Chapter III: Part II: Charity Among the Greeks

The Greek state.

Society in a Greek state was divided into two parts, citizens and slaves. The citizens required leisure for education, war and government. The slaves were their ministers and servants to enable them to secure this leisure. We have therefore to consider, on the one hand, the position of the family and the clan-family, and the maintenance of the citizen from public funds and by public and private charities; and on the other hand the condition of the slaves, and the relation between slavery and charity.

The slaves formed the larger part of the population. The census of Attica, made between 317 and 307 B.C., gives their numbers at 400,000 out of a population of about 500,000; and even if this be considered excessive, the proportion of slaves to citizens would certainly be very large. The citizens with their wives and children formed some 12% of the community. Thus, apart from the resident aliens, returned in the census at 10,000, and their wives and children, we have two divisions of society: the citizens, with their own organization of relief and charities; and the slaves, permanently maintained by reason of their dependence on individual members of the civic class. Thus, there is no poverty but that of the poor citizens. Poverty is limited to them. The slaves--that is to say, the bulk of the labouring population--are provided for.

From times relatively near to Hesiod's we may trace the growth and influence of the clan-family as the centre of customary charity within the community, the gradual increase of a class of poor either outside the clan-family or eventually independent of it, and the development of a new organization of relief introduced by the state to meet newer demands. We picture the early state as a group of families, each of which tends to form in time a separate group or clan. At each expansion from the family to the clan the members of the clan retain rights and have to fulfil duties which are the same as, or similar to, those which prevailed in the family. Thus, in Attica the clan-families (_genos_) and the brotherhoods (_phratria_) were "the only basis of legal rights and obligations over and above the natural family." The clan-family was "a natural guild," consisting of rich and poor members--the well-born or noble and the craftsman alike. Originally it would seem that the land was divided among the families of the clan by lot and was inalienable. Thus with the family was combined the means of supporting the family. On the other hand, every youth was registered in his phratry, and the phratry remained till the reforms of Cleisthenes (509 B.C.) a political, and even after that time a social, organization of importance.

First, as to the family--the mother and wife, and the father. Already before the age of Plato and Xenophon (450-350 B.C.) we find that the family has suffered a slow decline. The wife, according to later Greek usage, was married as a child, hardly educated, and confined to the house, except at some festival or funeral. But with the decline came criticism and a nobler conception of family life. "First, then, come laws regarding the wife," writes the author of the so-called _Economics_ of Aristotle, and the law, "thou shalt do no wrong; for, if we do no wrong, we shall not be wronged." This is the "common law," as the Pythagoreans say, "and it implies that we must not wrong the wife in the least, but treat her with the reverence due to a suppliant, or one taken from the altar." The sanctity of marriage is thus placed among the "commandments" of Hesiod, beside the duty towards the stranger and the orphan. These and other references to the Pythagoreans suggest that they, possibly in common with other mystics, preached the higher religion of marriage and social life, and thus inspired a deeper social feeling, which eventually allied itself with the Christian movement.

Next, as to parents and children: the son was under an obligation to support his father, subject, after Solon's time, to the condition that he had taught him a trade; and after Solon's time the father had no claim for support from an illegitimate son. "The possession of children," it was said (Arist. _Econ._), "is not by nature for the public good only, but also for private advantage. For what the strong may gain by their toil for the weak, the weak in their old age receive from the strong... Thus is the nature of each, the man and the woman, prearranged by the Divine Being for a life in common." Honour to parents is "the first and greatest and oldest of all debts" (Plato, _Laws_, 717). The child has to care for the parent in his old age. "Nemesis, the minister of justice ([Greek: dike]), is appointed to watch over all these things." And "if a man fail to adorn the sepulchre of his dead parents, the magistrates take note of it and inquire" (Xen. _Mem._ ii. 14). The heightened conception of marriage implies a fuller interpretation of the mutual relations of parent and child as well; both become sacred.

