondon(4)asrunner-ups.Asweshallsee,
despitetheomissionofFrenchmenattendingtheParisiancongressesfromoursample,Francewas
stillthecountrythathadthehighestportionofvisitorsamongthetotalnumber.
Allinall,wehavefocusedon22causes(inalphabeticalorder):anti-alcoholism,charity,colonial
questions,cooperatives,criminalanthropology,education,freemasonry,(affordable)housing,
hygiene,insurance,legalprotectionofworkers,mutualism,patronageofliberatedprisoners,peace,
prisonreform,profitsharing,sanitarymeasures,statistics,Sundayrest,townplanning,
unemployment,andwomen(SeeAnnex1forthecausesandAnnex2forthenamesofthe
congresses).Wehavetried,asmuchaspossible,toselectonecongresspercauseforeachtimeslot.
Thiswasnotalwaysachievablebecausesomecausesweresimplynotyetontheagendaaround
1880.Ontheotherhand,completingthe‘series’ofcongressesononeparticularcausemeantthat
thesampleofcongressesaround1890issomewhathigherthanitshouldhavetobeifstatistical
representativenesshadbeentheonlycriterion.Intheend,however,weputmoreweightonthe
coverageofthefieldofsocialreformasawholethroughoutourperiodthanonthesizeofthe
samplesinthevarioustimeslots.
Theincreaseinvariationofreformthemesisinitselfatellingaspectofthesocialandeconomic
developmentsaroundtheturnofthecentury.Socialpolicybecameamoreandmorespecialized
field.Activistsfornewthemesorissuesontheinternationalagenda,forinstancecriminal
anthropology,workers’protectionandunemployment,provedthesalienceandsustainabilityof
theircausebyconveninganinternationalcongress,preferablyonethatwouldhavefollow-ups.The
questionofstateand/orprivateresponsibilitypervadedmanyreformcongresses.Sometimes,the
emphasiswasdistinctlyonprivateenterprise,likeinthecongressesonmutualismorcooperatives;
sometimes,thestateclearlysetitsmarkontheissue,forexamplewiththesanitarycongressesor
theonesonstatistics;andatothertimesstateandsocietycompetedforresponsibility,asinthe
welfare,penitentiaryandinsurancecongresses.
Ourmainsourcesarethepublishedproceedingsofthecongresses.Thelimitedavailabilityofthese
sourcesprovedtobeaseriousimpedimentwhenwemadeourinitialselection.Forquiteafew
socialreformcongressestherearenoproceedings,ornonehavesurvivedinlibraries.Withoutthis
sourceitwouldhavebecomeextremelytime-consumingtocollectlistsofvisitors.Sowedecidedto
letavailabilityofsourcematerial,preferablyinadigitalformat,playanimportantroleinthe
selectionprocess.
Thecongressproceedingsareextremelyrichsourcesformanydifferentresearchquestions,evenif
theirstructuresaremarkedlydifferentfromtopictotopic,andsometimesfromcongressto
congresswithinaseriesononetopic.Theycontaininformationonthepersonsvisitingthecongress,
theorganizationoftheevent,activitiesin-andoutsidethesessions,thereportsandpapers
submittedtothecongress,andverbatimaccountsofthedeliberations.Forthecollectionofdata
5
concerningthevisitors,wehavemainlyusedtheattendancelists.Itisnotalwaysclearwhetherthe
personsonthelistsactuallyattendedthecongress,orweremerelyindividualswhohadbeenin
touchwiththeorganizersandsupportedthecause.Givingone’sadhesionwasinsomecases
markedbywayofanasteriskorothersymbol.Sometimestheterm‘adhérent’wasusedtodenote
supportfromadistance,butatothertimesthesametermwassimplyequivalenttoanattending
‘membre’.Inanycase,bothwordsmeantthatthepersonhadexpressedhisorhersupporttothe
congressbygivinghisorhername,hadprobablypaidasubscription,andwasentitledtoreceivethe
‘compte-rendu’.
Theattendancelist(‘listedesmembres’)wasusuallyincludedinthefirstsectionoftheproceedings.
Thenamesaddedweighttothecause.Noneofthelistsofvisitors,however,areidentical,andnone
ofthemarewithoutomissionsorerrors.Drawingupalistofpeoplefromoralinformation,‘cartes
devisites’andletters,asthecommonprocedureforregistrationusedtobe,wasamanualjob,and
hencemistakesweremade.Sometimeswecouldcorrecttheerrors,atothertimeswehave
probablynotnoticedthem,andagainatothertimeswemighthaveaddedmistakesofourown
whencopyingthedata.Someproceedingsmakeaneatdistinctionbetweendifferentrolesof
visitors,othersjustprovidea(moreorless)alphabeticalenumeration,or(albeitrarely)containno
overviewofvisitorsatall.Whenthelistsaresomewhatmoreelaborate,theyprovideinsightintothe
varietyofrolesunderlyingtheorganizationofaninternationalcongress.Quiteoften,thereisan
organizationalcommission(‘commissiond’organisation’)fromthecountrywherethecongresswas
held,consistingofa‘bureau’andmembers.Thebureauisusuallysubdividedintorolessuchas
president,vice-president,secretary,andtreasurer.Furthersubdivisionsarenotuncommon:
honorarypresident,(vice-)presidentfromtheorganizingstateandforeign(vice-)president,assistant
secretary(‘secrétaireadjoint’),andthelike.Agovernmentministerwasoftenmadehonorary
president,whereasimportantguestsfromabroadweregiventhepostofvice-president.Inthisway,
anoticeablehierarchywaswovenintothedivisionofworkatthecongresses,whichcouldplayarole
intheorganizationofsubsections(‘sessions’),theorderofspeakers,andthevoteonresolutions.
Thelistofordinaryparticipantscouldalsoshowsignsoffinedividinglinesbetween‘classes’of
visitors.Often,therewasadifferencebetweenofficialdelegates(‘déléguésofficiels’)fromthe
participatingstatesandnormaldomesticandforeignvisitors.Inthisway,congressparticipants
couldappearindifferentrolesduringacongress,inparticularifwetakeintoaccountthatsub
sessionsofcongressesoftenhadtheirown‘mini’bureauconsistingofapresident,oneormorevicepresidentsandsecretaries.Beinginvitedtothebureauononeormoreoccasionscouldsubstantially
boostaperson’sstandingwithinacongress.
Thenamesofthepersonsweselectedfromthe72congresseswereenteredintoaninternet-based
relationaldatabase,togetherwiththerolesandaffiliationsthatwerementionedintheproceedings.
Thehonorifics,socialpositions,memberships,professions,etcetera,whicharegiveninoursources,
provideimportantinformation,notonlyaboutthepersonsinquestion,butalsoaboutthe
transnationalspherethatwastakingshapethroughtheseevents.Exceptforadditionalinformation
aboutnames(sometimesneededfordisambiguation)wehaveonlyenteredandstreamlineddata
thatwasmentionedintheproceedings.By‘streamlining’wemeanthatwehaveforexample
uniformednamesoforganizationstowhichthesourcesreferredinslightlydifferentways,sothat
wecouldstorethemassingleobjectsinourdatabase.TheBritishHouseofCommons,forexample,
appearswithquiteafewnamesintheproceedings,suchas‘Chambredescommunes’and
6
‘Parlementbritannique’.Onlywhenprobingintoindividuallife-storiesthatexemplifysubgroups,we
resorttoothersources.
Ouraimwasnottoconductafully-fledgedprosopographyoftheselectedgroupandcollect
informationfromawidevarietyofbiographicalsources,butrathertoreconstructthesocial
relationsonamoreaggregatelevel,astheyemergefromthisparticularsource.Inotherwords,we
weremainlyinterestedintherelationsandpersonalattributesthatpeopleatthetimefound
relevanttomentionandenterintheproceedings.Thatmeans,forexample,thatwedonotwork
withcategorizationsofprofessions.Categorizationsofthatkindareinevitablyreductionist,and
sometimesanachronistic.Moreover,the‘profession’ofapersonwasoftenlessqualificatoryforhis
orherpositioninsocietythancertainsocialfunctions,affiliations,ordescent,whichwere
mentionedinthesource.Itwould,forexample,beratherarbitrarytocallPrinceAugusted’Arenberg
a‘politician’,eventhoughhewasalong-termmemberoftheFrenchParliament.Hewasprobably
firstanobleman,thenadministratorofaminingcompany,butalsophilanthropist,memberofthe
InstitutdeFrance,Catholicleader,sportsmanandprésidentdelaCompagnieducanaldeSuez.
Whichofhisqualificationsappearedintheproceedingsverymuchdependedonthecauseofthe
congress:PrésidentduComitédel'AfriquefrançaiseinthegatheringoftheInstitutColonial
InternationalinBrussels(1899),présidentdelaSociétéphilantropiqueinthewelfarecongressesof
Paris(1900)enCopenhagen(1910),anddéputéinallthree(eventhoughhismandatehadendedin
1902).Followingthislineofreasoning,inouranalysisofaffiliatedorganizations(section5),wehave
onlytakenintoaccountparliamentaryinstitutions,ministriesandothergovernmentorganizations,
prisons,universities,academies,companies,journals,etcetera,thatwereexplicitlymentionedas
affiliationsofthelistedpersonsinoursources.Inthissensewetrytoimitatewhatotherstudiesin
thisvolumehavedoneonthebasisofthe‘répertoirescharitables’,thatistolettheproceedings
describetheworldofreform(Baciocchi,2014).
Wecouldhavegonefurtherinthisthanwedid.Wedidnot,forexample,analyzethepersonalor
officeaddressesthatweresometimesgivenintheattendancelists,althoughthisinformationcould
underlinethepointthatwearemakingaboutthedescriptivepowerofoursources.Inthiscaseit
wouldbepossibletohypothesizethatsocialreformisalsospatiallyvisibleintheurbanterritory.
Fromourtransnationalperspective,however,thiselementislessrelevant,sinceitmainlyshedslight
onthedistributionofreformersandtheirinstitutionsoverthecitieswheretheywerebased.6
Toalargeextent,thedatabaseweusedmirrorstheprimarysources,butitdoesnotreplacethem.7
Thelayoutofthepages,theorderinwhichparticipantsarelisted,andofcoursetheirroleinthe
deliberationsareaspectsthatthesoftwarecannotreproduce.Thesoftwareprogram,called
Nodegoat,allowsstorageandvisualizationofrelationaldata(VanBree&Kessels,2013a,2013b).
Thedesignofprojectsisadaptabletothedemandsofresearchers,andtheprogramisstillbeing
expandedwithnewfeatures.Itdoesnot(yet)providetoolsformoreelaboratesocialnetwork
analysis(exceptforbasicdegreecentrality),butdatacanbeeasilyexportedtoallowfurther
processing,e.g.forcross-tabulationorspecificgraphicalpresentation.WemainlyusedNodegoatto
applyavarietyoffiltersandtoexplorethedatabywayofitspowerfulsocialandgeographical
6
ForGenevasuchastudyhasbeendonebyDavid,Heiniger,&Bühlman(2016).
Ourparent-project,TICCollaborative,aimsatcreatinganonlineplatformconnectingthestructureddatabase
withdigitalocr-edcopiesoftheoriginalsource,see:tic.ugent.be.
7
7
visualizationfeatures.AnalysisofexporteddatahasmainlybeendoneusingExcelandavarietyof
auxiliaryapplications,likeLibreOfficeandOpenRefine.
3.Connectingpeople
Inoursampleof72congresssessionsweidentified3240personsfromFrance,Switzerland,Great
BritainortheUnitedStatesvisitingasocialreformcongressoutsidetheirhomecountry.Amongthe
widergroupofforeignvisitorsthisaconspicuoussample,bothinabsolutefiguresandinrelationto
otherparticipants.Wearenotyetabletogivetheexactnumberofforeignersinoursampleof72
congresses,butinasubsetof24congresses(hygiene,peace,prisonreform,sanitation,statistics,
welfare)wesee–aspercentagesofthetotalnumberofforeignvisitors–21%Frenchmen,3%Swiss,
9%British,and7%American.SointhissubsetFrench,Swiss,BritishandAmericanvisitorsamountto
40%ofthetotalnumberofforeigners.Theusualgranumsalisisneededwheninterpretingthese
figures.Tobeginwith,absolutenumberscanvaryconsiderably.TheCongressointernazionaledi
beneficenzadiMilanoof1880had25non-Italianvisitors,ofwhom9(36%)wereFrench,whereas
thewelfarecongressof1910heldinCopenhagencounted165(38%)Frenchmenonatotalof433
non-Danishvisitors.TheIXeCongrèsuniverseldelapaixheldinParisin1900received45British
visitorsonatotalof178(25%),whereasthewelfarecongressofMilanthatwejustmentionedhad
noBritishvisitorsatall.Moreover,alsotheratiobetweenforeignanddomesticvisitorsvaried
considerably.
Individualsfromthefourcountriesareusuallywellrepresentedintheorganizationalstructureofa
congress,takinguprolesof(honorary)chair,secretary,treasurer,discussant,reporterandthelike.
Also,theytendtoplayanimportantroleinthediscussionsanddecision-makingtakingplaceatthe
sessions.Withoutprovidingnumericalevidenceabouteachcongressandeachcountrythatwas
represented,weareconfidentthatourselectionofvisitorstointernationalcongressesconstitutesa
representativesampleoftheselectedsocialreformevents.Theaggregatenumberof3240isinitself
astrongindicationofaconsiderabletransnationaldimensioninsocialreform,whichissupportedby
whathasbeenwrittenaboutthisinotherresearch(Cooper,1991;David&Tournès,2014;Matter,
Ruoss,&Studer,2015).
8
Figure2.VisitorsfromFrance,GreatBritain,SwitzerlandandUnitedStates(ca.1880,ca.1890,ca.
1900andca.1910)8
800
700
600
500
CH
FR
400
GB
300
US
200
100
0
1876-1882
1889-1892
1899-1903
1908-1913
Theselectedgroupgetsbiggerthroughtime:443personsintheperiodaround1880,668around
1890,974inaround1900and1507bytheearly1910s(thesumofthefourfiguresishigherthan
3240becauseaconsiderablenumberofpersonswerepresentintwoormoreperiods).Obviously,
thegrowthistoalargeextentduetotherisingnumberofselectedcongressesinthevariousperiods
but,asexplainedabove,oursampleisproportionatetothegeneraldevelopmentofinternational
congressesbeforetheFirstWorldWar.ThemajorityoftheselectedvisitorsarefromFrance:1387
individuals,whereas457personswereresidentinSwitzerland,883inGreatBritainand513inthe
UnitedStates.Figure1showsthatthenumberofvisitorsfromFranceandGreatBritaincontinuesto
increasefromaround1900,whereasthenumberofSwissandAmericanvisitorsbythenlevelsout.
