The woman simply said she was "blessed to be in the right place at the right time," and wanted to share her good fortune.

So three years ago she decided to give $250,000 in gifts to her alma mater, Chatham College, in honor of administrators she had admired as a student. The gifts, which Chatham learned of yesterday, came with a condition, however: They must be anonymous.

"It seemed to me more significant to honor the people in whose names these gifts would be rather than having my name attached to them," said the Pittsburgh-area woman, who has given other named gifts to cultural and medical organizations in the city.

In this case, she said, "since the [honorees] were living, I didn't want them to feel bound to me in any way."

Such anonymous giving is rare, according to a 1991 survey of 563 nonprofit groups, one of the few done on such gifts. Conducted by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University in Bloomington, the survey found that anonymous giving accounted for less than 1 percent of the donations.

For several years the center has tracked gifts of more than $1 million on a quarterly basis, although it estimates that its figures account for just one-fourth to one-half of the total gifts made.

For this year's third quarter, it found anonymous giving accounted for 4.6 percent, or 19 of the 408 gifts of more than $1 million. The largest anonymous gift during the quarter was $50 million to Middlebury College in Vermont.

One of the biggest recent anonymous gifts came in 2001 when $360 million was given to Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y.

Anonymous gifts have been esteemed by nearly all religious traditions, from Jesus' injunction in the Sermon on the Mount to give without ostentatious display, to the medieval Jewish philosopher Maimonides' laws concerning gifts to the poor. Giving without regard to personal recognition is seen as coming from a higher selfless level.

But the most common reason for anonymous gifts is a more temporal motivation: to minimize solicitations from other organizations.

According to the Center on Philanthropy's 1991 study, that reason was cited by more than 50 percent of respondents as their primary motivation for withholding their names.

The five other most frequently mentioned reasons were to keep information from heirs and family members, to avoid pressure from another organization that might have received the funds, religious conviction, donor modesty, and unease or guilt about personal wealth.

Esther Barazzone, president of Chatham College, said as far as the school was concerned, "any gift is gratefully accepted." But she applauded the reasoning behind the anonymous donor's intentions. The reactions of those who were honored by the gifts were priceless, she said.

"It's a little bit like Santa Claus at Christmas," Barazzone said. "It makes a child think the whole world loves him, and not just Mommy and Daddy."

Barazzone, however, is not alone when she says: "In truth, I do prefer gifts with names attached.

"Seeing a person's name behind something inspires other people to give. It does help those of us who try to get people to give gifts and try to teach philanthropy to another generation."

Having names attached to donations can provide "leverage," meaning the recipient organization can parlay the donor's name or reputation into garnering more financial gifts.

Les Lenkowsky, a professor of public affairs and philanthropic studies with the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, calls such people "lead donors." They provide a signaling effect -- a seal of approval -- that lets the public know the cause or project is deserving of support.

"They are lead donors partly because they give big money," Lenkowsky said, "and partly because they have a reputation for investing in important things philanthropically.

"If everyone gave anonymously, there would be no lead donors."

This time of year tends to bring the philanthropist out in people. The giving can range from charities that collect money to buy toys for underprivileged children, to the two $250,000 gifts to Chatham. Some call it the holiday spirit, hearkening back to the Greek roots of "philanthropy," meaning "love man." Others would say the primary spirit is year-end tax planning.

A number of such year-end donations are anonymous, said Carrie Coghill, president of D.B. Root & Co., a Downtown wealth management firm. Coghill said anonymous gifts are not unusual, but they're given for different reasons.

Her experience shows that people with a net worth of $1 million to $3 million, what she calls the "lower end of high net worth," give anonymously because they are concerned about what their peers might think.

Those with a higher net worth just don't want the recognition.

"They feel good about the fact that they can give this," she said. "They're not looking for the kudos."