C b.

As i. 2i '■iLeto
oO
V
O
CHARITIES AND
SOCIAL AID IN
GREECE AND ROME
A. R. Hands

kniuksji.ad ee cnnnoBA
a-CSOFIA Y LEIRas

THAMES AND-HUDSON----
De^irtamente de Hsiori*
Bl B LI OTECA
ReL»...Cut~£.;.AL——
N.*—i------------------
 MUST PUBLISHED IN GREAT BRITAIN, ip68
© 1968 A. R. HANDS
PRINTED IN ENGLAND BY
THE CAMELOT PRESS LTD., LONDON and SOUTHAMPTON
 CONTENTS

PREFACE 7

I INTRODUCTION II

II CHARITIES AND LEGAL PERSONALITY 17

III GIVING FOR A RETURN 26

IV THE NATURE OF THE RETURN 49

V THE POOR 62

VI PITY FOR THE DESTITUTE 77

VII THE PROVISION OF BASIC COMMODITIES 89

VIII EDUCATION AND CULTURE Il6

IX HEALTH AND HYGIENE Ijl

NOTES I47

DOCUMENTS I75
I

INDEX 211
 PREFACE
The title of this book (or at least its first word) may seem to
beg a large question as probably no two readers will agree as to
what should be included under it. This may be one reason why
much of the material assembled here is generally distributed over
a wide range of books dealing with Greek and Roman social life
in general, or with specific aspects of it, rather than organized in
the present way. It may also explain why, in one recent attempt to
treat of much the same subject, H. Bolkestein followed a compara­
tive method by which Ancient Egyptian and Jewish ‘charity’
provided the contrast with classical ‘well-doing’. To some extent
I, too, shall follow such a method, but, having had the advantage
of referring to recent works of great interest concerning English
philanthropy in modem times, shall place greater emphasis on the
comparisons and contrasts to be made with the latter.
Philanthropic activity can never be understood (or defined)
except against the background of the social ethos of the age to
which it belongs. Hence the early chapters discuss the philosophy
of life or theory of the city-state rather than its actual practice or
institutions. The advanced scholar will find parts of these chapters
rather elementary, but without them the subsequent chapters
would, for the more general reader, seem almost irrelevant. On
the other hand, few people, other than lawyers themselves, find a
chapter on law easily digestible. Since, however, benefactors of
almost every age, whether they regard the law as an enigma or
merely as an ass, have had to contend with it when they have
wanted to establish a permanent fund or foundation, such a
chapter was unavoidable. I have tried to simplify its technicalities
(for myself, as much as for the reader) by concentrating on a few
specific instances in which such benefactors either conformed to
or circumvented the current demands of the law.
 S PREFACE
The argument of these early chapters—like that of a Platonic
dialogue—does not run consistently in one direction. This
simply reflects my doubt whether a simple formula is to be found
to explain human behaviour in this field. The answer to a whole
series of questions implicit here can be neither a complete positive
nor a complete negative. So, if the reader finds himself left with a
question rather than an answer as regards, for instance, the
apparent similarity between classical ethical theory at its highest
and the ethics of Christianity, this is largely intended. And should
he wish to take further one essential difference relevant to our
subject, he might find it in the contrasting idea of‘immortality
and the qualifications for it.
The following chapters, dealing with the application of theory,
are self-explanatory. The documents bring us a step nearer to
actuality in the life of the classical city-state. Just because the
topics discussed in this book are more commonly dealt with in
more general studies, the reader often has to be content merely
with a reference to epigraphical publications for a statement s
illustration or substantiation. But between reference to such
publications and a sight by the reader of the inscriptions thcm-
selves there is normally a great gulf; nor is a translation always
available to the more general reader. Indeed, even a document in
translation is still only partly satisfactory, and in a book of this
kind it is scarcely practicable to indicate by complicated typo­
graphical means the exact character of each inscription, its gaps
and uncertainties. None the less, in dealing with a subject of this
kind, where much depends on personal interpretation of the word
charity, I consider the inclusion of these documents to be par­
ticularly valuable.
The square brackets used in the documents indicate either an
abbreviation of the text, where line numbers are given, e.g.
[//. 11-13], the restoration of the text where the inscription is
defective, or, occasionally, the anglicized form of the technical
term appearing in the original document. I gratefully acknow­
ledge permission to use translations in certain instances from the
books and journals cited in the introduction to the documents.
For the reader without a knowledge of Greek a word about the
 PREFACE 9

pronunciation of the Greek words here transliterated may be

useful; in particular that all Greek vowels are sounded, so that
Hine is a dissyllable—the anglicized name Irene, from the Greek
word for ‘peace’, should strictly be pronounced as a trisyllable.
The length of certain vowels is indicated when a term first
appears.
Perhaps nobody but the author should be too closely implicated
in an attempt to cover in a narrow compass a subject which
touches upon so many fields—philosophy, religion, law, econo­
mics, and others. The number of authors named in the Notes, will
indicate the extent of my debt to many scholars. Among recent
work, the articles of R. Duncan-Jones merit a special mention for
the wealth of detail and skilful analysis which they provide
regarding gifts and foundations in Italy and Roman Africa. On
several topics, especially those relating to the earlier chapters of
this book, I have benefited from discussion with colleagues at
Queen Mary College. As to the presentation of the material, the
reader will benefit not least from one of Professor Scullard’s
helpful suggestions, namely that some of my more ‘periodic’ (or
insufferably long) sentences should be broken up. Such assistance
has made this a better book than it might have been; but the
author alone is wholly responsible wherever it could have been
better than it is.
My wife provided the final philanthropic! as far as the book’s
composition was concerned, by her invaluable help with the
Index.
Queen Mary College, A. R. H.
London, 1968
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

In his account of social and economic conditions in the Greek

cities of the Hellenistic Age—an age which, together with the first
two centuries of our own era, provides most of the evidence for
our study—W. W. Tam wrote: ‘Amid all the philanthropic
feeling and public spirit of the time, philanthropy in our sense—
the organized aid of the poor by the rich—was almost unknown.’
By ‘philanthropy in our sense’ Tam had in mind that oriental
concept which was stressed as a religious duty' in Ancient Egypt
and Israel and in large measure inherited by Christian ethics.
This concept H. Bolkestein, in his IVohltatigkeit tind Arntenpflege
tin vorchristlichen Altertum, compared with the classical term
beneficence’, which he showed to have a broader intention and
therefore not to be synonymous with Arinenpflege (poor-relief),
as the oriental concept tended to be. Yet it is plain that the term
philanthropy’, while it may indeed be used today in this narrower
sense, is more commonly used in a wider sense. The same is true
of the term ‘charity’; and not only of charity in the abstract, but
also of charities—or ‘charitable uses’, as they are spoken of in
English law. Consider the Elizabethan Act of Charitable Uses of
I597> which relates to wealth left by sovereigns and

by sondric other well disposed persons, some for releifc of aged,

impotent, and poore people, some for maintenance of sicke and
maymed souldiers and martinets, schooles of learninge, free
schooles and schollers hi universities, some for repaire of bridges
portes havens causewaies churches seabankes and highwaies,
some for education and preferments of orphans . . . some for
supportacion ayde and helpe of younge tradesmen, handie-
craftesmen and persons decayed, and others for relcife or
captives, and for aide or ease of
redemption of prisoners or cautives.
 IS CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

any poore inhabitants concerning paymente of fifteenes,

settinge out of souldiers and other taxes.

This most un-Socratic of definitions, so ‘starkly and coldly secular’

in its wording, Lord Macnaghten tried in 1891 to render more
concisely. But since to his three basic categories, ‘the relief of
poverty, the advancement of education and the advancement of
religion’, he found it necessary to add an omnibus category—
‘trusts for other purposes beneficial to the community, not falling
under any one of the preceding heads’—the attempt was aban­
doned. Today the definition of the term, or rather its enumera­
tion, in English Law remains as wide as ever. It is consistent with
this legal position that entered under ‘charity’ in the Encyclopaedia
Britannica we find reference to a ‘disciplined and habitual mood
in which the mind is considerate of the welfare of others individu­
ally and generally’, followed by the comment that ‘it thus has no
necessary relation to relief or alms’. This again is merely to say that
the terms ‘charity’ and ‘philanthropy’ have come to admit of
classical as well as oriental conceptions, and it is therefore some­
what misleading to say that ‘philanthropy in our sense’ was
‘almost unknown’ to the Greeks (or to the Romans).1
Connected with Tarn’s statement is a further difficulty,
namely that in discussing philanthropy in his limited sense one
can hardly avoid the question of motive and the temptation to
emphasize a single motive at the expense of all others. And so we
are led on to the generalization that ‘broadly speaking, pity for
the poor had little place in tire normal Greek character’. Indeed
there is considerable evidence to support this statement, but if
we wish to go beyond theory to practice it is impossible to confine
the term ‘charitable’ to acts or institutions the performance or
creation of which are motivated only by pity. Apart from the
fact that the motives must always be a matter of speculation,
even when they are reported by the subject himself, they will
generally appear to be complex rather than simple in character.
For example, Jordan ascribes the upsurge of English philanthropy
in the century following the Elizabedian Act of 1597, not only to
‘an increasing sensitivity to pain and suffering’, but to the ‘Tudor