Inourresearchwedidnotspecificallyfocusonthefourcitiesthatareprominentinthisvolume,but
itisinterestingtoevaluatehowvisitorsfromParis,London,GenevaandNewYork(andtheir
immediatesurroundings–weallowedatenkilometerradius)numericallyrelatetotherestoftheir
countrymenandwomen.Asitturnsout,percentagesofvisitorsfromthefourcitiesdiffer
considerably.OntheoneendParisiansconstitute64.5%oftheFrenchvisitors,whereasontheother
handvisitorsfromGenevaarebut24.3%ofallSwiss.InbetweenLondonerscomeinsecondwith
39.5%andcitizensfromNewYorkthirdwithapercentageof26.9.
8
ThegraphshowsthenumberofFrench,Swiss,BritishandAmericanvisitorstotheselected72congresses
outsidetheirhomecountriesinfourtimeframes.Forthesakeofclaritywehavedrawnalineconnectingthe
fourdatapointsforeachofthefournationalities.GraphmadeinExcelusingdataexportedfromNodegoat.
9
Table1.French,Swiss,BritishandAmericanvisitorsto72socialreformcongresses,accordingto
countryandresidence(1876-1913)9
Country
Switzerland 457
France
1387
GreatBritain 883
USA
513
Total
3240
Residence
Geneva
Paris
London
NewYork
111
894
349
138
1492
%
24.3
64.5
39.5
26.9
46.0
Other
332
474
468
319
1593
%
72.6
34.2
53.0
62.2
49.2
Unknown
14
19
66
56
155
%
3.1
1.4
7.5
10.9
4.8
Fiveelementsarenoteworthyinconnectiontotable1.Inthefirstplace,itwasnotinallcases
straightforwardtowhatcountryorcitypersonshadtobeallocated.Somecongresses,suchasthe
LondonPeaceCongressof1890,providedlittleinformationonthebackgroundsofpeople.Among
themembersoftheChristianArbitrationandPeaceSociety,forexample,wefoundbothAmericans
andBritishpersons,butitwasnotalwayspossibleto‘place’someoneonthebasisofalastname
and,possibly,initialsonly(inafewcasesweallocatedthepersonstotheUnitedStateswithout
absolutecertainty).Moreover,peoplelikeJoseph(John)Jafféareparticularydifficulttotietoa
place.Heattendedthepeacecongressesof1900and1910asdelegateofGreatBritain.Bornin
Hamburgin1843fromaJewishfamilyhemadeacareerasmerchantinBelfast,butlivedmostofthe
timeinNiceonthePromenadedesAnglais.Second,placesofresidencewere—liketoday—
sometimesflexible.MembersofParliamentoftenmentionedthestatecapitalwheretheHouseof
Parliamentwaslocated,andnotthedistrictwheretheywereelected.Industrialistscoulddeclare
thetownwheretheirfactorywaslocated,orthecapital,whereinvestmentcompanieshadtheir
seat.Itislikely,inparticularinthecaseofFrance,thatanumberofpeoplewhodeclaredParisas
theirplaceofresidencewere(also)‘provincials’.Third,thetableconfirmsthatthereisa
considerablepresence,notonly—aswesawbefore—of1387Frenchmenandwomenat
internationalsocialreformcongresses,butalsothattheshareofpersonswhodeclaredParisas
placeofresidence(64.5%)wasconspicuous.Clearly,Pariswasmorecentralthananyothercityin
ourselection.Fourth,inFranceandGreatBritainthetwocapitalcitiesareclearlydominatingthe
respectivenationalportion,wherethisisnotthecaseforGenevaandNewYork,internationalcities
inthemakingbutnotnationalcapitals.Inoursample,visitorsfromthecapitalcitiesofthefederal
statesSwitzerlandandtheUnitedStatesarelessprominentlypresent,Berndelivering11.6%ofthe
Swissvisitors,andWashingtononly4.5%oftheAmericanvisitors.Fifth,visitorsfromoutsideour
fourcitiesrefertomanydifferentresidencesintheirhomecountries,butsometimesalsoabroad.In
France,forinstanceMontpellier,ToulouseandNîmeseachconstitutelessthanonepercentofthe
placesoforigin.InGreatBritain,largercities,suchasManchester,LiverpoolandEdinburgh,each
provideonlytwopercentoftheplacesoforigin,andmanysmallervillages,estatesandhamlets
appearonthelistofresidences.AsmallnumberofBritishcongressvisitorswereresidinginthe
coloniesorinothercountriessuchasFrance(aroundtwentyindividualsdeclaredParistobetheir
cityofresidence).IntheUnitedStates,thelargercities,suchasWashington,Chicagoand
Philadelphia,furnishamerefivepercent.InSwitzerland,Bern,LausanneandZüricheachdeliver
aroundtenpercentofthehometownsoftheSwissvisitors.Thenumberofindivualsofwhomno
9
Thetablecross-tabulates3240French,Swiss,BritishandAmericanvisitorsto72socialreformcongresses
between1876and1913,andspecifiestheirresidenceinGeneva,Paris,LondonandNewYorkorinother
placesinthefourcountries.Bothabsoluteandrelativenumbersaregiven.TablemadeinExcelusingdata
exportedfromNodegoat.
10
placeofresidenceisknown,ishigherintheUnitedStatesandBritain,whichtosomeextentaffects
theshareofindividualsfromourcities.Inconclusion,however,itisimportanttonotethat
individualsfromParis,London,NewYorkandGeneva,constitute46.05%ofallvisitors.Thesecities
arethemostprominentplacesoforigininthefourselectedcountries.
Atfirstglance,ourcommunityofsocialreformisoverwhelminglymale.Inthesampleonly17.5%are
femalevisitors.Theproportionoffemalevisitors,however,increasedovertime,andthegender
ratiovariesdependingonthecongressesthataretakenintoaccount.Thepeacecongresses,for
example,weremuchmorefrequentlyvisitedbywomen,asthecongressesonfemalerights,works
andinstitutionsaroundtheturnofthecentury(inoursampletheCongrèsinternationaldesoeuvres
etinstitutionsféminines,theDeuxièmecongrèsinternationaldesoeuvresetinstitutionsféminines,
andtheDixièmecongrèsinternationaldesfemmes,oeuvresetinstitutionsféminines,droitsdes
femmes).Asubstantialnumberofwomenincludedinourselectionwereapparentlyaccompanying
theirhusbands,butthisdidnotmeantheydidnotplayanautonomousrole,forexampleby
maintainingandexpandingtheirownreformnetworks(Battagliola,2006).Somecongresses
proposedsub-sessionsontopicsthatwereheldtobespecifically‘female’,inthesensethatthey
impliedworkthatwomencoulddoparexcellence,asforinstanceaftercareforprisoners,childcare,
andinfantschools.The1910welfarecongressofCopenhagenextensivelydiscussedtheroleof
womeninassistance,andalsodedicatedaseparatesessiontosupportforwidowsandtheir
children.Throughtime,femalevisitorstotheselectedsocialreformcongressesgenerallygrewfrom
34to226,whichtranslatesintoapercentageof7.6around1880to15.4around1910.Around1900,
however,almost25%(oneoutoffour)ofthevisitorsinoursamplewerefemale.Thisistosome
extentduetoonesinglecongress,thesecondCongrèsinternationaldesoeuvresetinstitutions
fémininesheldin1900,whichwasabigeventwithmanyfemalevisitors.Yetirrespectiveofthis
individualevent,thegeneralincreaseoffemaleparticipantsisnoteworthyandreflectthegrowing
transnationalactivismofwomen(Berkovitch,1999;Jensen&Kuhlman,2010;Rupp,1997).
Withinthegroupofcongressvisitorsthereareconsiderabledifferencesininvolvement.Aperson
withaninterestinsocialreformissuescould,forinstance,visitaspecificcongresstakingplaceinhis
orhercountryonlyonce.Others,possiblymorededicatedtothesubjectathand,couldoncevisita
congressabroad.Thelatterarethemajorityofvisitorstocongressesinoursampleoftransnational
visitors(2840[87.7%]of3240).Yet,othercategoriesofvisitorsmayrepresentevenmore
involvementinthecausesofthecongresses:thosevisitingaspecificcongressseriesmorethan
once,orseveralsocialreformcongresseswithdifferentsubjects.
400personsinthesamplewerefrequentvisitorstosocialreformcongresses.Attendanceto
sessionsrangedfromtwoforamajorityof300visitors,tothree,four,five,andsixvisitsof58,25,
10,andsixpersons,respectively.Onevisitor,CarrollDavidsonWrightbasedinWashingtonDCinthe
UnitedStates,visitedeightcongressesintheyearsbetween1891and1908.Thetenmostfrequent
visitors(i.e.individualsattendingmorethanonecongress)arefivepersonsfromFrance(Emile
Cheysson,Ferdinand-Dreyfus,MauriceBellom,GustaveCorrévonandArthurFontaine),twofrom
GreatBritain(DavidSchlossandAristideMérilledeColleville),andtwofromtheUnitedStates
(CarrollWrightandWilliamTolman),whileonefrequentvisitorwasfromSwitzerland(Louis
Guillaume).Overall,frequentvisitorsfromFranceconstituteamajority.Whatisnoteworthybutnot
sosurprising,isthatquitesomefrequentvisitors,especiallythosevisitingtwoorthreecongresses,
11
haveattendedcongressesthattookplacesimultaneouslyorconsecutivelyinthesamecityor
country,inthatwayeconomizingontheirtimeandtravelexpenses.
Wecanmakeafurtherdistinctionbetweenpeoplebelongingtothegroupof400frequentvisitors
bytakingintoaccountthediversityoftheircongressvisitsabroad.Whereas168personswentmore
thanoncetoacongressdedicatedtothesamecause,theremaining232visitedcongressesrelated
todifferentcauses(184totwocauses,34tothree,tentofour,threetofiveandonevisitortosix
causes).
Ifwedrawupatop30ofthesepersons,weighingfrequencyanddiversityoftheirvisits,wereencounter,notsurprisingly,severalofthefrequentvisitorsmentionedabove,althoughtheyhave
movedupordownalittleintherankingaccordingtothediversityoftheirvisits.
12
Table2.Top30ofvisitorstosocialreformcongresses,rankedaccordingtofrequencyanddiversity
(1876-1913)10
Name
Wright,CarrollDavidson
Tolman,WilliamHowe
Schloss,DavidFrederick
Strauss,Paul
Cheysson,Émile
Ferdinand-Dreyfus
Guillaume,Louis
Fontaine,Arthur
Ladame,PaulLouis
MérilledeColleville,AristideCharlesHyacinthe
Gould,ElginRalstonLovell
Henderson,CharlesRichmond
Lloyd-Baker,GranvilleEdwin
Pratt,Hodgson
VanBrock,Gaston
Bellom,MauriceJosephAmédée
Corrévon,Gustave
Gobat,Albert
Loch,CharlesStewart
Motet,AugusteAlexandre
Mouat,FredericJohn
Yvernès,Emile
Brouardel,PaulCamilleHippolyte
Erismann,FriedrichHuldreich
Fuster,Édouard
Garçon,ÉmileAuguste
Legrain,PaulMaurice
Magnan,Valentin
Rollet,Henri
Roussel,Théophile
Place
WashingtonD.C
NewYork
London
Paris
Paris
Paris
Bern/Neuchâtel
Paris
Genève/Neuchâtel
Brighton
NewYork/Paris
Chicago
Gloucester
Kettering/London
Paris
Paris
Lausanne
Bern
London
Paris
London
Paris
Paris
Zürich/Moscow
Paris
Paris/Lille
Paris/Neuilly-sur-Marne
Paris
Paris
Paris
Country
US
US
GB
FR
FR
FR
CH
FR
CH
GB
US
US
GB
GB
FR
FR
CH
CH
GB
FR
GB
FR
FR
CH
FR
FR
FR
FR
FR
FR
F
8
6
6
5
6
6
6
5
5
6
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
D Rank
5
40
6
36
5
30
5
25
4
24
4
24
4
24
4
20
4
20
3
18
4
16
4
16
4
16
4
16
4
16
3
15
3
15
3
15
3
15
3
15
3
15
3
15
3
12
3
12
3
12
3
12
3
12
3
12
3
12
3
12 Table2listsfifteenFrench(allfromParisanditssurroundings),fiveSwiss,sixBritishandfour
Americanvisitors(thelatterthreegroupsfromdifferentplaces).Itisnotverysurprisingthat
Americansareleadingtheoveralllistofrankings.Relativelyfewinternationalcongressestookplace
intheUnitedStates,andwhenAmericanshadcrossedtheAtlantic,itwaslikelythattheywould
attendasmanycongressesastheycould.
10
SimilartothemethodusedinLeonardsandRanderaad(2010),wemultipliedthenumberofvisitswiththe
numberofdifferentcausesinordertoreachasimplerankorderofthevisitorsintermsofbothfrequencyand
diversityoftheirinternationalactivities.Placesmentionedare‘asinsource’.Astothepersonsandtheir
names,Ferdinand-DreyfuswasregisteredatbirthasDreyfus,Ferdinand.Hehadhisnamechangedin1896,as
emergesfromthedocumentsaccompanyinghisnominationintheordrenationaldelaLégiond’honneur
(Archives,s.a.).ElginRalstonLovellGouldwasborninOttawaanddiedinCartier,bothinCanada.Becausehis
entireprofessionalcareerlinkedhimtotheUnitedStates,wehavelistedhimasAmerican.TablemadeinExcel
usingdataexportedfromNodegoat.
13
The30personswhoareatthetopofthelistwerefirstandforemostconnectedthroughthe
internationalcongressestheyattended.Itisworthwhile,though,toexplorewhetheritispossibleto
characterizetheminotherwaystoo.Letusemphasize,however,thattheydidnotconstitutea
formalgroupintheperiodwestudy.Theyaregroupedbyus,bycountingtheir‘co-occurrence’at
certainevents.