Then as to orphans. Before Solon's time (594 B.C.) the property of any member of the clan-family who died without children went to the clan; and after his time, when citizens were permitted to leave their property by will, the property of an intestate fell to the clan. This arrangement carried with it corresponding duties. Through the clan-family provision was made for orphans. Any member of the clan had the legal right to claim an orphan member in marriage; and, if the nearest agnate did not marry her, he had to give her a dowry proportionate to the amount of his own property. Later, there is evidence of a growing sense of responsibility in regard to orphans. Hippodamus (about 443 B.C.), in his scheme of the perfected state (Arist. _Pol._ 1268), suggested that there should be public magistrates to deal with the affairs of orphans (and strangers); and Plato, his contemporary, writes of the duty of the state and of the guardian towards them very fully. Orphans, he proposes (_Laws_, 927), should be placed under the care of public guardians. "Men should have a fear of the loneliness of orphans ... and of the souls of the departed, who by nature take a special care of their own children.... A man should love the unfortunate orphan (boy or girl) of whom he is guardian as if he were his own child; he should be as careful and diligent in the management of the orphan's property as of his own--or even more careful still."

To relieve the poverty of citizens and to preserve the citizen-hood were objects of public policy and of charity. In Crete and Sparta the citizens were wholly supported out of the public resources. In Attica the system was different. The citizens were aided in various ways, in which, as often happens, legal or official and voluntary or private methods worked on parallel lines. The means were (1) legal enactment for release of debts; (2) emigration; (3) the supply of corn; (4) poor relief for the infirm, and relief for the children of those fallen in war; (5) emoluments; (6) voluntary public service, separate gifts and liberality; (7) loan societies.

(1) In 594 B.C. the labouring class in Attica were overwhelmed with
debts and mortgages, and their persons pledged as security. Only by a
sharp reform was it possible to preserve them from slavery. This Solon
effected. He annulled their obligations, abolished the pledge of the
person, and gave the labourers the franchise (but see under SOLON).
Besides the laws above mentioned, he gave power to the Areopagus to
inquire from what sources each man obtained the necessaries of life,
and to punish those who did not work. His action and that of his
successor, Peisistratus (560 B.C.), suggest that the class of poor
([Greek: aporoi]) was increasing, and that by the efforts of these two
men the social decline of the people was avoided or at least
postponed. Peisistratus lent the poor money that they might maintain
themselves in husbandry. He wished, it is said (Arist. _Ath. Pol._
xvi.), to enable them to earn a moderate living, that they might be
occupied with their own affairs, instead of spending their time in the
city or neglecting their work in order to visit it. As rent for their
land they paid a tenth of the produce.

(2) Akin to this policy was that of emigration. Athenians, selected in
some instances from the two lowest political classes, emigrated,
though still retaining their rights of citizenship. In 570-565 B.C.
Salamis was annexed and divided into lots and settled, and later
Pericles settled more than 2750 citizens in the Chersonese and
elsewhere--practically a considerable section of the whole body of
citizens. "By this means," says Plutarch, "he relieved the state of
numerous idle agitators and assisted the necessitous." In other states
this expedient was frequently adopted.

(3) A third method was the supply of corn at reduced rates--a method
similar to that adopted, as we shall see, at Rome, Constantinople and
elsewhere. The maintenance of the mass of the people depended on the
corn fleets. There were public granaries, where large stores were laid
up at the public expense. A portion of all cargoes of corn was
retained at Athens and in other ways importation was promoted.
Exportation was forbidden. Public donations and distributions of corn
were frequent, and in times of scarcity rich citizens made large
contributions with that object. The distributions were made to adult
citizens of eighteen years of age and upwards whose names were on the
registers.