1
 INTRODUCTION 13

concern for the whole basis of public order in the face of social
upheavals and the doctrine of trusteeship put abroad by
Calvinism’. Again, Owen attributes to seven Victorian philan­
thropists a variety of motives, ranging from ‘religious commit­
ment through humanitarianism, social idealism, civic patriotism
and personal satisfaction to an undeniable, though not necessarily
ignoble, desire for self-perpetuation’. A similar variety is evident
in the history of classical beneficence. And if the role of pity in
classical beneficence often appears minimal, we may note the
comparatively recent instance of an English testator, quoted
by Owen, who left ^300 to be applied, for ever to the payment
of a man ‘who has been unsuccessful’, as the testator expressed it,
‘in the diffusion of my opinions in my published works’.2
This latter bequest, though a striking illustration of Mr Justice
Vaisey’s view that ‘the legal conception of charity has its origin
in the.eccentricities of the benevolent’, would scarcely answer to
the common notion of a charity. The latter requires at least that
a charity should (1) not be blatantly self-regarding, (2) be moti­
vated to some degree by a sense of compassion, and (3) be biased
in favour of, though not necessarily devoted exclusively to, those
most in need. It is certainly not intended in this study to deny
these emphases nor their mainly oriental derivation. Rather, by
putting classical beneficence in its full and proper context, we
shall seek to explain why it is that these emphases are so much less
evident than in oriental charity. We shall go on to notice the ways
in which this beneficence did nevertheless ameliorate the condi­
tions of the poor—even where it appears to have done so in the
absence of any explicit expression of pity. We shall also notice
how the motives which are emphasized in the classical context
reappear in the context of post-classical charities and schemes of
social aid. In this way we may come to a fairer estimate of classical
philanthropy—perhaps even to a conclusion near to that of
Tenney Frank in his account of social behaviour at Rome: ‘Just
because Christianity discovered how well the altruistic instinct
served as a foundation for religion we must not assume that it
did not exist before. It did, but it expressed itself in other forms.’3
Bolkestein cites the evidence of language as well as the social
1 •'

14 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

INTRODUCTION 15
thought and practice of the classical world in his attempt to show
Spartans, Thebans and Corinthians—to look no further than the
how its beneficence was transformed into something approaching
Greek mainland—differed widely. This being so, there is little
the concept of oriental Armenpjlege, not simply as a result of the
point in our making a fundamental division between Greeks and
spread of an oriental religion, but also through the growing social
Romans, especially since the latter when first they appeared at the
and economic assimilation of the West to the East in the early
centre of the historical stage were already taking over much of
centuries of the present era. He also tried to show that these social
the tradition of the Greek world. It will be more appropriate for
and economic changes were having their effect on Roman
present purposes to treat Rome as just one among many instances
thought and practice as early as the first century ad. As to this
of the classical city-state, though we shall not ignore evidence
date, the evidence he provided was not entirely convincing, since suggesting that the Romans had a peculiar contribution to make.
those inscriptions on which he largely relied seem to belong to a A further limitation of our study is the fact that we shall be
period later than that to which he assigned them, or to relate to almost exclusively concerned with the ideas and practice of a
persons who, although domiciled in the west, were almost comparatively narrow and wealthy upper class—of people who,
certainly (to judge by their names) of oriental origin. But it is not in today’s terms, could afford to give in hundreds rather than in
our concern to date the beginning of such a transformation, fractions of pounds. For there exists little or no evidence relating
which in any case must have affected different parts of the to the lower classes; it is often merely assumed that their attitude
classical world at different times. Rather shall we aim to define the to the less fortunate of their members was less generous than that
spirit of classical beneficence and illustrate the main features by of their betters—an assumption based largely on the grounds that
considering a wide range of sources unlikely to be much con­ charitable attitudes develop in step with education and culture.
taminated by non-classical ideas. We shall take as our extreme However, as we shall see, there were in the ancient world no
chronological limit a date c. ad 250, and direct our attention organized charities comparable with those to which the small man
particularly to three fields in which both modem charity and contributes with confidence today. Nor would it be appropriate
classical philanthropy or social aid have operated: the provision for us to make a rigid distinction between the private actions and
of foodstuffs, of education and of medical attention. In so doing, the public policy of the upper class. There are various reasons for
however, we shall not neglect the third of Macnaghten’s three this: for example, in the Greek city-state many of the apparently
main categories, since the advancement of religion, or at least public funds devoted in whole or part to benevolent purposes,
the maintenance of its outward forms, will be found involved in derived in some measure at least from private gifts which, in the
these fields, to various degrees. Finally, we shall present a series absence of independent charities, had to be publicly administered.
of documents (indicated in the text by the letter D) which may Moreover, these gifts themselves were not infrequently called
enable the reader to judge for himself how far the actions or forth by the state in circumstances which make it largely a matter
institutions to which they relate conform to his own or any other of speculation whether they were the outcome of private initiative
definition of the charitable.-* or public insistence. The latter doubt applies also to a large number
Inevitably we shall hazard broad generalizations. The evidence of ‘gifts’ given in association with the tenure of magistracies,
itself, which is never full, always uneven, and narrowed by especially where the election to a magistracy depended on a prior
selection, relates to city-states in an area stretching from Spain undertaking to provide such a gift. It is often no less difficult to
to tie Black Sea, and from the Rhine and Danube regions to decide whether the funds created by donors are more properly
°rt Africa. Such cities would have different characteristics at to be regarded as private or public, an obvious case being the
different periods, while even within a given period Athenians and booty of war faffing to the Roman military commanders, which
c
l6 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

they were expected to use for the benefit of the state, though
technically it belonged to them.5
Finally, we shall not, except in passing, concern ourselves here CHAPTER II
with public measures directed to what we might regard as
immediate and permanent solutions to social ills. For example,
there is clearly a legitimate sense in which it may be said that the
CHARITIES and legal
tribune Tiberius Gracchus was introducing a measure of public PERSONALITY
philanthropy when in 133 bc he proposed a redistribution of
public land, in order to resettle small farmers whom the changing
social and economic conditions in Italy and the constant demand Modem' chamties are generally institutions ‘existing in their
of the state for military personnel had forced to give up their own right’ with a view to achieving certain specific purposes, the
allotments. It is true that Plutarch uses of an alleged first draft of continuance of which may depend upon an indefinite series of
this law the very Greek epithet from which derives the English gifts used directly to meet recurrent expenditure, or upon a
word ‘philanthropic’, though significantly he means by it that steady income deriving from the investment of a capital sum,
Tiberius’ law did not unduly serve the interests of the poor at the usually a permanent endowment. It is particularly with charities
expense of the rich. In another sense, however, such measures were where the income is of the latter kind, involving the maintenance
designed to eliminate the need for private charity or public aid, of a clear distinction between capital and income, that English
and since they were in any case seldom carried into effect or law is concerned; but in either case the funds will be in the hands
adequate for long, there normally remained to a lesser or greater of trustees who receive tide of ownership only for the perform­
degree in every city-state scope for private benevolence and the ance of duties in accordance with the stated object of the charity,
founding of public charitable institutions. It is to the latter that and are otherwise in the eyes of the law simply a group of private
we shall in the main confine our attention, although we shall individuals. By contrast, in dealing with charities (or their nearest
have occasion to observe that just because contemporary political approximations) in the classical city-state, we shall make frequent
thinking—especially that of the Greeks—was more optimistic reference to gifts, whedier for immediate expenditure or (more
than modern thought, it tended to concentrate on the former type relevant to permanent charitable purposes) for investment, to the
of solution rather than the latter.6 cities themselves, that is to die body politic as a whole or to one
or more of its constituent groups—gifts which, once handed over,
become the legal property of the recipient. It is essential, there-
ore, as a first step in our study, to make clear our reasons for
dealing With gifts which prima facie are so different in character 7
Ofletl atlT T™ largely °n a P°int oflaw-the concept
fund is conT’011^1^ a«CCOrdmg tO a modern charitable