Intermsof‘degreesofseparation’the30personswerequiteclose.Manyofthemnodoubtknew
eachother,inparticulariftheywerefromthesamecountry,andmanymusthavemetononeor
moreofthecongressesinourselection.TheVIIICongrèsInternationaldesAccidentsduTravailet
desAssurancesSocialesof1908heldinRomehostedtwelvepersonsfromourlist.Tenofthem
attendedtheCongrèsinternationalpourl'étudedesquestionsrelativesaupatronagedesdétenuset
alaprotectiondesenfantsmoralementabandonnés(Antwerp1890),adifferentgroupoftenwent
totheCongrèspénitentiaireinternationaldeSaint-Pétersbourg(1890),andagaintenotherswere
presentattheCongrèsinternationald'assistancepubliqueetdebienfaisanceprivée,heldinParisin
1900.Othercongresseshadbetweenoneandeightlinkswithpersonsofourcoregroup.The
congressesrelatedtoprisonreform,patronage,andcriminalanthropologyformedaclearly
identifiablecluster,andtherebyemphasizedthegeneralpreoccupationwithcrimeandcrime
preventionamongactivesocialreformers.
The30individualsrepresentedawiderangeofnational,regionalandlocalorganizations.Apartfrom
theInstitutInternationaldeStatistique(notsurprisinglyaninternationalorganization),ofwhichnine
personsweremembers,noorganizationsfigureprominentlyamongtheaffiliationsthatwere
mentionedinthecongressproceedings.Giventhespreadoverthefournationalitiesandthestill
limiteddevelopmentofinternationalorganizationsthisresultisquitepredictable.Nevertheless,the
largeamountoforganizations(104singleorganizations)assuchunderlinestheconnectednessof
thecoregroupintheircountryoforigin.Inthenextsectionweshallseethatthisalsoextendsto
localcharityorganizations.
Inanetwork-orientedresearchitisperhapsdangeroustofocusonattributesratherthanties,but
exploringattributescanleadtodiscoveringnewties.Thedivisionoverthefournationalitiesis
roughlyconsistentwiththeoverallnumbers(fifteenFrench,sixBritish,fiveSwissandfour
Americans).Intermsofeducationthe30personswereamixedbunch.Ninehadalegalbackground,
andnineothersadegreeinmedicine.Fourhadabackgroundinphilosophyandarts,threewere
engineers,andtwohadbeentrainedasprotestantpastor.Threedidnothaveanacademic
education:GastonVanBrock,borninBordeauxassonofaDutchmerchant,whohadstarteda
commercialcareerattheageoffourteen,hadbecomeawealthyParisianindustrialistandbanker,
andwasactive—accordingtohisLégiond’honneurfiles—in165philanthropicalsocieties;Paul
Strauss,whostartedhiscareerasjournalistandwouldbecomeministredel'hygiène,del'assistance
etdelaprévoyancesocialesaftertheFirstWorldWar;andÉdouardFuster,borninYverdon(Suisse),
whoafterhavingobtainedadiplomafromtheLycéedeBordeaux,beganhiscareerattheComité
centraldeshouillèresdeFranceinParis,buteventuallybecameprofesseurdeprévoyanceet
assistancesocialesauCollègedeFrance(Charle&Telkès,1988,p.73).
Foralmostallindividualsfromthetop30,educationdidnotfullydeterminethecareerstheywould
eventuallypursue.CharlesRichmondHenderson,forexample,completedabachelorofartsatthe
UniversityofChicagobeforeembarkingonreligiousstudiesattheBaptistUnionTheological
14
Seminary,alsoinChicago.Heworkedasapastorforalmosttwentyyears,beforeacceptingan
academicpositionattheUniversityofChicagoin1892,andbecamearenownedsociologist.In1901
hereceivedadoctorateinphilosophyfromtheUniversityofLeipziginGermany.Heheldanumber
ofpositionsinphilanthropicsocietiesintheUnitedStatesandwasAmericancommissionerofthe
InternationalPrisonCommissionin1909(Lewenstein,2006).FriedrichErismann,tonameanother
prominentvisitor,studiedmedicineinZurich,WürzburgandPrague,andspecializedin
ophthalmology.HefellinlovewithandmarriedNadeschdaSuslowa,aRussianstudentinZurich,and
followedhertoSaintPetersburgandsubsequentlytoMoscow,wherehebecamearenowned
hygienist.HedirectedtheinstituteforhygieneoftheuniversityofMoscow,butwasremovedfrom
hispositiononpoliticalgroundsin1896.BackinZurich,heenteredmunicipalpoliticsforthesocial
democrats,andoccupiedvariouspoliticalmandatesuntilhisdeathin1915.
Similarstories,characterizedbyagreatvarietyintermsofprofessionalcareersandsocietal
functions,canbetoldformanyofthepersonsinourtop30.Theirreligiousbackgroundswerequite
heterogeneous,anddonotseemtoconstitutea‘hidden’transnationalconnectionbetweenthem.It
isdifficult,ifnotimpossible,toattachthelabelofasingleprofessiononmostpersonsinquestion.
Mostwould,atsomepointintheirlife,occupyapoliticaloradministrativeposition,assenatoror
deputy,magistrate,municipalcouncilor,highofficialinthecivilservice,ormemberofan‘expert’
council,suchastheConseilsupérieurdel'assistancepublique.Astrue‘hommes-orchestres’(Van
Praet,2015)theyoftencombinedpoliticalmandates,oradministrativefunctionswithmemberships
ofexpertcommittees,medicalsocieties,philanthropicalorganizationsandothersocietal
associations,andcouldtherebyeffectivelyactasboundaryspannersbetweensocietalarenasand
causes.
Onelastcharacteristicthatstandsoutwhenexploringthebiographiesofthe30personsoftable2,is
thesenseofmissionthatemergesfromtheiractivitiesandpublications.Thismissionsprangfrom
thedeeplyheldconvictionthatmodernindustrialsocietywasinneedofchange.Thebestwayto
accomplishreformwasbyinforming,educatingandsteeringthepeopleinvolved,whetherworkers,
employers,politicians,officials,expertsorphilanthropists.Whilescientificknowledgeandreligious
zealoftenprovidedthecommonbasisforthisproject,internationalexchangereinforcedthejoint
vocationofitspractitioners.Internationalcongresseswerenottheonlyconnectorbetween
reformersacrossborders,buttheyhelpedtodevelopasharedworldview.Sometimes,thiswasalso
acknowledgedbythereformersthemselves.InhisseminalbookSocialEngineeringof1909,the
BaptistreformerWilliamHoweTolman(secondonourlist)referredtoideasdevelopedbyÉmile
Cheysson(fifth),whichheadmittedtohavepickedupduringhisvisittotheParisWorldExhibitionof
1900,whentheybothattendedthecongrèsinternationald'assistancepubliqueetdebienfaisance
privée(Tolman,1909,p.49).ThebackgroundandelaborationofCheysson’smodelofthesocial
engineerwasinmanywaysdifferentfromTolman’snotionofsocialengineeringandthefunctionof
thesocialsecretaryinthis.Yet,bothideologiesconvergedinthepotentialofcontrolledhumanand
societalimprovement.Itisquitelikely,therefore,thataco-citationanalysiswillenhancethecooccurrencenetworkunderlyingourtop30.
Inpriorresearchrelatedtotheperiod1840-1880wehavealsoevaluatedthefrequencyand
diversityofcongressvisits,basedonthesamecriteriaofforeignvisitsalbeitwithlesscongressesin
absolutenumbers(21congressesthenversus72now)(Leonards&Randeraad,2010).Inthetime
frame1840-1880,85.8%ofallvisitorswereone-timevisitors,intheperiod1876-191387.7%(2840
15
individuals).Then,aswellasinthelaterperiodexactly9.2%(181and300individuals,respectively)
madetwovisitseithertoacongresswithinthesametheme,ortotwocongresseswithdifferent
themes.Intheperiod1840-18805.0%(97)ofthevisitorswenttomorethantwocongresseshaving
thesameordifferentthemes;inthissamplefortheyearsaround1880,1890,1900and1910this
was3.1%(100).Thepercentagesoffrequentvisitorsattendingcongressesrelatedtodifferent
causesremainremarkablystable.Paralleltoanoverallgrowthinthenumberoftransnational
congressvisitorsonewouldperhapshaveexpectedanupswinginthepercentageofpersonsvisiting
morethantwocongresses.Thisisclearlynotthecase,althoughthereisaslightgrowthinthe
numberofvisitorsstickingtoonlyonecause.Thismightindicatethat,overall,visitors‘specialized’in
certainsocialreformfields.Thisisconsistentwiththegrowingdiversificationandspecialization
withintransnationalcivilsocietyintheperiod1880-1910,asshownbyThomasDavies(Davies,2013,
pp.44-76).
Whenwefocusonthefourperiodsonebyone,theboundaryspannersineachperioddiffer
somewhatfromtheonesmentionedintheaggregatedlistintable2.Around1880weencounter
onlythreepersonsconnectingthreecongresses(FredericMouat,ÉmileYvernèsandProsperde
PietraSanta).Thesamegoesfortheperiodaround1890,althoughwiththreedifferentpersons
(ThéophileRoussel,HenriRolletandCarrollWright).Around1900fourpersonsconnectthree
congresses(CarlRuss-Suchard,DavidSchloss,CarrollWrightandSamuelBarrows)andoneperson
fourcongresses(WilliamTolman),whereasaround1910weseesevenpersonsvisitingthreeorfour
congresses(CharlesHenderson,ArthurFontaine,MauriceBellom,PaulStrauss,LouisGuillaume,
ÉdouardFusterandEdwardDevine).Thecausestheyconnectedwereoftendifferentones,and
morebiographicallyorientedresearchintothistransnationalgroupisrequiredtofleshoutthe
motivesbehindtheirmobilityandtheindividualandcollectivecontributionstosocialreformacross
borders(Panter,Paulmann,&Szöllösi-Janze,2015).
4.Connectingspheres
Inpursuitofa‘commoncore’of,ontheonehand,congressvisitorscrossingbordersand,onthe
other,philanthropistsworkingonanationalandlocallevel,wecomparedthedatabasesofnames
extractedfromthelocalcharitydirectoriesinParis,London,NewYorkandGeneva(N=7785)with
ourlistof3240French,British,AmericanandSwisscongressvisitors.Usingfamilyname,firstname,
cityandcountryofresidenceasindicators,wewereabletoidentifyagroupof145personssharing
membershipofbothgroups.Alsohere,weencounteraprevalenceofindividualsfromFrance:50
(34.5%).FortheUKweidentified37(25.5%)persons,forSwitzerland30(20.7%)and28(19.3%)
Americanindividuals.Itissafetosay,therefore,thatthereisaconspicuouscommoncoreofatleast
145socialreformists,whowereactiveonthelocalaswellastheinternationallevel,andthatwithin
thisgrouptheFrenchoutnumbertheothers(althoughinpercentagestheirshareissomewhat
smallerthanwithregardtoourtotalselection).
Wecanevenstrengthentheconnectionbetweenthelocalandinternationalspherebymatchingthe
400frequentvisitorstosocialreformcongresseswiththegroupof145individualssharing
membershipofinternationalcongressesandlocalcharities.Followingthislead,weidentified42
(29%)outofthe145aspersonsbeingactivelocallyandinternationally,andvisitingcongresses
severaltimes.ItisinterestingtonotethatfromthetwentypersonslivingorworkinginParis,
Geneva,LondonandNewYorkmentionedinthetop30givenabove,twelvealsoappearinthelocal
16
directories.Althoughtheiraffiliationwithlocalcharitiesisrarelymentionedinthecongress
proceedings,itunderlinesthemultilevel-connectednessofthepersonsinquestion.
Wehaverankedthe42inthesamewayaswedidwithallvisitorsinoursample,accordingto
frequencyanddiversity,arguingthatinorderofrankingthese42fromoursamplearethemost
importantconnectorsbetweenthelocalandinternationalspheresinthefieldofsocialreform.
Table3.Top10offrequentvisitorstosocialreformcongresses(1876-1913)withconnectionsto
localcharities(ca.1900)11
Name
Tolman,WilliamHowe
Strauss,Paul
Cheysson,Émile
Ladame,PaulLouis
Gould,ElginRalstonLovell
Henderson,CharlesRichmond
Pratt,Hodgson
Loch,CharlesStewart
Motet,AugusteAlexandre
Rollet,Henri
Place
NewYork
Paris
Paris
Genève/Neuchâtel
NewYork/Paris
Chicago
Kettering/London
London
Paris
Paris
Country
US
FR
FR
CH
US
US
GB
GB
FR
FR
F
6
5
6
5
4
4
4
5
5
4
D Rank
6
36
5
25
4
24
4
20
4
16
4
16
4
16
3
15
3
15
3
12 Ascanbeconcludedfromtable3,wherethetop10of42multi-connectorsisgiven,allfourcitiesare
represented,withaprominentroleforParis(4times),followedatsomedistancebyNewYorkand
London(2each)andGeneva(1).CharlesHendersontravelledtoEuropevarioustimes,in1895fora
studytriptotheUniversityofBerlin,andagainin1901totheUniversityofLeipzigwherehe
obtainedhisPhD,whereasin1912hewentonalecturetourtoIndia,China,andJapan.Heappeared
inourlistofcongressesbetween1908and1911.AlthoughhewasbasedinChicagointhatperiod,
andreferredtotheUniversityofChicagoashisplaceofwork,throughhispreviouspastoralactivities
hehadevidentlyestablishedconnectionswiththecharityworldinNewYork.
Insum,combiningourevidence,wehaveascertainedthatfromatotalof3240congressvisitorsin
ourdatabaseand7785personsmentionedinthelocaldirectoriesthereisacommoncoreof145
persons.Ofthe145persons42werevisitorswithbetween2and8visitstointernationalcongresses
attendingupto6socialreformcauses.Withinthiscoregroupof42atoptenofreformerswere
affiliatedwithasubstantialnumberofurbancharityorganizationsaswellasattendedvarious
internationalsocialreformcongresses.Itisstrikingthatlocalandtransnationalspaceswere
connectedthrough—orperhapsweshouldsay,constitutedoneunifiedspaceof—reformersfrom
differentcountries.Thisconclusiontiesinwithbroaderstrandsinthetransnationalismliterature
thathighlighttheagencyandmobilityof‘rootedcosmopolitans’inmultipleyetconnectedcontexts
(Iriye,2013;Tarrow,2012).