(4) In addition to this there was a system of public relief for those
who were unable to earn a livelihood on account of bodily defects and
infirmities. The qualification was a property test. The property of
the applicant had to be shown to be of a value of not more than three
minae (say L12). Socrates, it may be noted, adopts the same method of
estimating his comparative poverty (Xen. _Econ._ 2. 6), saying that
his goods would realize about five minae (or about twenty guineas).
The senate examined the case, and the ecclesia awarded the bounty,
which amounted to 1 or 2 obols a day, rather more than 1-1/2d. or
3d.--out-door relief, as we might say, amounting at most to about 1s.
9d. a week. There was also a fund for the maintenance of the children
of those who had fallen in war, up to the age of eighteen.

(5) But the main source of support was the receipt of emoluments for
various public services. This was not relief, though it produced in
the course of time the effect of relief. It was rather the Athenian
method of supporting a governing class of citizens.

The inner political history of Athens is the history of the extension
of the franchise to the lower classes of citizens, with the privileges
of holding office and receiving emoluments. In early times, either by
Solon (q.v.) or previously, the citizens were classified on the basis
of property. The rich retained the franchise and the right of holding
office; the middle classes obtained the franchise; the fourth or
lowest class gained neither. By the reforms of Cleisthenes (509 B.C.)
the clan-family and the phratry were set aside for the _deme_ or
parish, a geographical division superseding the social. Finally, about
478 B.C., when all had acquired the franchise, the right to hold
office also was obtained by the third class. These changes coincided
with a period of economic progress. The rate of interest was high,
usually 12%; and in trading and bottomry the returns were much higher.
A small capital at this interest soon produced comparative wealth; and
simultaneously prices were falling. Then came the reaction. "After the
Peloponnesian war" (432-404 B.C.), writes Professor Jebb, "the wealth
of the country ceased to grow, as population had ceased to grow about
50 years sooner. The rich went on accumulating: the poor, having no
means of enriching themselves by enterprise, were for the most part
occupied in watching for some chance of snatching a larger share of
the stationary total." Thus the poorer classes in a time of prosperity
had won the power which they were able to turn to their own account
afterwards. A period of economic pressure followed, coupled with a
decline in the population; no return to the land was feasible, nor was
emigration; the people had become town-folk inadaptable to new uses;
decreasing vitality and energy were marked by a new temper, the
"pauper" temper, unsettled, idle and grasping, and political power was
utilized to obtain relief. The relief was forthcoming, but it was of
no avail to stop the general decline. The state, it might almost be
said, in giving scope to the assertion of the spirit of dependence,
had ruined the self-regarding energy on which both family and state
alike depended. The emoluments were diverse. The number of citizens
was not large; the functions in which citizens could take part were
numerous; and when payment was forthcoming the poorer citizens pressed
in to exercise their rights (cf. Arist. _Pol._ 1293 a). All Athenian
citizens could attend the public assembly or _ecclesia_. Probably the
attendance at it varied from a few hundred to 5000 persons. In 395
B.C. the payment for attendance was fixed at 3 obols, or little more
than 4-1/2d. a day--for the system of payment had probably been
introduced a few years before (but see ECCLESIA and refs.). A juror or
_dicast_ would receive the same sum for attendance, and the courts or
juries often consisted of 500 persons. If the estimate (Bockh, _Public
Economy of Athens_, Eng. trans. pp. 109, 117) holds good that in the
age of Demosthenes (384-323 B.C.) the member of a poor family of four
free persons could live (including rent) on about 3.3d. or between 2
and 3 obols a day, the pay of the citizen attending the assembly or
the court would at least cover the expenses of subsistence. On the
other hand, it would be less than the pay of a day labourer, which was
probably about 4 obols or 6d. a day. In any case many citizens--they
numbered in all about 20,000--in return for their participation in
political duties would receive considerable pecuniary assistance.
Attending a great public festival also, the citizen would receive 2
obols or 3d. a day during the festival days; and there were besides
frequent public sacrifices, with the meal or feast which accompanied
them. But besides this there were confiscations of private property,
which produced a surplus revenue divisible among the poorer citizens.
(Some hold that there were confiscations in other Greek states, but
not in Athens.) In these circumstances it is not to be wondered that
men like Isocrates should regret that the influence of the Areopagus,
the old court of morals and justice in Athens, had disappeared, for it
"maintained a sort of censorial police over the lives and habits of
the citizens; and it professed to enforce a tutelary and paternal
discipline, beyond that which the strict letter of the law could mark
out, over the indolent, the prodigal, the undutiful, and the deserters
of old rite and custom."