==;
b y w’twtex=
aged by the Elizabethan Act of Charitable Uses
 ■

)
l8 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME
CHARITIES AND LEGAL PERSONALITY 19
in the post-Reformation period, when there was considerable
was always the chance of a break in the chain of recipients result­
uncertainty as to what could be regarded in law as a good
ing from unforseen contingencies, especially in a world where
charitable object. Briefly, the Act’s effect was to extend to chari­
chance often seemed to rule and the average expectation of life
ties serving mainly social or welfare purposes (as enumerated in
was low. What was wanted was some artificial person or body
the previous chapter) privileges similar to those which in the not subject to such contingencies. Secondly, even if chance did
Middle Ages had been granted by the Ecclesiastical Courts to not intervene, how could one guarantee that the immediate
charities more narrowly concerned with the advancement of recipient, let alone the series of persons who succeeded to the
religion (though these might also involve the advancement of property, would in fact use it for the purpose for which it had
education and the relief of poverty). For example, it waived an been given? In the case of the immediate recipient, indeed, it was
existing rule which limited the duration of a trust, and provided possible to think of a variety of devices, such as the appointment
that, according to the doctrine of cy pres, a new objective might of joint recipients (the one to watch the other), a provision for
be specified, as near as possible to the original, should the latter revoking the fund, or for its reversion to a third party, in case of
become incapable of execution. Again, it provided machinery departure from the stated purpose of the gift; or the threat of a
for checking abuses in the administration of trusts, namely fine or the invocation of the gods to curse the offender and bless
ad hoc commissions which were the ancestors of the permanent the faithful. These (and other) devices were in fact resorted to by
Charity Commission of today. In this way individuals of great classical donors, but their very number tends to suggest that it
wealth were encouraged to believe that the wider purposes of was not only the last which was difficult to implement. The
their gifts could be achieved in perpetuity. Later, particularly Greeks, in particular, were notorious, not least in the eyes of
after the late seventeenth century, men of more modest resources, fellow Greeks, for their unreliability in handling money. It has
inspired perhaps by the progress of joint-stock companies, were been noted how, even in the case of a family-foundation, that of
also encouraged to pool their individual gifts in order to effect a Epikteta of Thera at the turn of the second century bc, the
common purpose by ‘associated philanthropy’.8 donor provides against the possibility of her own daughter
In the classical city-state, however, there existed no such Epiteleia’s failing to carry out her obligations. Moreover, as
concept of ‘legal personality’. If a wealthy Greek or Roman long as the gift was to a private individual or any group of people
wished to establish or to contribute to a fund with a view to a unrecognized by the state, any undertaking of the immediate
permanent objective, the only way in which he could hope to recipient was not backed by the state, and any legal action
achieve this was by making over money or real property to would normally depend entirely upon the initiative of an
a person or group of persons, either during his life-time or interested party, which, even if successful, could not cause the
upon his death. He would have to call upon the recipients, fimd to be redirected to its original purpose. As for future
firstly, to use the derived annual income to effect the desired recipients yet unborn, there was no way in which the donor
purpose and, secondly, to pass on the ‘gift’ to others who would could bind their wills.9
after their own death take over the property, with the same In Roman law the fulfilment of the donor’s intention was
originally even more uncertain, since his right to bind the will—
obligation attaching, and so on ad infinitum. As Laum declared,
even of the immediate recipient—was not admitted. After the
the Greek foundation—and the Roman was no different—was
time of Augustus, however, the fideicommissuni could be enforced
from the legal viewpoint no more than a gift with an obligation
in the case of the immediate recipient, but the law still remained
attached. As such, the classical ‘foundation’ was likely to be at
hostile to the idea that a donor could bind the will of persons yet
risk in two ways. Firstly, however careful the arrangements, there
 )
20 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME
CHARITIES AND LEGAL PERSONALITY 21
unborn. Not that this deterred either Greeks under Roman rule or
Romans themselves from having drawn up wills and other docu­ affecting a long-term purpose, because (i) although individual
ments which tacitly assumed the contrary. This may be seen, for citizens died, the city itself went on living, and (2) the Greek city
instance, in the case of a certain Titus Flavius Praxias, a Phrygian could bind by its laws the actions of citizens yet unborn, making
them as well as the initial recipients subject to penalties in case of
who had gained Roman citizenship. About ad 85 he tried,
default or misappropriation: a share of the money-fine imposed
through the agency of six freedmen and their successors, to
was frequently offered to anyone who brought a successful
establish an annual banquet in his memory and provide for the
prosecution (D. 47, 71). Under Roman law, indeed, it was
purchase of roses to be strewn on his statue: the annual income
comparatively late—not until the time of Nerva—that all Roman
from certain property was to be put to this purpose and no other
municipalities were accorded the right to receive gifts, and not
‘during the unending rule of Rome’. Again, in Italy itself a
until the time of Hadrian were the obligations attaching to them
century or so later we find a Flavius Syntrophus assigning to a enforceable. Even then the life of the city was not conceived of as
freedman, Aithales, certain gardens ‘with buildings and vine­ indefinite but was limited to a hundred years. But by the latter
yard enclosed by a wall’, the usufruct of which he was to enjoy part of the second century ad such gifts were not uncommon, no
in association with fellow freedmen so long as they continued to doubt seeming to be investments at least as sound as their Greek
perform services with a similar purpose, passing on their obliga­ counterparts.11
tion together with the property to their successors. Aithales was Yet the perpetuation of the donor’s intention could still not
really in the position of a trustee, and the continued acceptance be completely assured. Even at the time of accepting a gift the
of the obligation attaching to the gift would depend thereafter receiving body, besides itself deciding the more detailed regula­
on the good will of those who inherited the property.10 tions (the nature of any fines, for instance) for the administration
There are certain aspects of the arrangements made by Flavius of the fund, might secure from the donor some modification of
Praxias, however, as distinct from those of Flavius Syntrophus, his original intention and, once the gift had officially been handed
which exemplify the method which had come to be adopted by over and technically become the property of the recipient, it
many persons who wished to circumvent the double hazard could be treated henceforth as was deemed best by the assembly

I attaching to gifts of this kind to private persons. Flavius Praxias

had caused the provisions attaching to his gift to be embodied in a
bill presented to the council of his native town, Akmonia, and,
remarkably enough, had apparently had the bill submitted to the
Roman authorities in advance, obtaining their approval. This
or council, in the light of changing circumstances. But what of the
sanctions which were now supposed to have state backing? The
answer is that by the time this type of gift, with obligation
attached, became common, the courts which would normally
try anyone accused of departing or of proposing departure from
method of handing over property to the city, or one of its official the obligation in question, were in most cities no longer popular
organs (the magistrates or the council, etc.) so that they became courts. They were courts empanelled from a small group of
entitled to the usufruct (or part of it), but undertook to use it as families which exercised all real political power and, more impor­
specified by the donor, had clearly come to be employed in tant, supported almost all the financial burdens of the state. If,
Greece some time before the advent of Roman domination in then, such a court felt that these burdens might be eased by
146 bc. We have a number of documents dating earlier than this applying property assigned for a charitable or social purpose to
which record both the offer of the donor and the formal accep­ some other purpose, they were unlikely to convict those respon­
tance of the city or some official group within it. Such a method sible, even supposing the magistrate, who came from the same
obviously seemed to many donors to offer a better chance of class, were ready to admit a charge under this head. By this time,
z
CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME CHARITIES AND LEGAL PERSONALITY 23
22
too, the audit to which, in democratic cities at any rate, all for action against any real or would-be evader. A generation
magistrates who handled public money had once been subject or so later this formula was standardized, and by the end of
at the end of their term of office, was simplified or abolished, so the second century, at die request of the people of Antioch, the
that no redirection of funds by a magistrate was likely to arouse Emperor Commodus himself, rather than his representatives in
complaint, unless it infringed the interests of the wealthy the province, had issued a declaration protecting an endowment
minority. Laum cites an example from early in the second century from embezzlement by the city magistrates. Yet even if the sanc­
ad, namely the lavish endowment of C. Vibius Salutaris of tions now imposed were more impressive, their imposition upon
Ephesus, part of which was intended to provide an annual pay­ the guilty could do nothing to divert misdirected funds back to
ment to the six tribes of the city. Of this sum fully half had dieir original purpose; nor could yet another device, probably
disappeared or been diverted to other purposes within a few years invented in die Greek east during the Roman period, namely
of its acceptance.12 provision for the transfer of the fund to another municipality
Before the time of this endowment the Greeks had hit upon or association, the means of enforcing which it is equally difficult
another device aimed at assuring the original purposes of such to discover (see D. 40, 71, 74)-13
gifts, a device already seen in part in the case of Titus Praxias— When eventually the way was open at Rome for the benevolent
that of securing the additional backing of Rome for its con­ legally to confer legacies upon towns or associations for philan­
tinuance, despite the Roman law’s abhorrence of entail. It was thropic purposes, they were faced with much the same problems.
again at Ephesus, about a century earlier, that Vedius Pollio had ‘Suppose you pay over the money to the state,’ writes Pliny
established a benevolent fund which included among its purposes (D. 17) to a correspondent who was considering this possibility,
the provision of an annual sum to defray a special tax levied on ‘there is the fear that it will be misdirected; suppose you hand over
certain local priesthoods. With respect to this a decree of Paullus land, then once it has become public it will be neglected.’ We
Fabius Persicus, the imperial legate of the province of Asia in have no way of checking the proposals of benefactors in the
Claudius’ reign, is of interest; for while reproving the Ephesian Roman world against acceptance decrees of cities receiving their
authorities for resorting to various devices through which gifts, since our Latin documents are mainly simple honorary or
individual magistrates might prey upon temple revenues and commemorative inscriptions. Laum concluded that the absence in
treasure, it allows the priests to maintain their exemption under the west of evidence for the backing of sanctions protecting
this endowment as being ‘wider the guardianship of Augustus’. foundations by provincial governors or the Emperor might
It is evident that Vedius Pollio, a favourite of Augustus, had indicate a higher degree of security for these foundations than for
obtained something like the personal intercession of the Emperor their counterparts in the east. More recently, however, it has been
to supplement the protection already theoretically given by the suggested that it was the very considerable gifts which came into
council and people of Ephesus to his fund at its inception. Tracing the coffers of some Italian municipalities that caused the Emperors
the further development of this practice we see that in the case to establish curatores, with a general commission to guard against
of Vibius Salutaris’ endowment the interest of the Emperor is financial inefficiency, if not dishonesty, in the west as well as in
the east. We may note, too, how the name of the Emperor is
expressed by the fact that the fine payable, in case of any mis­
direction of funds, is to be divided between the imperial treasury invoked unofficially to protect a fund in Italy (D. 31).14
and the temple of Artemis (since the Emperor now had divine Emperors of the second century ad themselves were ready on
occasion to take the initiative in diverting funds from the purposes
status, this was in one sense a way of placing a fund under divine
for which they had been intended, though notably in a context
protection). At the same time a specific legal formula provided
 z
24 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME
CHARITIES AND LEGAL PERSONALITY 25
which modem feeling would approve: in seeking to restrict
He would thus be relying on the individual self-interest of the
expenditure on gladiatorial games and similar entertainments, beneficiaries to secure the continuance of the fund, and conse­
Here we should
L bear in mind that even under English law a
quently tended to make this type of gift his main, if not his only,
hard-fought compromise has had to be worked out ‘between
benefaction. Moreover, such a conclusion appears to have been
regard for the spirit of the intention of the founder and the
most acceptable to the beneficiaries themselves, if we may judge
claims of the present’. ‘There is no inherent right belonging to
from a rebuke delivered by the Emperor Antoninus Pius to the
those who have played their part in this world to dictate in what
people of Ephesus for their failure to show due gratitude for the
manner their former worldly goods shall be used,’ wrote Sir
generous programme of building carried out by a certain Vedius
Arthur Hobhouse in 1880 in protest against the control of the Antoninus and a greater readiness to honour those who lavished
‘Dead Hand’. But everything, once this is admitted, depends on their wealth on ‘shows and distributions and prizes for the games’
the disinterested and independent character of the body which is (D. 25).
empowered to effect such redirections. Thus, in England the Such may have been some of the considerations of which
present-day Charity Commission, two of whose three paid wealthy men took account in attempting to set up permanent
members must be legally qualified, deals primarily with proposals funds in the context of the city-state. This does not mean that any
initiated by trustees where the object of a trust has become, for failure of the wealthy to meet social ills through such funds was
example, obsolete, useless, or prejudicial to public welfare. It was due simply to lack of appropriate machinery; here we may accept
(on one recent view) because of his doubts as to such impartiality Le Bras’ judgment that ‘institutions do not depend in a servile
that Flavius Syntrophus resorted to his foundation ‘par des manner upon the progress of technique’. In other words, if these
substitutions a I’ infint, rather than rely on the town-council or men had been more concerned about such problems they would
the magistrates to secure his mainly funerary purpose.15 have found a way. None the less, this chapter may properly
For men of wealth who were concerned simply to confer upon serve, not only to account for the frequent mention of gifts to
their fellow townsmen a really lasting benefit the best solution municipalities (or their constituent parts) in subsequent chapters,
in the circumstances might appear to be the provision, not of but also to emphasize the very imperfect character of this device,
money or property, the income from which was still capable of as soon as such a concern, in however limited a form, did
misdirection, but of amenities such as baths, libraries, theatres— come to be felt by the classical donor.16
—q and many benefactors did, indeed, provide these. Yet, even then,
such amenities would need a permanent fund to ensure their
maintenance, and though the donor might provide this, it
too would be susceptible to misdirection. If then, as was normally
the case even in periods when the foundation came to cover a
wide variety of social objectives, the classical donor—like his
Ui'dV. ., .1. • ■ .u.bUilA
modem counterpart—was still concerned to secure his own
’ FACULT AO I. ” Y LEXKA8
memory by his gifts, he might be considered merely prudent if
he concluded that this would probably be best effected through an JOTECA *
endowment for the annual distribution of food or cash within the
particular social group to which he belonged (the whole citizen-
ody, if he was wealthy enough, but otherwise a smaller group).
 CHAPTER III