11
Itshowsfrequentvisitors(top10outof42multi-connectors)tosocialreformcongresseswhoarealso
mentionedinlocalcharitydirectoriesfromaround1900inParis,Geneva,LondonandNewYork.Namesare
listedaccordingtotherankorderintroducedinTable2:frequency(betweenfourandsixvisits)multipliedby
diversity(between3and6diferentcauses)givesarankorderbetween12and36.TablemadeinExcelusing
dataexportedfromNodegoat.
17
5.Connectingorganizations
Auniquefeatureofoursourcesisthattheyallowustoanalyzeorganizationsthatpersonsattending
congresseswererepresentingorbelongedto.Westartoutfromtheassumptionthattheaffiliations
ofpersonsasmentionedinthelistsofattendantsarenotmeaninglessorrandom,butindicativeof
theirsocialstatus,eitherbecausethevisitorsdecidedtoincludethisinformationwhenthey
registered,orbecausetheorganizerschosetodosoforthemwhentheproceedingswerepublished.
Eitherway,thereferencestosocialorprofessionalpositionsreflecttheimportanceattachedto
thematthetime.Moreover,throughthepositionsandorganizationsitispossibletoreconstructthe
institutionalspheresurroundingcertaincauses.
Tobesure,thereareconsiderabledifferencesbetweenthewaysinwhichoccupationswerereferred
tointheproceedings.Thereisnouniformformatrunningthroughthevariouscongressproceedings.
Occasionally,therearenoreferencesatall(apartfromthenamesofthepersons),butmostlysome
informationisgiven,rangingfroma‘profession’(avocat,ingénieur,publiciste,hommedelettres,
etc.)toaclearindicationofthepositionsomeoneholdswithinanorganization,suchasDirecteurdu
bureaud'hygiène,àVienne(Isère),chefdubureauauministèredelajustice,orsecrétairedela
Sociétéd'organisationdelacharité.Thisinformationissometimessupplementedwithelements
suchasatitle(docteur),aknighthood(chevalier),oraroleoccupiedduringapreviouscongress.Our
analysisfocusesonthecasesinwhichanunequivocalreferencetoanorganizationisgiven,mostly
throughitsname,butsometimesindirectlythroughthenameoftheoccupation(‘deputé’almost
invariablyreferstothenationalrepresentativeassemblyofthecountryinquestion).Insome
congresses,suchastheonesorganizedbythecooperativemovement,organizationswerealso
separatelylistedas‘membresducongrès’.
Sinceweareinterestedinthereformfieldasawholeandlessinsingledomains,wehavemainly
concentratedonaggregatenumbers,addinguptheresultsofseveralcongresses.Wehavedivided
uptheorganizationsinfourclusters:1.State,governmentandpolitics(e.g.parliaments,ministries,
localgovernmentbodies,courts,state-financedinstitutionssuchasmostprisons);2.Privatesphere
(e.g.companies,privateenterprise,churchorganizations);3.Academiaandeducation(universities,
learnedsocieties,schools);4.Other(mainlynewspapersandjournals–anywayaverysmallportion,
ca.threepercent,ofthetotalnumberoforganizations).Assigninganorganizationtooneofthefour
clusterswasrarelyproblematic.Thedistinctionbetweenpublicandprivateisgroundedonnotions
abouttheroleofthestatethatwerecirculatinginthesecondhalfofthenineteenthcentury,and
decidingonwhetheranorganizationhadaneducationalfunctionwasusuallynotdifficult.Entities
thatbenefitedfromstatesubsidies,orweredefinedashavingpublicfunctions(whilelegallyprivate)
wereaddedtotheclusterofprivateorganizations.
Infigure3wehaveputtogetherthecategorizedorganizationsofthefourcountriesattwo
moments,around1880andaround1910.Wehavecountedeachentryofanorganizationforeach
newpersonthatwasmentionedinalistedesmembresoftherelevantcongresses.Organizations
thatwerementionedmorethanonce,becausetwoormoreindividualsreferredtothem,received
morehits.Comparedtoacountwhichincludesorganizationsinagiventimeframeonlyonce,the
increaseofthecategory‘governmentandpolitics’isnotablylargerthanthatoftheprivatesphere.
Stateinstitutions,suchasparliamentsandministries,weremorelikelytohavemorehitsthan
18
privateorganizations,whichshowedagreaterdiversity.Fortheoveralltendency,however,thetwo
typesofcountingpresentcomparableresults.
Figure3.French,Swiss,BritishandAmericanorganizations,infourcategories(absolutenumbers)
(ca.1880andca.1910)12
1200
1000
800
1876-1882
600
1908-1913
400
200
0
Acad&Edu
Gov&Pol
Private
Other
Giventheincreaseofcongressesintheperiodaround1910,theriseineachcategoryisexpected.It
isquiteremarkable,however,thatthenumberoforganizationsofboththecategory‘government
andpolitics’and‘privatesector’aremarkedlyexpanding(thelattertoanevenslightlylargerextent
thantheformer).Theconventionalhistoryofthewelfarestatereferstotheexpansionofstate
responsibilities,andanincreasingpenetrationofsociallifebythestatearoundtheturnofthe
nineteenthcentury.Althoughourresultsdonotcontradicttheseaccounts,theyaddanotherstory,
i.e.theriseof(new)privateorganizationsdealingwithsocialreform,eitherprovidingwelfare(poor
relief,education,insurance)orpromotingcausessuchasthefightagainstalcohol,Sundayrest,and
emancipationofwomen(seealso:Matteretal.,2015;Thane,2012)).Whatismore,these
organizationsweretransnationallyactivebydelegatingmemberstointernationalcongressesor,
alternatively,whenorganizationshadnotpurposefullysentoutrepresentatives,byindividualswho
founditopportunetorefertotheirmembershipwhensigningupforacongress.Thisnotonlyholds
trueforlargeinsurancecompanies,suchastheEquitableLifeInsuranceCompanyoftheUnited
States,theSwissZurichCompagnied'assurance,ortheParisbasedSociétéGénéraledesAssurances
AgricolesetIndustrielles,butalsofordozensofBritishco-operativesocietiesorFrenchprovincial
philanthropicoeuvres.Ourevidenceisofcoursefarfromconclusive,butoffersinterestingpistesfor
furtherresearchintothetransnationalinvolvementofstate,societyandintermediateorganizations
intheaccomplishmentofsocialreformideas.
Arguably,thereisafifthcluster,consistingofinternationalorganizations,suchastheUnion
InternationaledesAmiesdelaJeuneFille,theInstitutinternationaldestatistiqueandtheOffice
12
Theorganisationsarethosetowhichvisitorstoacongressdeclaretobeaffiliatedaccordingtothelists
publishedbythecongress.Everyorganisationmentionedatleastonceinatleastonecongressintheperiod
studiedcountsforone.Darkgrey:numberoforganisationsmentionedin1876-1882(N=1050),lightgrey:in
1908-1913(N=2410).GraphmadeinExcelusingdataexportedfromNodegoat.
19
InternationalduTravail,whichgraduallyincreasedinnumberintheperiodunderconsideration,but
onthewholeremainedrathersmall(34intotal,notincludedinfigure3).Theyarethemostobvious
examplesoftheinternationalizationofsocialreform,butoftentheirexistenceisdirectlylinkedtoan
internationalcongress.Soforthisstudyweconsiderthemasdestinations,ratherthanas‘sending’
organizations.Moreover,anorganizationdoesnothavetobejuridicallyinternationaltohavea
transnationalorientation.Manylocalandnationalorganizationschosetodelegatestafformembers
tointernationalcongressesinordertoextendtheirscopeofaction.
ThetotalnumberoforganizationsthatcouldbeassignedtotheFrench,Swiss,BritishandAmerican
(US)visitorsofourcongressesis1637,including34internationalorganizationsand27organizations
fromcountriesotherthanoursample.Withtheincreaseandspecializationofcongressesoverthe
yearsthenumberoforganizationsalsogrew.Inourtimeslotaround1880wecounted222single
organizations,whereasaround1910thenumberhadrisento919.Althoughthisishardlysurprising,
giventhemarkedincreaseofvisitors,theaggregatenumbersunderlinethehugevarietyoflocal,
regionalandnationalorganizationsthatwerelinkedtoideasofsocialreformbythebeginningofthe
twentiethcentury,andhighlighttheirtransnationalconnections.Itisoftenneglectedthatlocal,
regionalandnationalorganizations,despitetheirauthoritywithinaclearlydefinedgeographical
area,alsolookedbeyondthebordersoftheseareas.Theinternationalpresenceofthese
organizations,therefore,isanimportantindicationandmeansofthespreadofsocialreformideas
andinitiativesbeyondthenationstate.
Namesbetraycauses,atleastforalargenumberoforganizationsthatcouldbeincludedinour
selection.Thecongressesofthecooperativemovementweremainlyvisitedbymembersfromlocal,
regionalandnationalconsumercooperativesocieties.Thepeacecongressesincluded
representativesofnumerouslocalpeaceorganizations,suchastheAssociationdelapaixparle
droit,groupedeNîmes,theSociétévaudoisedelapaix,ortheWisbechLocalPeaceAssociation.
Prisondirectorswereeagertoparticipateinthepenitentiarycongressestopromoteprisonregimes
intheirinstitutions.InthiswaydiversepenitentiariessuchasElmiraReformatory,thePénitencierde
Neuchâtel,ortheMaisond'éducationpénitentiairepourlesjeunesfillesàFouilleuse,prèsRueil
(Seine-et-Oise)gotintouchwitheachotherandcollectivelyreachedouttotheworld.
Someassociations,suchastheSociétégénéraledesprisonsdeFrance,theSociétésuissedes
prisons,andtheHowardAssocation(nowHowardLeagueforPenalReform),activelylobbiedfor
prisonreform,whereasotherlearnedinstitutions,suchasthevariousnationalacademiesofscience
andmedicalacademies,heldmoredetachedviews,orvoiceddifferentopinionsdependingonthe
viewsoftheirmembers.Itisneverthelesstellingtoseethatboththelearnedandthespecialinterest-basedinstitutionswerehappytodelegaterepresentativestointernationalcongresses(or,
alternatively,thatcongressparticipantslikedtodropthenamesoforganizationstheywere
associatedto),justasthecongressorganizerswerekeenonhavingprofessors,scientists,and
medicaldoctorsamongtheirguests.Throughoutourperiodrepresentativesofuniversitiesand
academiescontinuedtohaveanimportantshareofthevisitors.Inalmostallcongressessciencewas
meanttoplaytheroleofneutralarbitrator,althoughmoreoftenthannot,scientificdiscordand
competitionwereequaltopoliticalandreligiousdisagreementinleadingtodivisionamongthe
participants.Theappealtosciencewasuniversal,butnotunifying.
20
Wealsofindalotoforganizationsofamoregenericcharacter,suchasparliaments,highcouncilsof
state,ministries,andlocalgovernmentauthorities.Notonlyelectedpoliticians,butalso(andin
increasinglygreaternumbers)appointedofficialswerepresent.Bureaucratswerefrequently
delegatedtocongressesbecauseoftheirexpertise,orcouldstrengthentheirpositionasexpertby
attendinganinternationalcongress.
Figure4.French,Swiss,BritishandAmericanorganizations,infourcategories(relativenumbers)
(1876-1913)13
100%
90%
80%
70%
Other
60%
50%
Private
40%
Gov&Pol
30%
Acad&Edu
20%
10%
0%
FR
CH
GB
US
Ifwezoominonthefourmaincategoriesastheyarerepresentedinthefourcountriesoverthe
entireperiod(figure4)weseeanoverallstrongpresenceofprivateorganizations,whichisthemost
conspicuousinthecaseoftheUnitedStatesandGreatBritain.Thisrelativelyhighnumberistoa
largeextentduetocooperativesocieties,specialschools,peaceassociations,andorganizations
activeinSundayrestpromotionandthefightagainstalcoholconsumption.InBritainsuch
organizations,thrivingonprivateinitiative,wereflourishinginlargeindustrialtownsaswellasinthe
countryside.By1914,asJoseHarrishasshown,theareasofsociallifeinwhichtheseorganizations
wereactive,‘involvedsomeelementofcompulsion,prescription,licensing,ormonitoringby
agenciesoflawandcentralgovernment’,butthatdidnotmeanthattheorganizationsdisappeared
orwerelessactive(Harris,1994,p.216).
Themoststrikingobservationisperhapsthelargeshareofstateinstitutionsinthecaseof
Switzerland(N=179/44.6%),moreorlessequaltoFrance(N=828/46.3%).Thefederalstructureof
thecountrycharacterizedbyalargenumberofdecentralizedinstitutionsatcantonallevelisno
doubtpartoftheexplanation.Thefederalistexplanation,however,isnotapplicabletotheUnited
States,whereonecouldalsohaveexpectedmoregovernmentrelatedorganizationsbecauseofthe
federalstructure,but—contrarytothis—privateorganizationsformtheoverallmajoritywith280
(67.1%)outofall417Americanorganizationsmentioned,moresimilartotheirBritishcounterparts
13
LikeinFigure3thenumbersarebasedonthenumberofentriesoforganizationsastheywerementionedby
eachnewcongressvisitor,notonsingleorganizations.RelativenumbersforFrance(N=1787),Switzerland
(N=401),GreatBritain(N=851)andUnitedStates(N=417).GraphmadeinExcelusingdataexportedfrom
Nodegoat.
21
(N=523/61.5%).AcademicandeducationalorganizationsfromtheUnitedStateswereslightlymore
prominentthaninthecaseofGreatBritainandSwitzerland.InthisrespectFrancehasthehighest
score(N=308/17.2%),partlyduetothenumerousmembersoftheInstitutdeFranceandthe
AcadémiedeMédecine,whoattendedcongresses.
Figure5.Frenchorganizationswithtwoormoreoccurrencesatcongresssessions(1876-1913)14
14
Infigure5,6,7and8organisationsarethosetowhichvisitorstoacongressdeclaretobeaffiliated
accordingtothelistspublishedbythecongressfromtheperiod1876-1913.Onlyorganizationsmentionedby
atleasttwopersonsareincluded.Thelightgrey(grisclair)nodesrepresentinternationalcongresses.Persons
havebeenomittedfromthisvisualizationinordertohighlightrelationsbetweenorganizationsand
congresses.Thesizeofthenodesdependsonthenumberofincomingandoutgoinglinks.Namesof
congresseshavebeenshortenedtoenhancereadability.GraphsmadeinNodegoat.
.
