Burial services: an important community need The study of burial services offers insight into the policies and practices that early modern societies adopted to meet an important community need. EU research has looked at how different societies resolved issues related to this need. Society © BasPhoto, Shutterstock The FuSEL project focused on the 18th century as the best period to examine to understand the early modern conception of burial services. During this time, “central governments, supported by intellectuals and social theorists, began assuming public tasks that had previously been organised locally,” explains Marie Skłodowska-Curie fellow and lead researcher Dr Diego Carnevale. As such, a primary research question was: “How did these multifaceted societies solve issues of collective interest before the birth of modern public services?” Comparative case study The fellow drew on the expertise and work of the project coordinator, Professor Vanessa Harding, who has advanced knowledge specifically related to burials and funerals in early modern Paris and London. Prof. Harding has also published a monograph recognised internationally as a milestone in both urban and comparative history. London was selected to complete a long-term comparative study between Naples, Paris and London – Europe’s most populous cities until the end of the 19th century. These three capitals shared many of the pressures and difficulties of urban living. Further, they each represented complex contexts where monarchy, municipal authorities, the Church and many social bodies interacted daily. Public services and socio-political context Research revealed that during the early modern period, the beginning of the modern era, London progressed in the organisation of sacred services, especially funerary ones, based on the idea of guaranteeing a fundamental community service. This led to the standardisation of practices, and also their progressive commodification. “It is important to underline that the clergy, considered as providers of a public utility service, elaborated very early on specific ways to manage not just sacred ceremonies, but also many other socioeconomic, cultural and political aspects connected to them,” notes Dr Carnevale. For the purposes of FuSEL research, this rendered them a useful example of administration to lay institutions. Another important project outcome is the finding that confessional diversity did not seem to be so decisive in the differentiation of social practices. “In fact,” the fellow underlines, “the same issues were dealt with in Paris and Naples. However, the different socio-political contexts have led each reality to undertake different measures at different times.” Urban societies of the past still have more to reveal Social historians have traditionally been very cautious in establishing large comparison frameworks across Europe. Through the work and findings of FuSEL, Dr Carnevale hopes to encourage more comparative research: “Such efforts will provide new knowledge, not only on how different societies responded to similar problems, but also on the circulation of ideas and practices adopted to resolve these issues.” Initial project results are being presented at international conferences and workshops, where Dr Carnevale is also able to collect opinions and suggestions from experienced colleagues. The fellow is also currently working on a conclusive monograph planned for publication. The fellow will continue with comparative research. “After spending several years studying how the urban societies of the past dealt with a need mainly related to the spiritual sphere and social practices, now I would like to undertake a new line of research on how these same societies managed a material resource of collective interest: water supplies.” Keywords FuSEL, early modern, burial services, collective interest, public services, social practices, urban societies, comparative research, funerals