GIVING FOR A RETURN

In the vast majority of texts and documents relating to gifts in

the classical world, it is quite clear that the giver’s action is self­
regarding, in the sense that he anticipates from the recipient of
his gift some sort of return. To the modern mind such ‘giving’
may seem more like an economic transaction than an altruistic
gesture. Yet as anthropologists, such as Marcel Mauss, have
pointed out, simple societies can be found even today in which
such giving, far from being amoral, let alone immoral, is the
whole basis of friendly intercourse and exchange of any kind.
The first aspect of the matter is that in such societies the money
market, the use of money and idea of sale are unknown, and so
the ‘giving’ of one article and the explicit expectation or demand
of the ‘giver’ that he be ‘given’ another in return must inevitably
do duty for sale and purchase. But in addition to this, particularly
as between the chiefs within such communities or of neighbouring
communities (and it will normally be only the leading men who
are in a position to exchange ‘gifts’ of any consequence), the
offer of a gift represents an offer of friendship, an offer not lightly
to be rejected, since the number of friends which a man has may
well be as important to his security and prestige as the value of his
material possessions. If the offer is to be accepted, there is only one
way in which this can be done, by the offer of a counter-gift,
while the failure to offer a counter-gift is ipso facto a declaration
of enmity.1’
Further consequences ensue, once it is decided to accept the
offered ‘gift’. Since prestige as well as security is involved, the
recipient will wish not merely to make an equal return, but to
outdo the gift which he has received, thereby asserting his superior
worth or status—which the original giver can question only by
offering in turn an even larger ‘gift’. Thus, to use a Greek term,
 GIVING FOR A RETURN 27

an ‘agonistic’ attitude to giving is established as the two parties

engage in what sometimes proves a ruinous competition. Indeed,
any undue delay on the part of either in making an adequate
return will involve his becoming in some sense the dependent
of the other; for ultimately, not being able to offer any material
return, he might even offer himself.18
Such communities are still to be found today, not only in
continents such as Africa, where among the Bantu of Kavirondo,
for instance, it has been observed that ‘the larger gifts which are
exchanged at definite occasions between different categories of
person are rather mutual obligations than gifts, as they are not
voluntary but strictly reciprocal. In the case of refusal, the gift
is either fetched by force, or the relationship ceases to exist.’
Even in present-day Greece, in the remote, mountainous areas,
J. K. Campbell has described certain communities in which
‘where a man does a personal service for an affine, some return of
favour is always awaited. In these relations the element of contract
is always present, and a certain competitive attitude as to which
set of aftincs fulfils its obligations with greater punctilio.’ Nor, of
course, in more advanced society is the feeling unknown, as
between ‘friends’ in the more diluted sense of the term, that one
must always seek to return a gift or favour; while internationally
the symbolic nature of reciprocal gifts between heads of‘friendh
states is evident. In all these cases it is not the isolated ‘gift’ whic
is significant, but the whole sequence of giving and receiving o.
which it is a part, and the kind of relationship which it establishes
or confirms.19
In the case of early Greece and Rome, language itself points to
the original significance of giving and countergiving as doing
duty for purchase and sale. Thus, to cite merely a few of the more
obvious illustrations, the common classical Greek verb which we
translate ‘to sell’ is merely a middle compound form of didonai,
indicating ‘to give of one’s own accord’. In Latin the parallel
verb is again a compound form of the verb ‘to give’, venum dare,
while einere, commonly translated ‘to buy’ means basically no
more than ‘to take’. Significant, too, are reciprocal terms such as
xenos in Greek, hospes in Latin, which may mean either the person
 28 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

who offers or the person who receives entertainment. The Greek

verb nemein may be used of a person either giving or receiving
a share in a distribution, the Latin term mutuum of the Ioan either
given or received, munus of the burden readily accepted or almost
compulsorily undertaken in return for a favour previously
received. Finally, such terms as nexus, obligates, damnates, which
came to be used in the context of penalties for debt, originally
clearly reflected the condition of one who is ‘bound’ to return
a ‘gift’ and who must, if no other way is possible for him, make
that return by placing himself at the disposal of his ‘creditor’,
becoming his dependant, at least until in that way he has returned
something of equal value. Although by that time—even if he
regains his freedom—he will have lost much of his prestige.20
The earliest Greek literature we possess shows us the practice
of giving in expectation of a return, with the same dual object
of establishing friendship and asserting one’s worth. Thus, in
the Iliad, Glaukos and Diomedes break off fighting when they
discover that their grandfathers had once entertained each other,
‘after which they gave each other the splendid gifts that host and
guest exchange’, thus honouring and confirming the friendship
J
previously established between their families. In the Odyssey
Menelaus asserts his prestige by giving Telemachus a mixing-bowl
of wrought metal, ‘the loveliest and most precious of the treasures
lii that my palace holds’; nor does he omit to let the recipient know
that he himself had previously received it from the king of Sidon.
Where the giving and receiving of presents is a matter of prestige
there is felt to be nothing remarkable in passing them on, especially
when the donor could boast such a source. Again in the Odyssey,
Athene, appearing to Telemachus as the Taphian chieftain
Mentes, asks him to keep an offered gift till later, with the
unblushing suggestion that he should make it the best he could
find, since he would not lose by the exchange. This attitude
towards gifts has been discussed more fully in The World of
Odysseus, by M. I. Finley, who has argued that ‘marriage gifts’
are also to be seen in much the same light, rather than as merely
representing a ‘bride-price’: that is to say, when offered by the
suitor they are to be regarded as the assertion of his worth against
 GIVING FOR A RETURN 29