(6) In addition to public emoluments and relief there was much private
liberality and charity. Many expensive public services were undertaken
honorarily by the citizens under a kind of civic compulsion. Thus in a
trial about 425 B.C. (Lysias, _Or._ 19. 57) a citizen submitted
evidence that his father expended more than L2000 during his life in
paying the expenses of choruses at festivals, fitting out seven
triremes for the navy, and meeting levies of income tax to meet
emergencies. Besides this he had helped poor citizens by portioning
their daughters and sisters, had ransomed some, and paid the funeral
expenses of others (cf. for other instances Plutarch's _Cimon_,
Theophrastus, _Eth._, and Xen. _Econ._).

(7) There were also mutual help societies ([Greek: eranoi]). Those for
relief would appear to have been loan societies (cf. Theoph. _Eth._),
one of whose members would beat up contributions to help a friend, who
would afterwards repay the advance.

The criticisms of Aristotle (384-321 B.C.) suggest the direction to
which he looked for reform. He (_Pol._ 1320 a) passes a very
unfavourable judgment on the distribution of public money to the
poorer citizens. The demagogues (he does not speak of Athens
particularly) distributed the surplus revenues to the poor, who
received them all at the same time; and then they were in want again.
It was only, he argued, like pouring water through a sieve. It were
better to see to it that the greater number were not so entirely
destitute, for the depravity of a democratic government was due to
this. The problem was to contrive how plenty ([Greek: euporia], not
poverty, [Greek: aporia]) should become permanent. His proposals are
adequate aid and voluntary charity. Public relief should, he urges, be
given in large amounts so as to help people to acquire small farms or
start in business, and the well-to-do ([Greek: euporoi]) should in the
meantime subscribe to pay the poor for their attendance at the public
assemblies. (This proves, indeed, how the payments had become poor
relief.) He mentions also how the Carthaginian notables divided the
destitute amongst them and gave them the means of setting to work, and
the Tarentines ([Greek: koina poiountes]) shared their property with
the poor. (The Rhodians also may be mentioned (Strabo xiv. c. 652),
amongst whom the well-to-do undertook the relief of the poor
voluntarily.) The later word for charitable distribution was a sharing
([Greek: koinonia], Ep. Rom. xv. 26), which would seem to indicate
that after Aristotle's time popular thought had turned in that
direction. But the chief service rendered by Aristotle--a service
which covered indeed the whole ground of social progress--was to show
that unless the purpose of civil and social life was carefully
considered and clearly realized by those who desired to improve its
conditions, no change for the better could result from individual or
associated action.

Two forms of charity have still to be mentioned: charity to the stranger and to the sick. It will be convenient to consider both in relation to the whole classical period.

With the growth of towns the administration of hospitality was elaborated.

The stranger.