22
Figure6.Swissorganizationswithtwoormoreoccurrencesatcongresssessions(1876-1913)
23
Figure7.Britishorganizationswithtwoormoreoccurrencesatcongresssessions(1876-1913)
24
Figure8.Americanorganizationswithtwoormoreoccurrencesatcongresssessions(1876-1913)
Figures5through8showthelinksbetweenorganizationsandcongresses(theedgesrepresenta
relationfromtheorganizationtoanevent,viaaperson–yetthepersonsareomittedfromthe
graphs).Onlyorganizationsthatwererepresentedbyatleasttwopersonsatoneormoreeventsare
includedinthevisualizations.Thebiggerdarknodesrepresentorganizationsthathavealotof
individualsconnectedtothem,andthereforerelativelymany(unique)relationstocongresses.The
densityoftheconnectinglinesisclearlyhigherinpicture5showingthecaseofFrance.Thisispartly
duetothehighernumberofFrenchpersonsandorganizationsinourselection,butalsopointstoa
largerdegreeofinterconnection,ofhybridizationifyoulike.ThereareseveralFrenchorganizations
thatarelinkedtoaconsiderablenumberofdifferentcongresses.TheInstitutdeFranceandits
academies,forexample,haslinkstoeighteenforeigncongresses,theChambredesdéputés
seventeen,theConseilsupérieurdel’assistancepubliquesixteen,andtheAcadémiedemédecine
fifteen.Itisinterestingtonotethattheorganizationsthathavetenormorelinksareamixofpublic,
academicand(semi-)privatebodies.Inotherwords,incomparisontotheothercountriesFrance
showsamoresustainedandmorevarieddegreeofinvolvementintheinternationalarenaofsocial
reformasawhole.
TheclusteringislesspronouncedforSwitzerland,theUnitedKingdomandtheUnitedStatesof
America,althoughweseegroupsofnodesaroundcertainorganizationsorcongressthemes.The
Conseilfédéralsuisse,forexample,regularlysentpeopletointernationalcongresses,mostlyas
delegatesoftheSwissgovernment,butsometimestheconseillersthemselvesputinanappearance,
25
suchasNumaDrozattheeducationalcongressof1880inBrussels.FortheBritishorganizationswe
seeaclusteringaroundtheanti-alcoholismcongressesoforganizationssuchastheBritishMedical
TemperanceOrganization,theNationalTemperanceLeague,andtheBritishSocietyfortheStudyof
Inebriety(Blocker,Fahey,&Tyrrell,2003;Edman,2015;Schrad,2010),whereasAmericanpeace
organizations,suchastheAmericanPeaceSociety,theChristianArbitrationandPeaceSociety,and
theUniversalPeaceUnion,aremanifestlypresentatthelaterpeacecongresses(Curran,2003).
Whatthefourfiguresalsoshow,isthenotableroleof‘expertise’,formsofknowledgethatare
basedon‘scientific’waysofreasoning,whilecontributingtopoliticalandsocietaldiscussion.
Statisticalbureausandstatisticalsocietiesfigureprominentlyinquiteafewcongresses,andnotonly
inthemeetingsoftheInternationalStatisticalInstitute.Weobservetheinvolvementofmembersof
expertcouncils,suchastheSociétégénéraledesprisons,theConseilsupérieurdel’assistance
publiqueinFrance,andtheNationalHousingandTownPlanningCouncilinGreatBritain.Similarly,
professorsoftheuniversitiesofGeneva,ZürichandBerninSwitzerland,andfromYale,Chicagoand
ColumbiaintheUnitedStateswereamongthemorefrequentvisitorsofourinternational
congresses.
Ouranalysisinthissectionismainlyquantitative,andrequiresfurtherelaborationinordertoassess
thetransnationalimpact,ratherthanonlytherepresentation,oflocalandnationalorganizations.It
isevidentthatonewouldhavetolookbeyondinternationalcongresses,andtakeintoaccountother
formsofcommunicationandcollaboration.Forsomegroupsoforganizations,suchasthepeaceand
prisonsocieties,theexistingliteratureprovidesalotofinformation(Chao,2007;Cooper,1991;
Henze,2009;Kaluszynski,1997;Laqua,2013),whereasforotherorganizationsliteratureontheir
transnationalimpactislargelymissing.
6.Connectingcauses
Aswehaveseen,therewereanumberofpersonswhoclearlyactedasboundaryspanners,i.e.
visitedcongressesrelatedtodifferentcausesinvariouscountriesoveranumberofyears,and
occupiedprominentfunctionsinthecourseoftheseevents.Butclearly,thesocialreform
congressesdidnotdependonasmallelite.Mostcongresseswerenotsingleevents,butgrewintoa
series,orbranchedoutintosubthemes.Congressesfromwhichweselectedfourorfivesessions
frequentlyhadalotmoresessions,goingbacktotheperiodbefore1876andalsooccurringin
betweenthetimeslotsofourselection.Somecongressescontinuedtoexistoveralongperiodof
time(thesequenceofinternationalstatisticalcongresses,forexample,hascontinuedtothepresent
day),sothatitwouldanywaynotbepossibleforonepersontoattendallindividualsessionsinhisor
herlifetime.Intheend,causes,toanevengreaterextentthanpeopleororganizations,werethe
mostfundamentaltraits-d’unionsbetweencongresses.
Causesmotivatedpeopletoswingintoaction.Theywerepickedupfromcitytocity,andcountryto
country,dependingontheperceivedurgencyoftheunderlyingproblemsandthereadinessof
activists.Expertiseandmilitancydevelopedacrossborders,onthebasisofsharedexperiencesatthe
local,regionalandnationallevel.Internationalcongressesturnedsocialreformintoatruly
transnationalphenomenon.Tobesure,thisdidnotautomaticallyentailtheformationofuniform
knowledge,practices,proceduresorlegislation.Thecontraryisprobablytrue,ifwelookatsocial
welfarelegislation,statisticalprocedures,orcheaphousing,whichremainedmarkedlyshapedby
26
nationalsystemsandstyles.Moreover,congressescouldalsobecometheatreofcontestation,
wheredifferencesofopiniononcertainsolutionsorothercontroversieswereplayedout.
Betweenthefourperiodsselectedforthiscontribution,therearenoticeabledifferencesinthe
relativeprominenceofcongressesintermsofnumberofforeignvisitors.Around1880(and–
needlesstosay–basedonoursample)fivecauses‘defined’thecongressworldoftransnational
socialreform.Ifwerankthecongressesofthatperiodaccordingtothetotalnumberofforeign
visitors,wearriveatthefollowingorder:hygiene(153),education(89),prison(54),alcohol(53)and
Sundayrest(45).Bytheperiodaround1910onlyhygiene(171)survivedasanimportanttheme,
whereasinsurance(286),charity(199),housing(149)andunemployment(144)haveappearedon
thescene.Inthreeperiods(around1890,1900and1910)insuranceagainstworkplaceaccidentsis
themostconspicuouscongressthemeintermsofvisitorsfromthefourcountries,followedby
prisonreform(Moses,2015).
Onanaggregatelevelallcausesinourselectionwereinterlinkedbyparticipants,sometimesbya
fewindividuals,mostlybymore.Figure6showsthatthemessuchastownplanning,Sundayrestand
mutualismwereratherthinlyconnected,whereaspeace,charityandhygienehadmostvisitorsin
commonwithothercauses.Thecentralpositionofcharityintermsofvisitorslinkedwithother
causesisnoteworthy,andexplainswhywefoundarelativelyhighdegreeofoverlapbetweenpeople
involvedinurbancharityandattendinginternationalcongresses(seesection4).
27
Figure9.Interlinkagesbetweencausesofsocialreform(1876-1913)15
Ineachofthefourperiodsafewcongressesturnouttohavelittleornodirectconnectionwith
othercongressesthroughtheirvisitors.Around1880thisholdstrueforpeace,Sundayrestand
sanitarycongresses.Inotherwords,noneorhardlyanyparticipantvisitingoneofthesecongresses
wenttoanyothercongressinoursample.Around1890onlytheUniversalPeaceCongressof
Londonwasthinlyconnectedtoothercongresses,whileallothereighteencongressesweretoa
greaterextentlinked.ThisisdoubtlessaconsequenceofthetwelvecongressesheldinParisin1889,
but‘cause’couldbeasimportantas‘place’,asisevidencedbytheoverlapbetweentheprison
reformandpatronagecongresses(34individualsfromoursample),althoughnoneofthetwoseries
ofcongressesinquestiontookplaceinthesamecityorcountry.TheCongrèspénitentiaire
international(St-Petersburg,June1890),forexample,sharesthirteenparticipantswiththeCongrès
15
Thenodesrepresentthe22causesthatwereatthebasisoftheselectionof72congresses(seeannex1).
Thesizeofthenodesdependsonthenumberofincomingandoutgoinglinks.Thepeopleconnectingthe
congresses(andtherebythecauses)areomittedfromthevisualization,butdeterminetheprominenceofthe
edges(lines)betweenthenodes.GraphmadeinNodegoat.
28
internationalsurlepatronagedesdétenusetlaprotectiondesenfantsmoralementabandonnés
(Antwerp,October1890).Around1900fourcongressesdonotlinkupwithoneormoreoftheother
23(theSundayrest,sanitary,colonialandhygienecongresses).Around1910theseareagainthe
Sundayrestandcolonialcongresses,butalsotheonesrelatedtocriminalanthropology,antialcoholismandwomen.
Wehaveattributedeachcongresstoonesinglecause.Thissomewhathidesthefactthatsome
causesrunthroughdifferentcongresses.Manycongressespropagatedtheuseofreliablestatistics,
andproposedresolutionsonthistheme.Childprotectionemergedinprisonreform,patronage,and
welfarecongresses.Freemasonsdidnotonlypromotetheirowncause(universalfraternalism),but
alsopeaceandwelfare.
Somecauseshaveremainedhidden,atleastonpaper.Religiousissueswereseldomfoughtoutin
public,butweredisguisedincontroversiesoverorganizationorpolicy.ItisstrikingthatCatholic
organizationsweremarkedlyunderrepresentedinthecongresseswelookedat,whichwere
dominatedbyliberalelites.Apparently,theinternationalCatholicworldhadtheirownnetworks,
whichdidnotseekastrongpresenceinourcongresses(Liedtke&Weber,2009;Viaene,2015).On
anindividualleveltherewere,ofcourse,exceptions.ÉmileCheyssonandArthurFontaine,whoalso
figureinourtop30,belongedtoasocialCatholicmovement,actinginthespiritofRerumNovarum,
whofavoredworkers’protectionacrossborders.Freemasons,ontheotherhand,wereprobably
muchmorepresent(alsooutsidetheirowngatherings),butoftenchosetoremaindiscreetabout
theiraffiliation(Jansen,2015).
7.Conclusion
Bythelate1870sinternationalsocialreformcongresseshadbecomeacommondestinationfor
administrators,politicians,scientistsandotherstakeholdersinthecausesthatthecongresses
addressed.TheParisWorldExhibitionof1889constitutedanothermajorboost:outof86
internationalcongressesorganizedintheframeworkoftheexhibition32werededicatedtoareform
cause.Bytheturnofthecentury—attheoccasionofanotherParisianWorldExhibition—these
numbershadalmosttripled.
Withsuchnumberssamplingbecomesausefulmethod.Zoominginon72internationalcongresses
onsocialreformheldbetween1876and1913wehavemappedtheparticipationof3240French,
Swiss,BritishandAmericannationalstravellingoutsidetheirhomecountries.Thisnumberof
personsgoingabroadtorepresenttheircountry,city,academy,societyorsimplyacause,even
thoughlimitedtofourcountries,isinitselfatellingillustrationoftheemergenceofatransnational
sphereinsocialreform.
Wefoundthat400oftheseborder-crossingvisitorsattendedtwoormoresocialreformcongresses
and,indoingso,strengthenedaspecificcausethroughtimeorinterconnectedseveralsocialreform
causes.Inoursample1492visitorsfromthefourcountriesoriginatedinthecitiesstudiedinthe
otherchaptersinthisvolume,while145overlapwiththepersonsinvolvedinlocalcharityand
mentionedinthecitydirectories.Finally,outofthese145persons42individualsvisitedseveral
congresses,therebyrepresenting—sotospeak—thetransnationalsphereinsocialreform.Menlike
29
WilliamTolman,PaulStrauss,ÉmileCheyssonandPaulLadameweretrueboundaryspanners
betweenlocal,nationalandinternationallevels,andbetweendifferentreformcauses.
Peopleconnectedcongressesandcauses.Theyalsolinkedorganizationstointernationalcongresses,
andtherebyintegratedthe(mostlylocalandnational)organizationsintothetransnationalsphere.If
welookattransnationalsocialreformthroughthelensoftheseorganizations,weobservetrends
thatconfirmexistingscholarshipbutalsoshownewdirections.Overall,bothpublicandprivate
organizationswereincreasinglyinvolvedininternationalcongresses.Itisremarkablethatthe
commitmentofprivateorganizationsgrewevenfasterthanthatofpublicones.Theshareoflearned
institutionsandcouncilsofspecialistsincreased,emphasizingtheroleofscientificknowledgeand
expertiseinthediscussiononsocialreform.Itisfurthermoreremarkablethatthepercentageof
publicinstitutionsfromSwitzerlandequalsthatofFrance.ForFrance,weseeahigherdegreeof
‘hybridization’,i.e.thejointinvolvementofstate,academic,andprivateorganizations.
Inaway,causeswereasmuchactorsaspeople,spheresandorganizations.Outofallpersons
attendingcongressesaround1880inourselection,onlynineteenwerestillpresentaround1910.In
otherwords,throughtime,thepromotionofcausesattheinternationalleveldidnotdependonthe
sameindividuals.Peoplehandedontheircommitmenttonewgenerations,anddidsoquite
successfully,asevidencedbytherisingnumberofcongressesandparticipantsthroughoutour
period.Whatismore,allour22causesofsocialreform(asrepresentedbyonetofivecongresses)
wereinterconnected,attimesonlybyafewparticipants,butsometimesbydozens(againtaking
intoaccountourentireperiod).Charityprovedtobeahubofconnectionswithothercauses(ithas
linkswithnineteenoutofthe21othercauses).Fromthisbird’seyeperspective,aroundtheturnof
thecenturysocialreformwasadenselynetworkedfield,connectingpeople,organizationsand
causesinatransnationalsphere.