other suitors; and as such he will not expect to reclaim his ‘stake’,
should he fail in the contest. It is in keeping with such an interpre­
tation that gifts should sometimes accompany the bride rather
than be ‘exchanged’ for her, indicating that the conclusion of the
marriage alliance will bring more prestige to the bride’s family
than that of her suitor. So hedna, the technical term for such gifts,
if not dora, may be precisely parallel to xetiia, the gifts so com­
monly exchanged between guest and host, being simply ‘gifts
accompanying marriage . . . regardless of the direction in which
the gifts travelled’.21
At tliis stage in social development, as Evans Pritchard has
observed, the moral criteria by which we normally judge the
practice of giving are simply irrelevant; ‘such gifts are at once and
the same time moral, economic, juridical, aesthetic, mythological
and social phenomena.’ However, within two centuries of the
time that the Homeric epics were first written down, the Greeks
were already familiar with the use of coinage and a money
market (although we shall notice that among them, as later
among the Romans, services done between members of the upper
class were for a long time not paid for in cash). Faced with this
new social and economic development, they were not slow to
criticize a system according to which a ‘giver’ could openly
indicate in advance the return which he expected for his ‘gift’ and
consider himself wronged if he did not receive it. Clearly they
no longer fully understood the background against which such
behaviour was to be viewed. Thus Finley has noted how Thucy­
dides (writing c. 430-400 bc) regards as a curiosity in the kingdom
of Sitalkes ‘the custom of taking rather than giving, more disgrace
being attached to not giving when asked than to asking and being
refused’. In the same period the philosopher Democritus was
declaring, if the fragment is genuine, that ‘the generous man is
not the man who looks for a return, but he who is predisposed to
confer a benefit.’ A little later the orator Lysias is found declaring
that ‘it is a good man’s part to benefit his friends even though
no one should come to know of it’; and Demosthenes insists that
‘the benefactor should not remind a man of what he has received,
for tliis almost amounts to rebuking him.’ For Aristotle it is the
30 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

conferring of a benefit where a return is not sought that is

morally acceptable (kaloti); and comedy re-states the theme: ‘If
you receive a favour, keep it in mind, if you confer a favour,
forget it.’22
This same point was to be taken up in Latin, as for instance in a
line of Terence, ‘istaec commemoratio quasi exprobatio est immemori
benefici’ (‘this reminder to the forgetful of a service rendered is
almost a reproach’), or in Cicero’s description of such unkind
remembrancers as a ‘hateful class of men’. In moral philosophy
Cicero re-states the Aristotelian doctrine in asserting that ‘if we
are truly liberal and beneficent we do not make a profitable
business of doing good’ (beneficium faenerari). A century later
Seneca makes similar points repeatedly in his de benejiciis: ‘Doing
good means simply paying out; if you receive any tiling in return,
then you do good business; but if there is no return, you make no
loss’; or, more directly, ‘He who has given in order to receive
back has not given’; or again, more paradoxically, ‘Often he who
has returned a favour is ungrateful; it is the man who has not
returned it who is grateful.’ He also repeats the dictum of Aristotle
that the value of a gift is not to be judged by its intrinsic worth,
but by the spirit of the giver and the resources from which he
gives. Aristotelian, too, is the frequent insistence on the idea of
the ‘cheerful giver’ (which found its way into the Septuagint at
Alexandria and so into the letters of St Paul). But Seneca carries
the point still further and urges that certain beiiejicia are to be
conferred anonymously: ‘On occasion the very person who is
being helped is to be kept in the dark.’23
Yet, though the very terminology of this critique of the
Homeric picture—including the term ‘gratitude’ itself—is quite
out of place with reference to the original significance of giving
and countergiving, and offers indication enough of the different
social and economic conditions in which these writers lived,
further attention to the context reveals to what a large extent
the attitude to giving remained the same. The essential point
is that there remains basic to the discussion the assumption that
the gifts, benefits or favours in question are to be conferred upon
somebody who can make a return, so that a return, even though
 GIVING FOR A RETURN 31

it may no longer decently be asked for, is confidently expected.

The discussion, then, never reaches the obvious conclusion,
namely that the surest way to avoid any suggestion of giving with
a view to a return is to confer one’s gift on someone who is
incapable of giving in return. This is the doctrine of the Christian
apologist, John Chrysostom: ‘Do not give to the rich who can
give back.’ Taken out of context certain remarks of classical
writers may indeed seem to be suggesting as much. We find
Cicero declaring that in the placing of a good turn, other things
being equal, one should follow above all the principle that the
help should go where the need is greatest. But the tone of the
whole work, de officiis, makes it quite clear that the proviso is a
very considerable one; even if the verb which Cicero uses for the
‘placing’ of a good turn, collocare, commonly used of financial
investment, represents (like its Greek parallel) a dead metaphor,
it is significant that Cicero is applying his principle not merely
to the conferment but to the repayment of favours. Similarly in
Seneca, to counterbalance the paradox already quoted, there may
be found the advice that ‘although we assert that he who has
gladly accepted a good turn has returned it, yet we urge him to
return something similar to what he has received.’ Indeed, the
recipient is expected to engage in what the third-century BC
Greek philosopher Chrysippus had described as ‘a most honour­
able competition’, the outdoing of one good turn by another—
an expression of the continuing ‘agonistic’ attitude to giving,
which was our starting point. So, again, Cicero asserts that,
while each of us has the right to decide in die first place whether
or not he is going to make a gift, when the question of returning
a gift arises we have not the same right, at any rate if we are good
men.’3*
All this in turn merely recapitulates what had been said long
before by the Greeks. Precisely because of the strong sense of
obligation to return favours or gifts, we find in Thucydides such
aphorisms as: ‘He who has done a favour is in a stronger position,
while he who is in die position of owing one finds that friendship
has lost its edge, since he is aware that by making a return he will
not obtain a response of gratitude but will merely be paying back
32 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

the generosity.* The same point Res behind the well-known

remark of Aristotle that ‘people who have done a good turn seem
to regard as their friends those for whom they have done it, rather
than vice versa’. A line of Menander goes still further: ‘There are
some who even hate those who do them a good turn.’ Demos­
thenes, after declaring that people should not be reminded of
benefits received, immediately adds that it is up to the recipients
to make a return without needing to be reminded; and a letter,
ascribed to Aristotle, declares that ‘giving and returning is that
which binds men together in their living , as some give, others
receive, while others again make a return gift for what they have
received.’25
The limitations of this critique of the earlier concept of reci­
procity in giving are largely explained by the fact that it is set
in the context of the proper relations of persons of equal or near­
equal status within the upper strata of society in the city-state,
where the assertion of personal worth (arete/dignitas) through the
maintenance of friendships remained of fundamental importance.
This assertion still depended not least on a claim to generosity
(eleutheriotes/ liberalitas') which, by definition, any member of this
narrow class would have some power of exercising. It is in this
context, indeed, that we find Aristotle emphasizing that the ‘just’
man will need to be a man of means, with a view to the repay­
ment of gifts received, and that liberality can be defined not
merely as giving the proper amount to the proper ends but also
as receiving the proper amount from the proper sources. As to the
latter, the question whether he is to receive in return does not
arise, his problem being simply to ensure that the balance between
his giving and receiving is maintained to the best advantage of
his own prestige.26
For this class of men the need to maintain ‘friendships’ turned
in part on the fact, already briefly noticed, that even in a
money economy there were still a considerable number of
services essential to comfort and security which could not be
bought for money. Aristotle does not speak sentimentally when
he asserts that ‘nobody would choose to live without friends, even
though possessed of all other blessings’; for, even though his
 I

GIVING FOR A RETURN 33

highest form of friendship is that between men of like mind and

heart, he also recognizes the type of friendship based essentially
on the consideration of mutual advantage (to chresiinon). Such a
relationship he recognizes as being easily dissolved, yet it is for
him a type of‘friendship’—and he uses the term in no philosophic
or esoteric sense. Not all philosophers followed Aristotle’s usage.
It may have been the Stoic Panaetius, some two centuries later,
who inspired Cicero’s protest that ‘friendship does not follow
upon advantage, but advantage upon friendship’; but the latter
found the protest the easier because in Roman society there was
freer use of two correlative terms, patrontis and clietis, expressing
the same kind of relationship, but making it clearer where the
advantage in status lay; and so in practice there was little
difference between Greek and Roman. Little or no mutual
affection was essential to the relationship of either philia or
amicitia: originally, we recall, the adjective philos was used of
something which was one’s own.2 7
In the aristocratic state it was almost exclusively among men
of like status that men of quality needed such friendships; their
‘friends’ supplied services analogous to those provided by bankers,
lawyers, hotel owners, insurers and others today. Thus, if any
member of this class wished to raise a loan, it would be to a friend
that he would normally look for assistance. If he needed represen­
tation in the lawcourts he would seek a man of culture, who
virtually by definition would be a man of wealth, among his
friends; if he needed accommodation outside Iris own town, the
only respectable place he could look for was a villa owned by
some wealthy friend. In the matter of personal ‘insurance’ against
contingencies of any kind, he must rely upon the moral obligation
felt by those whose ‘friendship’ he had secured by prior services.
No payment in cash for such services would be acceptable to the
person who rendered them. In the upper class of both Greece and
Rome the acceptance of payment in money remained shocking,
for it implied that the recipient was the employee of the other
party, that he needed to accept such for his living, and was not a
man of quality at all. As has been emphasized, both for Rome and
(perhaps more truly) for Athens, it was not so much work in
c
34 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