(1) There was hospitality between members of families bound by the
rites of host and guest. The guest received as a right only shelter
and fire. Usually he dined with the host the first day, and if
afterwards he was fed provisions were supplied to him. There were
large guest-chambers ([Greek: xenon]) or small guest-houses,
completely isolated on the right or left of the principal house; and
here the guest was lodged. (2) There were also, e.g. at Hierapolis
(Sir W.M. Ramsay's _Phrygia_, ii. 97), brotherhoods of hospitality
([Greek: xenoi tekmereioi], bearers of the sign), which made
hospitality a duty, and had a common chest and Apollo as their
tutelary god. (3) There were inns or resting-places ([Greek:
katagogia]) for strangers at temples (Thuc. iii. 68; Plato, _Laws_,
953 A) and places of resort ([Greek: lesche]) at or near the temples
for the entertainment of strangers--for instance, at a temple of
Asclepius at Epidaurus (Pausanias ii. 174); and Pausanias argues that
they were common throughout the country. Probably also at the temples
hospitable provision was made for strangers. The evidence at present
is not perhaps sufficiently complete, but, so far as it goes, it tends
to the conclusion that in pre-Christian times hospitality was provided
to passers-by and strangers in the temple buildings, as later it was
furnished in the monasteries and churches. (4) There were also in
towns houses for strangers ([Greek: xenon]) provided at the public
cost. This was so at Megara; and in Crete strangers had a place at the
public meals and a dormitory. Xenophon suggested that it would be
profitable for the Athenian state to establish inns for traders
([Greek: katagogia demusia]) at Athens. Thus, apart from the official
hospitality of the proxenus or "consul," who had charge of the affairs
of foreigners, and the hospitality which was shown to persons of
distinction by states or private individuals, there was in Greece a
large provision for strangers, wayfarers and vagrants based on the
charitable sentiment of hospitality. Among the Romans similar customs
of private and public hospitality prevailed; and throughout the empire
the older system was altered, probably very slowly. In Christian times
(cf. Ramsay above) Pagan temples were (about A.D. 408) utilized for
other purposes, including that of hospitality to strangers.

The sick.

Round the temples, at first probably village temples, the organization of medical relief grew up. Primitive medicine is connected with dreams, worship, and liturgical "pollution," punishment and penitence, and an experimental practice. Finally, systematic observation and science (with no knowledge of chemistry and little of physiology) assert themselves, and a secular administration is created by the side of the older religious organization.

Sickness among primitive races is conceived to be a material substance
to be extracted, or an evil spirit to be driven away by incantation.
Religion and medicine are thus at the beginning almost one and the
same thing. In Anatolia, in the groups of villages (cf. Ramsay as
above, i. 101) under the theocratic government of a central [Greek:
ieron] or temple, the god Men Karou was the physician and saviour
([Greek: soter] and [Greek: sozon]) of his people. Priests, prophets
and physicians were his ministers. He punished wrong-doing by diseases
which he taught the penitent to cure. So elsewhere pollution, physical
or moral, was chastened by disease and loss of property or children,
and further ills were avoided by sacrifice and expiation and public
warning. In the temple and out of this phase of thought grew up
schools of medicine, in whose practice dreams and religious ritual
retained a place. The newer gods, Asclepius and Apollo, succeeded the
older local divinities; and the "sons" of Asclepius became a
profession, and the temple with its adjacent buildings a kind of
hospital. There were many temples of Asclepius in Greece and
elsewhere, placed generally in high and salubrious positions. After
ablution the patient offered sacrifices, repeating himself the words
of the hymn that was chanted. Then, when night came on, he slept in
the temple. In the early dawn he was to dream "the heavenly dream"
which would suggest his cure; but if he did not dream, relations and
others--officials at the temple--might dream for him. At dawn the
priests or sons of Asclepius came into the temple and visited the
sick, so that, in a kind of drama, where reality and appearance seemed
to meet, the patients believed that they saw the god himself. The next
morning the prescription and treatment were settled. At hand in the
inn or guest-chambers of the temple the patient could remain, sleeping
again in the temple, if necessary, and carrying out the required
regimen. In the temple were votive tablets of cases, popular and
awe-inspiring, and records and prescriptions, which later found their
way into the medical works of Galen and others. At the temple of
Asclepius at Epidaurus was an inn ([Greek: katagogion]) with four
courts and colonnades, and in all 160 rooms. (Cf. Pausanias ii. 171;
and _Report, Archaeol. in Greece_, R.C. Bosanquet, 1899, 1900.)