Thisshouldnotleadustotheeasyconclusionthattransnationalcontactsandcirculationofideas
andmodelsinthefieldofsocialreformledtouniformizationandstandardization.Sharinga
transnationalspheredoesnotnecessarilymeanadoptingeachother’sviewsandarrangements.
Manyparticipantsusedtheirappearancesontheinternationalstagenotonlytofurtherreform
causesacrossborders,butalsotoenhancetheirauthorityathome.
Thelastobservationclosesthecircleofthischapter,ifnotthevolumeasawhole.Ourcongress
visitorsweregoingplaces,butalsoleavingplaces.Thehistoryofcharity,andinabroadersense
socialreform,happenedatbothlevels,andbetweenthem,asourtransnationalperspectivehas
triedtocapturebyconnectingpeople,spheres,organizationsandcauses.
30
8.References
Archives.(s.a.).ArchivesNationales,BasededonnéesLeonore,DossierLH/956/34.Retrieved
August182016
http://www.culture.gouv.fr/LH/LH072/PG/FRDAFAN83_OL0956034v001.htm
Baciocchi,S.(2014).Lesmondesdelacharitésedécriventeux-mêmes.Uneétudedesrépertoires
charitablesauXIXeetdébutduXXesiècle.Revued’histoiremoderneetcontemporaine,
3(61-3),28-66.
Battagliola,F.(2006).Lesréseauxdeparentéetlaconstitutiondel'universféminindelaréforme
sociale,finxixe-débutxxesiècle.Annalesdedémographiehistorique,2006/2(112),77-104.
Berkovitch,N.(1999).FromMotherhoodtoCitizenship:Women’sRightsandInternational
Organizations.Baltimore,MD:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.
Blocker,J.S.,Fahey,D.M.,&Tyrrell,I.R.(Eds.).(2003).AlcoholandTemperanceinModernHistory:
AnInternationalEncyclopedia.SantaBarbara,Denver,Oxford:ABCClio.
Chao,A.(2007).TransmissionsandTransformations:GlobalPeaceMovementsbetweentheHague
ConferencesandWorldWarIHistoryCompass,5(5),1677-1693.
Charle,C.,&Telkès,E.(1988).LesprofesseursduCollègedeFrance:dictionnairebiographique
(1901-1939).Paris:InstitutnationaldeRecherchepédagogiqueetÉditionsduCNRS.
Congrès.(1989).LesCongrès,lieuxdel’échangeintellectuel(1850-1914).SpecialissueofMilneuf
cent.Revued’histoireintellectuelle(Vol.7).
Conrad,C.(2011).Socialpolicyafterthetransnationalturn.InP.Kettunen&P.Klaus(Eds.),Beyond
welfarestatemodels:transnationalhistoricalperspectivesonsocialpolicy(pp.218-240).
Cheltenham:EdwardElgar.
Cooper,S.E.(1991).PatrioticPacifism:WagingWaronWarinEurope,1815-1914.NewYork&
Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Curran,T.F.(2003).SoldiersofPeace:CivilWarPacifismandthePostwarRadicalPeaceMovement.
NewYork:FordhamUniversityPress.
David,T.,Heiniger,A.,&Bühlman,F.(2016).Geneva'sphilanthropistsaround1900:afieldmadeof
distinctivebutinterconnectedgroups.ContinuityandChange,31(1),127-159.
David,T.,&Tournès,L.(2014).Philanthropiestransnationales.SpecialissueofMonde(s).Histoire,
Espaces,Relations(Vol.6,Novembre).
Davies,T.(2013).NGOs.ANewHistoryofTransnationalCivilSociety.London:C.Hurst&Co.
Edman,J.(2015).TemperanceandModernity:AlcoholConsumptionasaCollectiveProblem1885–
1913.JournalofSocialHistory,49,20-52.
Harris,J.(1994).Privatelives,publicspirit:Britain1870-1914.London:Penguinbooks.
Henze,M.(2009).CrimeontheAgenda.TransnationalOrganizations1870-1955.HistoriskTidsskrift,
109,369-417.
Iriye,A.(2013).GlobalandTransnationalHistory.ThePast,PresentandFuture.Houndmills:Palgrave
Macmillan.
Jansen,J.C.(2015).InSearchofAtlanticSociability:Freemasons,Empires,andAtlanticHistory.
BulletinoftheGermanHistoricalInstitute,57,75-99.
Jensen,K.,&Kuhlman,E.(2010).Womenandtransnationalactivisminhistoricalperspective.
Dordrecht:RoL2010.
Kaluszynski,M.(1997).Réformerlasociété.Leshommesdelasociétégénéraledesprisons,18771900.Genèses,28,76-94.doi:10.3406/genes.1997.1463
Laqua,D.(2013).TheAgeofInternationalismandBelgium,1880-1930:Peace,Progressand
Prestige.Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress.
Leonards,C.(2015).VisitorstotheInternationalPenitentiaryCongresses;cooperationand
competitionofstateandsocietyonatransnationalknowledgeplatformdealingwith
penitentiarycare.ÖsterreichischeZeitschriftfürGeschichtswissenschaften,26(3),80-101.
Leonards,C.,&Randeraad,N.(2010).TransnationalExpertsinSocialReform,1840–1880.
InternationalReviewofSocialHistory,55(02),215-239.doi:10.1017/s0020859010000179
31
Lewenstein,I.(2006).CharlesRichmondHenderson(1848-1915):Minister,professor,sociologist
andprisonreformer.SocialWelfareHistoryProject.Retrievedfrom
http://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/people/henderson-charles-richmond
Liedtke,R.,&Weber,K.(2009).ReligionundPhilanthropieindeneuropäischenZivilgesellschaften:
Entwicklungenim19.und20.Jahrhundert.Paderborn:Schöningh.
Matter,S.,Ruoss,M.,&Studer,B.(2015).PhilanthropieundSozialstaat.PhilanthropyandWelfare
State.SpecialissueofÖsterreichischeZeitschriftfürGeschichtswissenschaften(Vol.26).
Moses,J.(2015).PolicyCommunitiesandExchangesacrossBorders:theCaseofWorkplace
AccidentsattheTurnoftheTwentiethCentury.InD.Rodogno,B.Struck,&J.Vogel(Eds.),
ShapingtheTransnationalSphere.Experts,NetworksandIssuesfromthe1840stothe1930s
(pp.60-81).NewYork:Berghahn.
Panter,S.,Paulmann,J.,&Szöllösi-Janze,M.(2015).MobilityandBiography:Methodological
ChallengesandPerspectives.JahrbuchfüreuropäischeGeschichte.EuropeanHistory
Yearbook,16,1-14.
Patel,K.K.(2015).AnEmperorwithoutClothes?TheDebateaboutTransnationalHistoryTwentyfiveYearsOn.Histoire@Politique,26.Retrievedfromhttp://www.histoire-politique.fr
Rabault-Feuerhahn,P.,&Feuerhahn,W.(2010).Lafabriqueinternationaledelascience.Lescongrès
scientifiquesde1865à1945.Revuegermaniqueinternationale,12.
Randeraad,N.(2015).TriggersofMobility:InternationalCongresses(1840-1914)andtheirVisitors.
JahrbuchfüreuropäischeGeschichte.EuropeanHistoryYearbook,16,63-82.
Rodgers,D.T.(2014).Bearingtales:networksandnarrativesinsocialpolicytransfer.Journalof
GlobalHistory,9(2),301-313.
Rodogno,D.,Struck,B.,&Vogel,J.(2015).ShapingtheTransnationalSphere.Experts,Networksand
Issuesfromthe1840stothe1930s.NewYork:Berghahn.
Rupp,L.J.(1997).Worldsofwomen:themakingofaninternationalwomen'smovement.Princeton,
NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Schrad,M.L.(2010).ThePoliticalPowerofBadIdeas.Networks,Institutions,andtheGlobal
ProhibitionWave.Oxford:OUP.
Tarrow,S.(2012).RootedCosmopolitansandTransnationalActivists.InS.Tarrow(Ed.),Strangersat
theGates.MovementsandStatesinContentiousPolitics(pp.181-199).Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
Thane,P.(2012).TheBenPimlottMemorialLecture2011.The“BigSociety”andthe“BigState”;
CreativeTensionorCrowdingOut?TwentiethCenturyBritishHistory,23(3),408-429.
Tolman,W.H.(1909).Socialengineering;arecordofthingsdonebyAmericanindustrialists
employingupwardsofoneandone-halfmillionofpeople.NewYork:McGraw.
Topalov,C.(1999).Laboratoiresdunouveausiècle:Lanébuleuseréformatriceetsesréseauxen
France,1880-1914.Paris:Ecoledeshautesétudesensciencessociales.
VanBree,P.,&Kessels,G.(2013a).Nodegoat:aweb-baseddatamanagement,networkanalysis&
visualisationenvironment.Retrievedfromhttps://nodegoat.net/
VanBree,P.,&Kessels,G.(2013b,18August2016).TrailblazingMetadata:adiachronicandspatial
researchplatformforobject-orientedanalysisandvisualisations.Paperpresentedatthe
Conference'CulturalResearchintheContextofDigitalHumanities',St.-Petersburg.
VanPraet,C.(2015).Tussenlokaaleninternationaal:liberalehommes-orchestresendesociale
kwestieindenegentiendeeeuw.(PhD),UniversiteitGent,Gent.
Viaene,V.(2015).ProfessionalismorProselytism?Catholic‘Internationalists’intheNineteenth
Century.InD.Rodogno,B.Struck,&J.Vogel(Eds.),ShapingtheTransnationalSphere.
Experts,NetworksandIssuesfromthe1840stothe1930s(pp.23-43).NewYork:Berghahn.
Williams,P.(2002).Thecompetentboundaryspanner.PublicAdministration,80(1),103-124.
32
9.Annexes
Annex1.Selectionofsocialreformcongressesaccordingtocauses(1876-1913)
Causes
Alcoholism
1900s
1910s
Total
London,1900 SaratogaSprings,1908 5
Paris,1899
Charity
Milan,1880
Paris,1889
Paris,1900
Copenhagen,1910
4
Colonies
Paris,1889
Brussels,1899
Gent,1913
4
Paris,1900
Cooperatives
Paris,1889
Paris,1900
Hamburg,1910
3
Criminalanthropology
Brussels1892
Amsterdam,1901
Cologne,1911
3
Education
Brussels,1880
Paris,1889
Paris,1900
London,1908
5
Brussels,1910
Freemasonry
Paris,1889
Paris,1900
Paris,1911
3
Housing
Paris,1889
Paris,1900
Vienna,1910
4
Düsseldorf,1902
Hygiene
Geneva,1882
Paris,1889
Paris,1900
Washington,1912
4
Insurance
Bern,1891
Düsseldorf,1902
Rome,1908
3
Legalprotection
Basel,1901
1
Mutualism
Paris,1900
Roubaix,1911
2
Patronage
Paris,1878
Antwerp1890
Paris,1900
Antwerp,1911
4
Peace
Paris,1878
London,1890
Paris,1900
Stockholm,1910
4
Prison
Stockholm,1878 St-Petersburg,1890 Brussels,1900
Washington,1910
4
Profitsharing
Paris,1889
Paris,1900
2
Sanitary
Washington,1881
Venice,1892
Paris,1903
Paris,1911
4
Statistics
Budapest,1876
Paris,1889
Kristiania,1899
TheHague,1911
4
Sundayrest
Geneva1876
Paris,1889
Paris,1900
Edinburgh,1908
4
Townplanning
London,1910
1
Unemployment
Paris,1910
1
Women
Paris,1889
Paris,1900
Paris,1913
3
Total
10
18
23
21
72 1880s
Brussels,1880
1890s
Paris,1889
33
Annex2.Selectedsocialreformcongresseswiththeirextendednames(1876-1913)16
1876-1882 Congrès international de statistique. Neuvième session à Budapest [29-08-1876—11-09-1876]
Congrès sur l'observation du dimanche tenu à Genève du 28 Septembre au 1er Octobre 1876
Congrès international pour le patronage des prisonniers libérés tenu à Paris les 12, 13, et 14 Septembre 1878
Congrès international des sociétés des amis de la paix tenu à Paris les 26, 27, 28 et 30 Septembre 1878
Congrès pénitentiaire international de Stockholm 15-26 Août 1878
Congrès international pour l'étude des questions relatives à l'alcoolisme, sous le haut protectorat de S.M. Le Roi
Léopold II et le patronage du gouvernement tenu à Bruxelles du 2 au 7 août 1880
Congresso internazionale di beneficenza di Milano. Sessione del 1880 [29-08-1880—04-09-1880]
Congrès international de l'enseignement, Bruxelles, 1880 [22-08-1880—28-08-1880]
The international sanitary conference [05-01-1881—01-03-1881]