itself, but the implications of accepting payment for work, of

being at another’s beck and call, which was felt to be demean­
ing. By the late first century AD we find in Quintilian the grudg­
ing admission that a ‘poor’ orator will need to make charges
sufficient to meet his needs, but even then there follows the
immediate qualification that ‘he will not take it as a fee, but will
enjoy it as a reciprocal kindness [rnutua benevolentia], since he
knows [having taken no more than was sufficient] that his own
contribution has been so much the greater.’ These services had,
then, in theory at least to be disinterested (benejicii loco)-, the
return expected (but not to be demanded) was an equivalent ser­
vice by the recipient in the not too distant future. There was no
legal way of ensuring this; the sanction ensuring that the ‘debt’
would be honoured was simply the social disgrace (adoxia]
infamia) resulting from default—and the loss not merely of one
‘friend’ but possibly of many, who would take warning and
repudiate their ‘friendship’.28
Such a loss was not readily to be admitted. Agreeing with
Aristotle, Cicero asks: ‘Whose wealth can be or ever has been of
such proportions that it can stand without the services of friends?’
The question had point since, even if money was acquired in vast
quantity, there was little which could be done with it, for
luxury goods which could be bought were comparatively few,
and there was usually little scope for investment except in land,
and that too was limited. It becomes less surprising, then, that
the old rural aristocracy of Attica, for instance, ‘never considered
their wealth as primarily a means of amassing further wealth’.
Rather than accumulate money for its own sake it was better to
invest it in friendship, that ‘optimam et pnlcherrimam vitae, nt ita
dicam, supellectilem’ as Cicero, following Xenophon, described it
(though perhaps not many a ‘friend’ today would consider
it flattering to be spoken of as a piece of furniture). There
was good sense in Aristotle’s generous man’s prizing his wealth
‘not for its own sake, but as a source of his giving’ and in the
dictum that wealth consists ‘in its use as a means of securing
friendships, rather than in its being possessed’. Martial puts the
same point in a couplet:
 GIVING FOR A RETURN 35

What’s given to friends is outside fortune’s grasp:

Your gifts will prove the only wealth to last.
And Seneca says of the miser, as so often with an almost New
Testament nuance, that he is not in possession of riches but ‘his
riches are in possession of him’ (‘divitiae ilium teuent").29
But in addition to friendship between status-equals ‘with a
view to advantage’ there was also for Aristotle, within the same
category, friendship of unequals and even of opposites. We should
scarcely grace the latter relationship with the name of ‘friendship’
at all; but, according to Aristotle’s definition, as long as there
exists an association which is of mutual advantage, to which each
contributes something (however wide the difference in kind
between that which is given and received), a kind of friendship
exists. In the case of friendship between the poor and the wealthy,
it is obviously material assistance which the wealthy can provide.
What can the poor man offer? The answer given is ‘honour’, in
the form of social and political allegiance, increasingly important
as the social and political life of the city-state became more
democratic. In the social club as well as in the body politic the
friendship of the poor, collectively, if not individually, came to
be worth having.30
It is at this point that we can best understand how the Greek
root-word of our term ‘philanthropy’, which is applied in one
direction only, that is of benefits conferred by the rich upon the
poor (or not so rich), came in Greece to be characterized by that
zweiseitigkeit which is common to the terms xeuos/hospes, philosj
amicus, charis/gratia, etc. In contrast with the latter the noun
philanthropies and its associated adjective had originally a one-way
direction, being used, as its basic form might suggest (love of
man—by someone other than a man) of the gods’ relationship
with men, especially of tire beneficence of such a god—or demi­
god—as Prometheus in giving fire to mortals. By the fourth
century, however, by a natural extension of usage, it came to be
applied to all-powerful rulers who were generous to their
subjects—so it is applied to Philip by Isocrates and to the Persian
Cyrus by Xenophon—or to great men generally who were kind
36 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

to their dependants, particularly as religious belief declined and it

seemed increasingly that it was the attitude of such men, not that
of the gods, which really mattered. And yet, just because of the
widespread acceptance of the idea that the common man should
have at least a nominal part to play in the life of the Greek state
and of other associations which it embraced and, again, because
of the innate tendency to assume that any gift, once received,
naturally gave rise to a counter-gift, the reaction of the poor and
weak to the generosity of the great and powerful came also to be
designated as philanthropon. So it is that in many resolutions in
which such generous acts are formally accepted by the benefici­
aries, whether in social or religious clubs, in professional associa­
tions or in political assemblies, the honours voted in return to the
benefactors are also not infrequently styled as philanthropa. In
modem terms, the generosity of the donor of -£50,000 to an
impoverished college would be styled as philanthropon, but so
would any plaque recording the gift and any annual college
dinner held in the donor’s honour. Indeed, the very title of
benefactor/energetes was itself philanthropon, since it did not simply
state a fact but conferred a status, indicating that the person on
whom it was conferred was in credit, as it were, in respect of the
balance of friendly acts. In this sense it was true that the classical
benefactor, by virtue of his very title, had his reward.31
Now this reciprocity of philanthropa (or, in Latin, benefcia')
was vital to the whole life of both club and state, the latter being,
as Aristotle argued, merely an association or club writ large, of a
more permanent kind and with more long-term aims than most
private associations. In particular, each was made up of members,
some of whom were rich but the majority comparatively poor,
and each depended on the willingness of the rich to meet the bulk
of the running expenses of the association, including the financial
burden attached to its chief offices, which were normally unpaid.
This probably remained true of the most burdensome offices, even
in the radical Athenian democracy. These offices were acceptable
to the wealthy precisely because, although costly, they did bring
honour with them. Indeed, time in Greek and honos in Latin indi­
cate primarily the honour associated with a position rather than
 GIVING FOR A RETURN 37

the position itself. As long as each party, the wealthy and the poor,
could be seen to be making its own distinctive contribution to
the association, there remained that common interest which was
the basis of its existence. As long as this was true, the state did not
degenerate into a tyranny in which, according to Aristotle’s
theory, the ruler sought to monopolize both honour and material
advantage himself. ‘There is little or no philia in a tyranny,’ he
declares, ‘for where there is nothing in common for the ruler and
the ruled, neither is there any friendship....’ It is friendship which
in fact seems to act as a bond within cities. Three centuries later
Lucretius was to say that human societies were linked by amicitia
before the emergence of the city-state.31
For a considerable period, as long as the city-state retained its
health, the distinction of holding office was regarded by the
upper class as an adequate return for the burdens which it involved
—though these were by no means always unassociated with the
opportunity for material gain. At Rome, especially with the
expansion of the Empire, both the prestige and the material
advantage of the honos remained for long very obvious. Sooner
or later, however, a situation arose in most cities, in which
members of the upper class were called upon to provide more than
what they considered to be their fair share in contributing to the
well-being of the city-state, whether by accepting offices where
the financial burden was increasingly disproportionate to the
honour or by assuming financial burdens which entailed little or
no honour. This latter imbalance is represented by Aristotle as
the upper-class definition of a ‘liturgy’. It is a ‘liturgy’ (a com­
pulsory obligation), and not philia, if the rewards do not match
the value of the services rendered—though even these, as the
Greek orators knew, could be exploited to make a claim of
‘friendship’ upon the recipients. Eventually the stage was reached
at which the traditional honores themselves were seen in no other
light than liturgies. At Athens, for instance, from the late fourth
century no distinction was made between them. At certain
periods (the evidence is particularly good for Roman Africa in the
first two centuries ad) it became customary for the citizen­
body, the ‘club-members’ as it were, to specify in advance what
38 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

sum of money (in Latin, summa honoraria) it expected from those

upon whom office was conferred, a practice which might appear
to us tantamount to offering the magistracies for sale to the highest
bidder, but which in fact was only making explicit a principle of
give-and-take which had always applied. When the office itself
became unwelcome, the expenditure accompanying it became
still more clearly something entirely other than a purchase price.
Hence Rostovtzeff’s question: ‘Where shall we find in our own
time thousands of rich men who would not only spend their time
(without remuneration) in managing the affairs of their city, but
also pay for it in the shape of summa honoraria and voluntary
gifts?’33
Where a degree of resistance to the acceptance of office arose,
however, something could be achieved by way of multiplying
and carefully grading honours and titles. Aristotle supplies a
whole series for the life of the Greek polis, and a still larger
collection may be drawn from the extant inscriptions relating to
the life of both city and club. One particularly distinctive title
was die epithet aionios attached to the office or liturgy undertaken,
indicating that its holder had endowed the office permanently,
so providing for the expenses of future occupants. To encourage
the generosity of wealthy outsiders, citizenship itself might be
treated as an honour available as one philanthropia in return for
another (in more material form), comparable to the entrance fee
required by many a social club. In terms of prestige it might be
worth becoming an Athenian, or even a citizen of Tarsus or
Thasos, if one came from some remote or less civilized city, with
no distinction of its own.34
If it appears remarkable, even so, that funds could be raised in
such quantity and for so long in these ways, we should recall the
small size of the typical state, which allowed something very like
a club-spirit to assert itself. Hence the constant reference to the
ideal of homonoia in the Greek-, and of concordia in the Latin­
speaking city, both of which are suggestive of Aristotle’s concep­
tion of friendship, since diey indicate that happy condition in
which every person and group within the state is conscious of
working towards a common end. The Greek term appears on the
 GIVING FOR A RETURN 39