At three centres more particularly, Rhodes, Cnidos and Cos, were the medical schools of the Asclepiads. If one may judge from an inscription at Athens, priests of Asclepius attended the poor gratuitously. And years afterwards, in the 11th century, when there was a revival of medicine, we find (Daremberg, _La Medecine: histoire et doctrines_) at Salerno the Christian priest as doctor, a simple and less palatable pharmacy for the poor than for the rich, and gratuitous medical relief.

Besides the temple schools and hospitals there was a secular organization of medical aid and relief. States appointed trained medical men as physicians, and provided for them medical establishments ([Greek: iatreia], "large houses with large doors full of light") for the reception of the sick, and for operations there were provided beds, instruments, medicines, &c. At these places also pupils were taught. A lower degree of medical establishment was to be found at the barbers' shops. Out-patients were seen at the _iatreia_. They were also visited at home. There were doctors' assistants and slave doctors. The latter, apparently, attended only slaves (Plato, _Laws_, 720); they do "a great service to the master of the house, who in this manner is relieved of the care of his slaves." It was a precept of Hippocrates that if a physician came to a town where there were sick poor, he should make it his first duty to attend to them; and the state physician attended gratuitously any one who applied to him. There were also travelling physicians going rounds to heal children and the poor. These methods continued, probably all of them, to Christian times.

It has been argued that medical practice was introduced into Italy by the Greeks. But the evidence seems to show that there was a quite independent Latin tradition and school of medicine (Rene Brian, "Medecine dans le Latium et a Rome," _Rev. Archeol._, 1885). In Rome there were consulting-rooms and dispensaries, and houses in which the sick were received. Hospitals are mentioned by Roman writers in the 1st century A.D. There were infirmaries--detached buildings--for sick slaves; and in Rome, as at Athens, there were slaves skilled in medicine. In Rome also for each _regio_ there was a chief physician who attended to the poorer people.

Slavery.

Slavery was so large a factor in pre-Christian and early Christian society that a word should be said on its relation to charity. Indirectly it was a cause of poverty and social degradation. Thus in the case of Athens, with the achievement of maritime supremacy the number of slaves increased greatly. Manual arts were despised as unbecoming to a citizen, and the slaves carried on the larger part of the agricultural and industrial work of the community; and for a time--until after the Peloponnesian War (404 B.C.)--slavery was an economic success. But by degrees the slave, it would seem, dispossessed the citizen and rendered him unfit for competition. The position of the free artisan thus became akin to that of the slave (Arist. _Pol._ 1260 a, &c.), and slavery became the industrial method of the country. Though Greeks, Romans, Jews and Christians spent money in ransoming individual slaves and also enfranchised many, no general abolition of slavery was possible. At last through economic changes the new status of _coloni_, who paid as rent part of the produce of the land they tilled, superseded the status of slavery (cf. above; the system turned to account by Peisistratus). But this result was only achieved much later, when a new society was being created, when the slaves from the slave prisons (_ergastula_) of Italy joined its invaders, and the slave-owner or master, as one may suppose, unable any longer to work the gangs, let them become _coloni_.

In Greece the feeling towards the slave became constantly more humane. Real slavery, Aristotle said, was a cast of mind, not a condition of life. The slave was not to be ordered about, but to be commanded and persuaded like a child. The master was under the strongest obligation to promote his welfare. In Rome, on the other hand, slavery continued to the end a massive, brutal, industrial force--a standing danger to the state. But alike in Greece and Rome the influence of slavery on the family was pernicious. The pompous array of domestic slaves, the transfer of motherly duties to slave nurses, the loss of that homely education which for most people comes only from the practical details of life--all this in later Greece and Italy, and far into Christian times, prevented that permanent invigoration and reform of family life which Jewish and Christian influences might otherwise have produced.