Quatrième congrès international d'hygiène et de démographie [04-09-1882—09-09-1882]
1889-1892 Congrès international d'assistance tenu du 28 juillet au 4 août 1889
Congrès colonial international de Paris 1889 [30-07-1889—03-08-1889]
Congrès international des sociétés coopératives de consommation tenu à Paris du 8 au 12 Septembre 1889
Congrès international de l'enseignement primaire, tenu à Paris du 12 au 16 août 1889
Congrès maçonnique international du centenaire 1789-1889 tenu les 16 et 17 Juillet 1889
Congrès international des habitations à bon marché. Session tenue à Paris les 26, 27 et 28 Juin 1889
Congrès international d'hygiène et de démographie tenu à Paris du 4 au 11 Août 1889
Congrès international de la participation aux bénéfices tenu au palais du Trocadéro et au cercle populaire de
l'esplanade des invalides du 16 au 19 Juillet 1889
Institut international de statistique. Deuxième session tenue à Paris du 2 au 6 septembre 1889
Congrès international du repos hebdomadaire au point de vue hygiénique et social tenu à Paris au cercle populaire
de l'Exposition (Esplanade des Invalides) du 24 au 27 septembre 1889
Congrès international des oeuvres et institutions féminines [12-07-1889—18-07-1889]
Congrès international pour l'étude des questions relatives à l'alcoolisme, tenu à Paris du 29 au 31 juillet 1889
Congrès international pour l'etude des questions relatives au patronage des detenus et à la protection des enfants
moralement abandonnés [09-10-1890—14-10-1890]
Universal Peace Congress held in the Westminster Town Hall, London, from 14th to 19th July, 1890
Congrès pénitentiaire international de Saint-Pétersbourg [03-06-1890—24-06-1890]
Congrès international des accidents du travail. 2e session, tenue a Berne du 21 au 26 septembre 1891
Troisième congrès international d'anthropologie criminelle tenu à Bruxelles en Août 1892 sous le haut patronage du
Gouvernement [07-08-1892—13-08-1892]
Conférence sanitaire internationale de Venise, inaugurée le 5 janvier 1892 [05-01-1892—31-01-1892]
1899-1903 VIIe Congrès international contre l'abus des boissons alcooliques, session de Paris 1899 sous le Haut Patronage de
M. Leygues, Ministre de l'Instruction Publique [04-04-1899—07-04-1899]
Institut colonial international. Session tenue à Bruxelles les 5, 6 et 7 avril 1899
Septième session de l'institut international de statistique tenue à Kristiania de 1 au 9 Septembre 1899
The World's Temperance Congress of 1900 [09-06-1900—16-06-1900]
Congrès international d'assistance publique et de bienfaisance privée tenu du 30 Julliet au 5 Août 1900
Congrès international colonial 1900 [30-07-1900—05-08-1900]
Quatrième congrès de l'Alliance Coopérative Internationale [18-07-1900—22-07-1900]
Congrès international de l'éducation sociale, 26-30 Septembre 1900
Congrès maçonnique international de 1900 [31-08-1900—02-09-1900]
Congrès international des habitations à bon marché tenu a Paris les 18, 19, 20 et 21 juin 1900
Xe congrès international d'hygiène et de démographie à Paris en 1900 [10-08-1900—17-08-1900]
Premier congrès international de la mutualité tenu au Palais des Congrès de l'Exposition Universelle de 1900 [06-061900—10-06-1900]
Congrès international du patronage des libérés, Paris, 8-13 juillet 1900
IXe congrès universel de la paix tenu à Paris du 30 septembre au 5 octrobre 1900
Congrès pénitentiaire international de Bruxelles août 1900 [06-08-1900—13-08-1900]
Conference internationale de la participation aux bénéfices tenue a Paris au Palais de l'Economie sociale et des
Congrès du 15 au 18 Juilliet 1900
Congrès international du repos du dimanche Paris 1900 [09-10-1900—12-10-1900]
Deuxième congrès international des oeuvres et institutions féminines tenu au Palais des Congrès de l'Exposition
Universelle de 1900 [18-06-1900—23-06-1900]
Ve congrès international d'anthropologie criminelle [09-09-1901—14-09-1901]
L'association internationale pour la protection légale des travailleurs. Assemblée constitutive tenue à Bâle les 27 et
28 Septembre 1901
VI. Internationaler Wohnungskongreß, Düsseldorf, 15.-19. Juni 1902
Internationaler Arbeiter-Versicherungs-Congreß. Sechste Tagung. Düsseldorf, 17. bis 24. Juni 1902
Conférence sanitaire internationale de Paris, 10 octobre - 3 décembre 1903
1908-1913 World's Temperance Centennial Congress [14-06-1908—23-06-1908]
The first International Moral Education Congress held at the University of London, September 25-29, 1908
VIIIe congrès international des accidents du travail et des assurances sociales [12-10-1908—16-10-1908]
Thirteenth international congress on the Lord's day, held at Edinburgh, 6th to 8th October 1908
V. Congrès international d'assistance publique et privée à Copenhague 9-13 août 1910
Eighth congress of the International Cooperative Alliance [05-09-1910—07-09-1910]
Congrès international de l'éducation populaire organisé par la ligue belge de l'enseignement sous le haut patronage
du comité exécutif de l'exposition universelle et internationale de Bruxelles de 1910 du 30 août au 3 septembre
1910
IX. Internationaler Wohnungskongreß, Wien, 30. mai bis 3. juni 1910
XVIIIe congrès universel de la paix à Stockholm du 1er au 5 août 1910
Congrès pénitentiaire international de Washington Octobre 1910 [02-10-1910—06-10-1910]
Town Planning Conference, London, 10-15 october 1910
Conférence internationale du chômage. Paris, 18-21 Septembre 1910
VII. Internationaler Kongreß für Kriminalanthropologie Köln a. Rhein 9.-13. Oktober 1911
IVe manifestation maçonnique internationale [08-07-1911—10-07-1911]
IVe congrès international de la mutualité tenu à Roubaix du 11 au 22 Octobre 1911
Congrès international pour l'étude des questions relatives au patronage des libérés et à la protection des enfants
moralement abandonnés et des oeuvres du patronage [16-07-1911—20-07-1911]
Conférence sanitaire internationale de Paris, 7 novembre 1911 - 17 janvier 1912
Treizième session de l'institut international de statistique tenue à La Haye [04-09-1911—08-09-1911]
Fifteenth international congress on hygiene and demography Washington September 23-28, 1912
IIIe congrès international colonial de Gand [25-08-1913—30-08-1913]
Dixième congrès international des femmes; oeuvres et institutions féminines; droits des femmes [02-06-1913—0706-1913]
16
Thenameshavebeentakenfromthetitlepagesofthecongressproceedings.
34
Annex3.French,Swiss,BritishandAmericanvisitorstotwoormoresocialreformcongresses,
rankedaccordingtofrequencyanddiversity(1876-1913)
Name
Acland,HenryWentworth
Addams,Jane
Agache,DonatAlfred
Aguillon,LouisCharlesMarie
Aldridge,HenryR.
Alexander,JosephGrundy
Allen,ThomasWilliam
American,Sadie
Arenberg,AugusteLouisAlbéric,Princed'
Arnaud,Émile
Arquembourg,Charles
Audeoud-Monod,EmilieAntoinetteFanny
Bachem,Henri
Baily,JoshuaLongstreth
Baines,JervoiseAthelstane
Baldwin,SimeonEben
Barlow,JohnHenry
Barrows,SamuelJune
Bateman,AlfredEdmund
Beale,Dorothea
Beaumont,Auguste
Béchaux,Auguste
Bell,Clark
Bellom,MauriceJosephAmédée
Benoit-Lévy,Georges
Benoit,Paul
Bérenger,René
Bérillon,Edgar
Bert,Paul
Berthélemy,(LouisJeanBaptiste)Henri
Bertillon,Jacques
Bertrand,Henri
BiddulphMartin,John
Blondel,G.
Bluett,NugentL.
Bocquet,Auguste
Boisgrollier,Josephde
Bonet,Paul
Bonnier,Louis
Brabrook,E.W.
Briat,Edmond
Bright,AllanH.
Brouardel,PaulCamilleHippolyte
Brueyre,Loys
Brun,PaulÉmile
Brunot,Charles
Burelle,Emile
Cacheux,Émile
Campbell,John
Capitant,HenriLucien
Carpentier,PaulAuguste
Casabianca,Pierrede
Cauville,Édouard
Cérenville,Maxde
Chadwick,Edwin
Chaize,Charles
Chance,William
Chapelle,HippolyteVictor
Cherry,Bessy
Chervin,ArthurClaudiusFélix
Cheysson,Émile
Chisholm,Samuel
Claparède,René
Clark,J.B.
Clemow,FrankGerard
Coene,Julesde
Collins,WilliamJob
Corfield,WilliamHenry
Corragionid'Orelli,Charles
Corrévon,Gustave
Cossy,Robert
Courtial,Hippolyte
Craigie,PatrickGeorge
Crothers,ThomasDavison
Cuyler,TheodoreLedyard
d'Antras,Alfred,Compte
d'EstournellesdeConstant,PaulHenriBalluet,Baron
Dallou,Cécile
Dallou,LouisHenri
Darbishire,M.W.Arthur
Darby,WilliamEvans
Darcy,Henry
Darmon,Raoul
Daulte,Henri
Dawson,MilesM.
DeForest,RobertW.
Deans,James
Delatour,AlbertAlfred
Deléarde,Désiré
Delmas,Lucien
Deluz,E.
Derouin,Henri
Despagnat,Eugène
Despagnat,Jeanne
Despagnat,MmeEugène
Devine,EdwardThomas
Didier,Alfred
Drage,Geoffrey
Dreyfus
Droz,Numa
Drysdale,CharlesRobert
Dubrisay,Jules
Dubrujeaud,Léon
Dubuisson,Paul
Duflos,Fernand
Dufourmantelle,Maurice
Dujardin-Beaumetz,F.
Dumont,Georges
Dunant,Albert
Duncan,JamesH.
Dunlop,JamesCranfurd
Dupuy[2]
Eardley-Wilmot,Cecil
Eeckmann,Henri
Ellis,HenryHavelock
Erismann,FriedrichHuldreich
Farnam,HenryWalcott
Faure,Fernand
Ferdinand-Dreyfus
FernAndrews,Fannie
Ferrand,Lucien
Finlay,GraceA.
Fitch,JoshuaGirling
Flamand,Charles
Flandin,Paul
Follett,MartinDewey
Fontaine,Arthur
Ford,GeorgeBurdett
Foville,Alfredde
Fox-Bourne,HenryRichard
Fox,Douglas
Frankel,LeeK.
Fuster,Édouard
Gagneux,Claudius
Place
Oxford
Chicago
Paris
Paris
Leicester/London
London/RoyalTunbridgeWells
Blaina
NewYork
Paris
Paris/Luzarches
Lille
Genève
Paris
Philadelphia
London
NewHaven
Birmingham/London
WashingtonD.C/Boston/Paris
London
Cheltenham
Paris/Asnières-sur-Seine
Lille/Paris
NewYork
Paris
Paris
Neuchâtel
Paris
Paris
Paris
Paris/Lyon
Paris
Paris
London
Paris
?/Lausanne
Lille
Bourges
Lille
Paris
London
Paris
Liverpool
Paris
Paris
?
Paris
Lyon
Paris
Perth
Paris/LaTronche
Lille
Paris
Paris
Lausanne
London
Villerest
Godalming
Paris
London
Paris
Paris
Glasgow
Juvisy-sur-Orge
NewYork
?
Rouen
London
London
?/Paris
Lausanne
Lausanne
Chartres
London
Hartford
NewYork
Pontarlier/Saint-Pierre-d'Entremont
Paris
Paris
Paris
Caernarfon
London
Sèvres
Tunis
Lausanne
NewYork
NewYork
Kilmarnock
Paris
Paris
Paris
Genève
Paris
Paris
Paris
Paris
NewYork
Genève/Paris
London
Paris
Bern
London
Paris
Paris
Paris
Paris
Paris
Paris
Paris
Genève
Plymouth/Knutsford
Edinburgh
Paris
?