coinage of the south Italian city of Metapon turn as early as 400 bc,
and both hotnonoia and concordia become the object of cult in
many cities. The actual consciousness of this common end was
regarded by Aristotle as more important than the rules which
governed a city. He declares that it was at homonoia above all that
constitution-makers aimed; for ‘where there is friendship there
is no need ofjustice, but those who are just still need friendship’—
a secular antecedent of St Paul’s ‘love is the fulfilment of the law.’
On the same principle the maxim that ‘friends have everything
in common’ provides the basis of Aristotle’s doctrine of private
ownership but common use of property within the city.35
Aristotle refers to Tarentum (D. 1) in particular as actually
applying this latter doctrine; but it was applied too in all the
others in the sense that the financial burdens essential to the well­
being of the city as a whole were undertaken largely by the
wealthy, whether or not in association with office, on a voluntary
basis. ‘Everywhere there was an early stage of civic life when the
revenue consisted largely in gifts from the wealthier citizens,’ it
has been observed of the Greeks in general; but not only at an
early stage, for a similar picture has been presented of the Greek
cities of Asia Minor under Roman rule: ‘In all probability income
accrued from sums paid by magistrates and others on entering
office; liturgies and gifts were the most important items of
revenue.’ For this reason a carefully worked out ‘budget’ was held
scarcely necessary or possible. No surplus was normally kept in
hand to meet contingencies—witness fourth-century Athens,
which ‘like all other ancient states ... lived from hand to mouth’.
And just because there were for every state a series of contingencies
(not least a failure of the corn supply), each tended to live with a
succession of financial crises. It was to meet the latter that in Greek
cities and clubs there developed a practice particularly relevant to
our present study, namely the appeal for subscriptions (epidoseis)
to special funds, directed to the wealthy class in general (D. 2).
A proposal would be made in the assembly or council that a
subscription fund be set up to meet a particular need and, once
it was accepted, immediate contributions were expected.36
The wealthy in England today pay surtax according to the
40 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

demands of an impersonal Department of Inland Revenue and

remain in inglorious anonymity (if not furtive obloquy) as far
as society is concerned. The wealthy of the Greek city-state, by
contrast, gave ‘gifts’, which, however near-obligatory in charac­
ter, had their reward in the publicity of the subscription-list, quite
apart from any other public honours. It is of some interest to
compare how for two generations after the promulgation of the
Elizabethan Act of Charitable Uses the two ‘rich and aggressive
classes’—merchants and gentry—then coming into prominence
responded to its challenge, accepting ‘burdens which were now
fully understood’. ‘At no time before 1660,’ writes W. K. Jordan,
‘was more than a slight burden of responsibility ever assumed by
taxation, by public intervention, so immediate, so sustained and
so generous was the private response.’ Hence, ‘the failure of a
London merchant to settle some substantial and conspicuous
trust or gift was generally regarded as little short of shocking.’
The Act itself has been seen as something of a propaganda docu­
ment, in so far as it was intended to suggest to other donors that
they should follow the example set by sovereigns and ‘sondrie
other well-disposed persons’. In the Greek world, of course, the
motive for publishing the subscription-lists was, as much as
anything, to indicate those who had not contributed and remind
them of their shocking omission, according to the standard of
hotnonoia. It was also fair game to make public the name of any
person who, having promised his subscription, then failed to give
it. This is made clear by a passage in Isaeus, referring to a certain
man whose name had appeared on a list, posted up before the
statues of the twelve heroes at Athens, under the rubric: ‘these
men, having promised of their free will to give money to the
people for its security, then failed to do so.’ Sometimes, again, the
state might indicate the size of contribution acceptable, as on one
occasion in third-century Athens when a minimum of fifty
drachmae and a maximum of two-hundred was authorized.37
Particularly in a democracy, where the fortunes of the wealthy
tended to be at the mercy of a popular jury, the pressure upon the
man of means to contribute was considerable. Common in the
law-courts was the argument that a defendant who had subscribed
 GIVING FOR A RETURN 41

to this and that subscription-fund was clearly not a person who

would descend to the sort of crime with which he was being
charged. On the same principle a defendant would not blush to
declare before a jury that he had accepted a much heavier financial
burden than he need have done, ‘so that you might have a better
opinion of me and so that, if I should meet with misfortune
[face a charge in the law-courts] I might be able to put up a better
case.’ The nearest equivalent in an English court of law might be a
declaration by one accused of misappropriation of public funds
that he had always been most scrupulous in declaring liis full
liability for income tax.38
The danger which the wealthy had to face in many city-states
was that, even though they did continue to make contributions
in accordance with the demands of ‘friendship’ (homotioia), the
popular jury might listen to vexatious prosecutions and deprive
them not only of their wealth by confiscation but also of honour.
And in the more aristocratic type of state, such as Rome, it seems
often to have been, not so much the financial penalty itself, but
the infaniia attaching to it, which seemed to matter. That the
wealthy were by no means always successful in urging the people
to keep their side of the bargain may7 be illustrated by the self­
congratulation of a speaker in one of Xenophon’s dialogues on
having disposed of his wealth and with it his fear of vexatious
prosecutions, or by Isocrates’ allegation that ‘to seem to be
wealthy is more dangerous than to be an open wrongdoer’.
Aristotle saw the extent of the danger and offered his remedy, a
law preventing fines imposed in the law-courts from becoming
public property and so an incentive to such prosecutions. But no
remedy was totally successful, and at the turn of the first century
ad we find Plutarch making the same complaint: ‘The masses
hate a rich man who does not share his prosperity more than a
poor man who steals public property.’ Shortly afterwards Dio
of Prusa declares that it was enough merely to seem rich to earn
that hatred, having himself to convince his fellow-citizens that
his personal fortune is much less than their demands imply.3!’
Despite the near-contradiction of theory and reality, the city-
state in its classical form continued to be financed largely on this
42 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

‘voluntary’ basis. One of its attractions for the wealthy man was
that it enabled him, even in a radical democracy, to publicize his
worth (and perhaps overshadow a rival) by his generosity. It
allowed him to play the part of a truly free and liberal man
instead of subjecting him to laws which called for a merely
passive acquiescence in meeting the financial needs of the state.
For this reason most well-to-do Greeks would have seen good
sense in Aristotle’s criticism that the abolition of the ownership
of private property among members of the upper class, as Plato
had suggested, would ‘destroy liberality’. They saw liberality as a
political no less than a moral virtue and as a positive expression
of their real interest in the state. Another important factor was
that the average city-state did not possess and could not afford the
machinery for an elaborate system of taxation. The voluntary
system was also admirably adaptable to the needs of those
Hellenistic monarchies where, as long as the king could represent
himself as the supreme benefactor, the essentially passive loyalty
of his subjects might be made to appear as an active and spon­
taneous response of gratitude. In Egypt, in particular, almost
any decision of the Ptolemies referred to in official documents,
whether relating to fiscal immunities, rights to land or property
or even to guarantees against arbitrary action by the king’s own
officers, is almost invariably styled as philanthropon; though their
non-Greek subjects might see in the term no more than the
Greek equivalent of that oriental ‘grace’ and ‘mercy’ familiar
to them for generations under the Pharaohs.40
But while it is possible to see the advantages of the voluntary
system, it becomes the more difficult to estimate the degree to
which there operated in the classical city-state that genuine regard
for others characteristic of a charity or scheme of social aid. Con­
sider also the objectives for which the wealthy gave, whether in
response to the announcement of a public subscription or in con­
nection with a magistracy received: on one occasion it might be
towards a fund to secure the distribution of cheap com or oil in
the city or within the narrower group to which the donor
belonged, on another towards the repair of a temple—objectives
of a kind clearly associated with charitable endeavour today. But
 GIVING FOR A RETURN 43