Roubaix
UnyLelant/London
Zürich/Moscow
NewHaven
Paris
Paris
Boston
Paris
London
London
Paris
Paris
Columbus
Paris
NewYork
Paris
London
London
NewYork
Paris
Lyon
Country Rank Name
GB
6 Garçon,ÉmileAuguste
US
4 Gardeil,EugèneFrançois
FR
4 Gariel,CharlesMarie
FR
2 Garnier,PaulÉmile
GB
2 Garraud,R.
GB
2 Gauckler,ÉdouardPhilippe
GB
2 Gavard,Alexandre
US
4 Geddes,Patrick
FR
4 Geddings,HenryDownes
FR
2 Gibbons,J.B.
FR
2 Gide,Charles
CH
2 Giffen,Robert
FR
2 Gigot,Albert
US
4 Gilman,NicholasPaine
GB
2 Giraud,AlbertEugèneJoseph
US
4 Girault,Arthur
FR
2 Glenn,JohnM.
US
9 Gobat,Albert
GB
6 Godin,Frédéric
GB
4 Gould,ElginRalstonLovell
FR
2 Granier,Camille
FR
4 Gray,CharlotteA.
US
9 Green,J.Frederick
FR
15 Greening,EdwardOwen
FR
4 Grinling,CharlesHerbert
CH
4 Gritton,John
FR
4 Gruner,Édouard
FR
2 Guermonprez,FrançoisJulesOctave
FR
4 Guieysse,PierrePaul
FR
4 Guillaume,Louis
FR
6 Guyot,Yves
FR
2 Hall,Mary
GB
4 Hamelin,Maurice
FR
4 Harlé,Alfred
GB
2 Hart,Ernest
FR
2 Henderson,CharlesRichmond
FR
2 Henrot,Henri
FR
2 Henrotin,EllenMartin
FR
4 Hercod,Robert
GB
4 Heyman,Michel
FR
9 Hill,Alfred
GB
2 Hill,Charles
FR
12 Holyoake,GeorgeJacob
FR
4 Honnorat,Georges
FR
2 Hürbin,JosefVictor
FR
4 Imbert,François
FR
2 Jaffé,(Joseph)John
FR
2 Jaulmes-Cook,Mme
GB
4 Jay,Raoul
FR
2 Joly,Henri
FR
4 Jouët-Pastré,Faustin
FR
4 Kaufmann,C.
FR
2 Keller,Octave
CH
4 Kellerhals,(Johann)Otto
GB
4 Kellogg,CharlesPoole
FR
4 Kergomard,Pauline
GB
4 Kerr,Norman
FR
3 Kistler,Hermann
GB
4 Laasd'Aguen,P.
FR
4 Lacassagne,Alexandre
FR
24 Lachenal,Adrien
GB
4 Ladame,PaulLouis
FR
2 Laguesse,Alexandre
US
4 Lallemand,Léon
GB
2 Laporte,E.
FR
3 Lardy,Charles
GB
4 Lathrop,JuliaClifford
GB
2 Layton-Lowndes,William
CH
4 LeFoyer,Lucien
CH
15 LePoittevin,AlfredLéon
CH
2 LeclercdePulligny,Jean
FR
2 Lefort,JeanBaptiste
GB
2 Legrain,PaulMaurice
US
2 Lemercier,Marcel
US
2 Lequin,Édouard
FR
2 Letchworth,WilliamPryor
FR
4 Leubin,Robert
FR
2 Levasseur,PierreÉmile
FR
2 Level,Georges
GB
2 Lewis,CharltonThomas
GB
2 Liard,Louis
FR
3 Liébaut,Arthur
FR
4 Liégeard,Armand
CH
4 Liégeois,Jules
US
4 Linder,Oscar
US
4 Lloyd-Baker,GranvilleEdwin
GB
2 Loch,CharlesStewart
FR
6 Lockwood,BelvaAnn
FR
2 Lombard,Franck
FR
2 LordReay
CH
2 Love,AlfredH.
FR
4 Magnan,Valentin
FR
2 Malarce,Augustinde
FR
2 Malins,Joseph
FR
2 Mamy,Henri
US
9 Manouvrier,Léon
CH
4 March,Lucien
GB
9 Marestaing,Hippolyte
FR
4 Marie,Léon
CH
4 Marshall,Alfred
GB
8 Martin,André-Justin
FR
4 Martin,Étienne
FR
2 Martin,Frédéric
FR
2 Martin,ThomasCommerford
FR
2 Mason,LewisD.
FR
2 Masson,Louis
FR
2 Masurel,EdmondJules
FR
2 Matignon,E.F.
CH
2 Matter,Etienne
GB
2 Maxwell,William
GB
4 Mayen,Alfred
FR
2 Mayen,Paul
GB
2 Mayet,Lucien
FR
2 Mayo-Smith,Richmond
GB
2 McInnes,Duncan
CH
12 MérilledeColleville,AristideCharlesHyacinthe
US
4 Meuron,Henride
FR
2 Milliet,EdmundWilhelm
FR
24 Milligan,JohnL.
US
4 Mirman,Léon
FR
4 Moch,Jules
GB
4 Monod,Henri
GB
2 Monroe,WilliamS.
FR
2 Montenach,Suzanne,Baronnede
FR
4 Moorhouse,ThomasE.
US
4 Moreld'Arleux,Charles
FR
20 Morse,RichardC.
US
4 Morsier,Blanchede
FR
6 Moscheles,FelixStone
GB
4 Moscheles,Margaret
GB
4 Moser,Christian
US
4 Motet,AugusteAlexandre
FR
12 Mouat,FredericJohn
FR
2 Moulet,Alfred
Place
Paris/Lille
Nancy
Paris
Paris
Lyon
Nancy/Caen
Genève
Edinburgh
Washington
Dublin
Paris
London
Paris
NewYork/WestNewton/Meadville
Rouen/Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray
Poitiers
NewYork/Baltimore
Bern
Guelma/Annaba
NewYork/Paris
Paris
London
London
London
Woolwich
London
Paris
Lille
Paris
Bern/Neuchâtel
Paris
Hartford
Paris
Paris
London
Chicago
Reims
Chicago
Clarence/Lausanne
NewOrleans
Birmingham
London
Brighton
Paris
Lenzburg
Marseille
Belfast
Lausanne
Neuilly-sur-Seine/Grenoble
Paris
Paris
Zürich
Paris
Bern
Waterbury
Paris
London/Hastings
Bern
Paris
Paris/Lyon
Genève
Genève/Neuchâtel
Paris/Poissy
Paris
Paris
Paris
Washington/Chicago
?
Paris
Paris
Paris
Charlesville-Mézières
Paris/Neuilly-sur-Marne
Paris
Paris
Albany
Bern
Paris
Paris
NewYork
Paris/Bordeaux
Paris
Paris
Nancy
Paris
Gloucester
London
Washington
Genève
London
Philadelphia
Paris
Paris
Birmingham
Paris
Paris
Paris
Paris
Paris
Cambridge
Paris
Lyon
Genève
NewYork
NewYork
Paris/Béthune
Tourcoing
Paris
Paris
Glasgow
Paris
Paris
Lyon
NewYork
Lincoln
Brighton
Saint-Blaise
Basel/Bern
Pittsburgh/Alleghenyville
Paris
Monaco
Paris
Montclair/Westfield
Fribourg
Delph
Paris
NewYork
Genève
London
London
Bern
Paris
London
Lyon
35
Country Rank Name
FR
12 Mourral,Amédée
FR
6 Moxom,PhilipStafford
FR
2 Müller,Hans
FR
6 Munier,Jules
FR
4 Murphy,ShirleyFoster
FR
6 Napias,HenriClaudeRobert
CH
6 Naville-Todd,Anne
GB
4 Naville,Ernest
US
2 Neill,CharlesPatrick
GB
2 Neymarck,Alfred
FR
4 Normand,AlfredNicolas
GB
2 Nourrisson,Paul
FR
3 Ogier,Jules
US
6 Oliver,ThomasD.
FR
4 Olry,Albert
FR
2 Pagès,Edmond
US
8 Paine,RobertFrint
CH
15 Paine,RobertTreat
FR
4 Passez,Ernest
US
16 Passy,Frédéric
FR
6 Paul-Boncour,AugustinAlfredJoseph
GB
4 Paul-Boncour,Georges
GB
2 Paulet,Georges
GB
4 Paulian,Louis
GB
4 Payot,Jules
FR
2 Pearce,Emily
FR
3 Perris,GeorgeHerbert
FR
2 Perrot,Annade
FR
2 Petit,Édouard
CH
24 Pettavel,Auguste
FR
4 Peyerimhoff,Henride
US
4 Peyron,LouisErnest
FR
2 PietraSanta,Prosperde
FR
3 Pinat,CharlesEugène
GB
9 Pinot,Robert
US
16 Poirrier,Alcide
FR
4 Pratt,Hodgson
US
4 Proust,AdrienAchille
CH
2 Prudhomme,Henri
US
4 Puybaraud,(AntoineFélix)Louis
GB
2 Quartier-la-Tente,Edouard
GB
2 Rendu,Ambroise
GB
8 Rey,AdolpheAugustin
FR
2 Rey,Marguérite
CH
4 Reynaud
FR
2 Rhodes,JohnMilson
GB
2 Richet,Charles
CH
4 Risler,GeorgesHenri
FR
4 Rivière,Albert
FR
6 Rivière,Louis
FR
2 Robertson,John
CH
4 Robin,Elie
FR
3 Robins,Raymond
CH
2 Roechling,H.-Alfred
US
4 Rollet,Henri
FR
6 Rossy,GastonEugène
GB
2 Rostand,Eugène
CH
4 Roth,Mathias
FR
2 Rouffio,Paul
FR
8 Roussel,Théophile
CH
9 Roux,Roger
CH
20 Ruggles-Brise,EvelynJohn
FR
6 Russ-Suchard,Carl
FR
4 Ruyssen,ThéodoreEugèneCésar
FR
4 Saint-Aubin,Joseph
FR
2 Salomon,Georges
US
4 Samama,Émilie
GB
4 Samama,Nissim
FR
4 Schloss,DavidFrederick
FR
2 Schmid,JohannFriedrich
FR
4 Schrameck,Abraham
FR
4 Scott,James
FR
12 Shephard,CharlesH.
FR
2 Siegfried,Jules
FR
2 Silberschmidt,William
US
2 Simon,Jules[1]
CH
2 Smith,Adolphe
FR
6 Smith,WilliamRobert
FR
2 Snape,Thomas
US
4 Stead,WilliamThomas
FR
6 Stein,Ludwig
FR
2 Stockmar,Joseph
FR
4 Strauss,Paul
FR
2 Stuart,James
FR
3 Suter,Anton
GB
16 Sykes,J.F.J.
GB
15 Tallack,William
US
8 Tarbouriech,Ernest
CH
9 Tarde,Gabriel
GB
4 Taylor,Sedley
US
2 Thieriet,Émilede
FR
12 Thomson,George
FR
4 Thomson,Theodore
GB
2 Thulié,Henri
FR
8 Tolman,WilliamHowe
FR
2 Towne,HenryRobinson
FR
4 Triolet,Pierre
FR
2 Trochon,(Jean)Paul
FR
2 Trueblood,BenjaminFranklin
GB
4 Vaillant,Édouard
FR
2 VanBrock,Gaston
FR
2 VansittartNeale,Edward
CH
2 Vauchez,Emmanuel
US
4 Veiller,JulesJoseph
US
2 Vermot,Édouard
FR
6 Vidal-Naquet,Albert
FR
2 Vidal,GeorgesPierreMarie
FR
2 Vidart,Camille
FR
9 Villemin,Auguste
GB
2 Vögeli-Bodmer,Arnold
FR
6 Vogt,Gustave
FR
2 Voisin,Félix
FR
2 Waterlow,David
US
4 Waterlow,Sidney(Hedley)
GB
2 Weber,GustavusA.
GB
18 Weiss,AlbertM.
CH
4 Welch,ArchibaldA.
CH
6 White,AlfredTredway
US
2 Whitelegge,BenjaminArthur
FR
4 Wilhelm,Albert
FR
4 Williams,Aneurin
FR
4 Williams,Arthur
US
4 Wilson,HenryJoseph
CH
9 Wilson,Thomas[1]
GB
2 Wines,EnochC.
FR
4 Woodall,William
US
4 Woodhead,GermanSims
CH
2 WrightSewall,May
GB
2 Wright,CarrollDavidson
GB
2 Wright,Thomas
FR
2 Yvernès,Emile
FR
15 Zürcher,EmilJohannJakob
GB
15
FR
2
Place
Rouen
Boston/Springfield
Basel
Frouard
London
Paris
Genève
Genève/Vernier
Washington
Paris
Paris
Paris
Paris
NewcastleuponTyne
Paris
Paris
Boston
Boston
Paris/Saint-Cloud
Paris/Neuilly-sur-Seine
Paris
Vitry-sur-Seine
Paris
Paris
Aix-en-Provence
Maidenhead
London
Neuchâtel
Paris
Neuchâtel
Paris
Paris
Paris
Allevard
Paris
Paris
Kettering/London
Paris
Lille
Paris
Neuchâtel
Paris
Paris
Paris
?
Didsbury
Paris
Paris
Paris
Paris
Birmingham
Paris
Chicago
London/Leicester
Paris
Sceaux
Marseille/Paris
London/Divonne-les-Bains
Paris
Paris
Vesoul/Belfort
London
Neuchâtel
Limoges/Bordeaux/Dijon
Grenoble
Paris
Paris/Marseille
Paris/Marseille
London
Bern
Paris
London
NewYork
Paris/LeHavre
Zürich
Paris
London
London
Widnes/Liverpool
London
Bern
Bern
Paris
Cambridge
Lausanne
London
London
Paris
Paris/Sarlat-la-Canéda
Cambridge
Paris
Huddersfield
London
Paris
NewYork
NewYork/Stamford
Paris
Lille
Oskaloosa/Boston
Paris
Paris
Manchester
Soulac-sur-Mer
Melun/Fresnes
Paris
Marseille
Toulouse
Genève
Paris
Zürich
Zürich
Paris
London
London
Philadelphia
Fribourg
Hartford
Brooklyn/NewYork
London
Paris
Hindhead/Haslemere
NewYork
Sheffield
Washington
NewYork
Burslem
Cambridge
NewYork/Eliot/Indianapolis
WashingtonD.C
Sharnbrook
Paris
Zürich
Country Rank
FR
4
US
2
CH
2
FR
2
GB
6
FR
9
CH
2
CH
4
US
4
FR
2
FR
2
FR
3
FR
4
GB
6
FR
3
FR
4
US
2
US
2
FR
4
FR
4
FR
4
FR
4
FR
8
FR
4
FR
2
GB
4
GB
2
CH
2
FR
2
CH
4
FR
4
FR
4
FR
9
FR
2
FR
2
FR
6
GB
16
FR
4
FR
9
FR
2
CH
6
FR
4
FR
4
FR
4
FR
2
GB
2
FR
2
FR
4
FR
8
FR
6
GB
4
FR
4
US
4
GB
2
FR
12
FR
2
FR
2
GB
2
FR
2
FR
12
FR
2
GB
2
CH
9
FR
4
FR
4
FR
4
FR
4
FR
9
GB
30
FR
8
FR
4
GB
4
US
2
FR
12
CH
2
FR
4
GB
2
GB
2
GB
2
GB
4
CH
4
CH
4
FR
25
GB
4
CH
4
GB
4
GB
2
FR
2
FR
6
GB
2
FR
2
GB
6
GB
6
FR
9
US
36
US
4
FR
2
FR
3
US
3
FR
2
FR
16
GB
4
FR
2
FR
2
FR
3
FR
6
FR
4
CH
2
FR
2
CH
4
CH
4
FR
12
GB
2
GB
2
US
4
CH
2
GB
4
US
2
GB
4
FR
4
GB
6
US
4
GB
4
US
4
US
4
GB
4
GB
4
US
8
US
40
GB
2
FR
15
CH
4
Annex4.CongressvisitorsfromFrance,Switzerland,GreatBritainandtheUnitedStates(18761913)withconnectionstolocalcharities(ca.1900),rankedaccordingtofrequencyanddiversity
Name
Tolman,WilliamHowe
Strauss,Paul
Cheysson,Émile
Ladame,PaulLouis
Gould,ElginRalstonLovell
Henderson,CharlesRichmond
Pratt,Hodgson
Loch,CharlesStewart
Motet,AugusteAlexandre
Rollet,Henri
Roussel,Théophile
Siegfried,Jules
Voisin,Félix
Napias,HenriClaudeRobert
Russ-Suchard,Carl
Rivière,Albert
Bateman,AlfredEdmund
Kergomard,Pauline
Levasseur,PierreÉmile
Arenberg,AugusteLouisAlbéric,Princed'
Benoit-Lévy,Georges
Chervin,ArthurClaudiusFélix
DeForest,RobertW.
Frankel,LeeK.
Kellogg,CharlesPoole
Lewis,CharltonThomas
Malarce,Augustinde
Mayo-Smith,Richmond
Meuron,Henride
Robin,Elie
Nourrisson,Paul
Alexander,JosephGrundy
Cacheux,Émile
Deluz,E.
Duncan,JamesH.
Green,J.Frederick
Gritton,John
Hill,Charles
Kerr,Norman
Tallack,William
Vidart,Camille
Waterlow,Sidney(Hedley)
Place
NewYork
Paris
Paris
Genève/Neuchâtel
NewYork/Paris
Chicago
Kettering/London
London
Paris
Paris
Paris
Paris/LeHavre
Paris
Paris
Neuchâtel
Paris
London
Paris
Paris
Paris
Paris
Paris
NewYork
NewYork
Waterbury
NewYork
Paris
NewYork
Saint-Blaise
Paris
Paris
London/RoyalTunbridgeWells
Paris
Genève
Plymouth/Knutsford
London
London
London
London/Hastings
London
Genève
London
36
Country
US
FR
FR
CH
US
US
GB
GB
FR
FR
FR
FR
FR
FR
CH
FR
GB
FR
FR
FR
FR
FR
US
US
US
US
FR
US
CH
FR
FR
GB
FR
CH
GB
GB
FR
GB
GB
GB
CH
GB
F
6
5
6
5
4
4
4
5
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
D Rank
6
36
5
25
4
24
4
20
4
16
4
16
4
16
3
15
3
15
3
12
3
12
3
12
3
12
3
9
3
9
2
8
2
6
2
6
2
6
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
1
3
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2