the same people would also contribute on exactly the same basis
to a fund for rebuilding the city walls (D. 4) or the financing of a
war—objectives which for us (though not so much for the wealthy
Englishman of some three centuries ago) scarcely fall into the
same category—and clearly they received and expected to receive
the same public commendation for both types of contribution.
Similarly the wealthy magistrate of a Roman township would
pride himself equally on his distribution of cheap food and the
provision of a gladiatorial show, and not infrequently would
cover both objectives with a single donation (D. 32). It is quite
misleading to quote the former as a ‘charitable benefaction’ out
of context (hence the collection of inscriptions, quoted at some
length, at the end of this book).
Still more important, in the records of the acceptance of such
gifts, the motive which is constantly ascribed to the donor by the
recipient—and, indeed, asserted by the donor himself—is philo-
timia or philodoxia (love of honour or glory); and although the
language is less flexible, the same motive is clearly implicit in the
Latin inscriptions recording acts of beneficence. Yet it would be
as naive to deduce from this that every public gift was simply
an expression of self-regard as it would be to assume that every
act designated ‘charitable’ was motivated by nothing except
selfless pity (this is the reason for the varied translation of the
Greek terms in the documents). Both terms when relating to
benefactions arc blanket terms which obscure lesser, and some­
times even major, motives. The Greeks, in particular, believed
that the good man would pursue honour, admiring as they did a
strong competitive clement in a man’s psychology—so much so
that Plato defined one of the three ‘parts’ of the soul as to
thumoeides, which is virtually untranslatable but which comes very
near to ‘self-regard’. This ‘self-regard’, however, to quote a recent
commentator, ‘ranges from self-assurance, through self-respect,
to our relations with others and our concern for our reputation and
good name’ (my italics), so reminding us of Butler’s coupling of
‘self-love’ and ‘benevolence’. In other words, this ‘part’ of the
soul tends to overlap with others and seldom, if ever, acts alone.
Accordingly Aristotle clearly indicates that even his ‘friendship
44 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

with a view to advantage’, if it is really to come under the

category of friendship at all, must at least be tinged with regard
for others, however convenient it may be to disregard this for
purposes of classification. Conversely we have already noted some
of the complementary motives which the study of English
philanthropy must consider. Perhaps we may appositely add at
this point Owen’s reference to philanthropy as ‘a ladder for social
climbing’ and Jordan’s emphasis on its attraction as a means of
securing ‘fame among fellows and ... promise of spiritual reward
in the world to come’. The Greeks would have understood.41
We are now, of course, verging upon the philosophical
question of whether in any sense a man is capable of a wholly
altruistic act. Here, however, we must be content to note that
some Greek thinkers recognized that the advantage which a
benefactor obtained from his benevolence might be of a distinctly
immaterial and subtle kind, and even claimed—though they
could hardly prove it—that this type of advantage was ‘best’ and
most satisfying. Thus, Aristotle could not accept the cynical inter­
pretation that the benefactor ‘loves’ the man he has benefited
in a way no different from that in which a creditor clings to a
debtor. On the contrary, he insists that ‘the benefactor . . . has a
sincere kindness and affection for the man he has assisted, even if
he gets no immediate, nor expects any future, good out of him.’
Aristotle prefers to draw an analogy with the artist’s joy in
something which he has created’, an aesthetic rather than a material
gain on the part of a man who ‘loves his handiwork because he
loves existence; it is part of the nature of things’. Consistently it
is one of Iris arguments for the retention of private property
within the state that ‘a very great pleasure is to be found in doing
a kindness and giving some help to friends, or guests or comrades’
—with all allowance made for the latter qualification. Clearly
deriving from such an outlook is Seneca’s definition of betiejicitmi
as a ‘benevolent action which gives pleasure and finds pleasure in so
doing, the outcome of a natural and spontaneous inclination’ (my
italics). For Seneca ‘friendship’ was not a matter of having ‘some­
one to sit by one’s sickbed . . . but of having somebody at whose
bedside one can sit oneself or whom one can help in financial
 GIVING FOR A RETURN 45

need’—a more particular version of Aristotle’s statement that

‘friendship consists in befriending rather than in being befriended’.
Although Seneca emphasizes that ‘everybody in serving another
has thereby served his own advantage’, he insists that tliis advantage
docs not arise from the fact that, ‘once the example of beneficence
has been set, it returns, as in a circle, to its initiator, but from the
fact that the reward of all the virtues is inherent in themselves’.
The dictum that ‘you must live for another if you wish to live
for self’ (in tliis case recalling a line of Menander) is intended to
state a fact of life, not simply suggest a motive for beneficence.
Against this standard Seneca might well have met any criticism
of the latter with the reply that ‘there is no beneficent act so
perfect as to defy the carping of the cynic’; and it becomes under­
standable how at least one Christian apologist, Origen, was led
to accept the complaint of the pagan Celsus that in their ethical
teaching Christians had nothing new to offer.42
It would be misleading to emphasize these passages in isolation
or to forget that practice often fell short of precept, not least for
Seneca. Yet, in considering the former, any over-isolation of the
expressed motive of ‘love of honour’ would tend to blur the
distinction between ‘beneficent’ acts which were almost blatantly
self-regarding and those where the self-regarding element is at
least much less evident. Thus we shall refer to examples of
benefactions which their authors knew would not secure the
widest popular applause, precisely because they were directed
(in the younger Pliny’s words) ‘cointniinibns magis coinmodis qtiatn
privatae iactantiae’—towards the common good rather than to­
wards self-display. The reward for such benefactions had to be
found in their authors’ awareness of die value of what they were
doing. Perhaps Vedius Antoninus at Ephesus (D. 25) believed
himself to be acting on such principles in refusing to submit to a
popular demand that he should expend his wealth on public games
and distributions; so perhaps did the orator Dio Chrysostom of
Prusa in incurring unpopularity for similar reasons. It is true that,
even in such cases, the cynical spirit (that malignitas of which
Seneca speaks) might observe that the approval of somebody more
influential than the crowd, perhaps that of the Emperor himself,
46 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

was being sought, and quote the case of a famous Greek bene­
factor, T. Claudius Atticus, a near-contemporary of Pliny, who
had offered to surrender his immense fortune to Nerva, but had
been instructed by that Emperor to ‘keep it and use it well’.
Indeed, our knowledge of some of these benefactors arises in part
from the fact that they succeeded in gaining such approval. Yet
such claims as Pliny’s can hardly be altogether discounted.43
However, there remains another group of acts which we might
call beneficent, namely that involving minimal gifts or services.
Some modern writers have held that it was through these gifts
and services that the classical world came nearest to altruism.
To this group of acts are related the so-called arai Bouzygeiai—
curses which were called down upon any man who failed to
provide water for the thirsty, fire for anyone in need of it, burial
for an unburied corpse, or directions for a lost traveller. The
range of these curses was eventually extended to cover a coin for
a beggar and a crust for a starving man. Within their original
limits these requirements are clearly of considerable antiquity,
as is indicated by the nature of the sanction which protected them.
In one sense at least it is proper to distinguish them from gifts
and services which we have so far been considering, in that they
came to be expressly excluded from the status of benejicia precisely
because they were conceived of as non-reciprocal. They were
the kind of gifts, in Seneca’s words, ‘whose very worthlessness
deprives them of real [moral] value’, even though at a particular
moment they are of the greatest consequence to their recipients.
It is therefore held that the person capable of providing them is
not entitled, before he renders them, to consider the recipient’s
‘worth’, in the sense of his ability and readiness to offer a return;
nor should he expect a return after he has rendered them. It
follows, or might seem to follow, that they were the kind of gifts
which might be given to any man in need, and ought to be so
given. Yet in moral philosophy they seem to be associated with
the concept of a very extended ‘friendship’ which is natural to the
largest ‘society’ of all, that of the human race itself. Thus Cicero
(as usual, following Greek thought) mentions these basic human
obligations in the context of the doctrine of an omnibus inter omnes
 GIVING FOR A RETURN 47

societas (a universal association). Against this background, then,

we may be inclined to see the principle do ut des (I give that you
may give) being applied here as well, especially when we notice
that, in the case of some of these obligations—most obviously
that due to the dead man in need of burial—it followed from their
very nature that a return could not be expected from the person
benefited. Yet behind the act of one who performed the needed
service, apart from any religious scruple, there might lie the half­
conscious calculation that he too might one day stand in need of a
like service from someone to whom he would be unable to make
any return. None the less, it is worth noticing Seneca’s dismissal
of such casual gifts and services as mere trivialities, if only to
compare it with our occasional readiness to grace even acts of this
type (for example, those associated with ‘flag days’) with the
name of charity/-*
As already noted, Bolkestein suggested that, quite apart from
the arai Bouzygeiai, there developed among wealthy Romans, as
early as the first century ad, a tendency to give to the poor,
irrespective of the likelihood of an equivalent return. This
suggestion is based on the recognition, on the one hand, that the
Roman aristocrat had always tended to give ob honorem (in the
concrete sense of an office expected or received) and, on the
other, that from the reign of Tiberius onwards the common
people had no further significant part to play in elections to
these offices. Since the upper-class Romans continued to be lavish
in their gifts, we must posit, according to Bolkestein’s argument,
an attitude to giving on their part more ‘oriental’ in character.
Few would dispute the first half of the argument, that the Roman
aristocrat under the Republic gave largely, if not exclusively, ob
honorem. Even in Cicero there is little to suggest any consciousness
of the social obligations of the man of property: when he and
others talk of concordia, they tend to use the term of co-operation
between the two upper sections of society, the knights and the
senators, rather than of the mutual obligations of rich and poor.
Nor does it appear at Rome that the people were able, through
a device comparable to that of the Greek epidosis, to ‘do them­
selves a good turn’ (the language of the fifth-century Athenian
48 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

pamphleteer) by virtually extorting financial sacrifices from the

upper class, action in the law-courts being threatened if the latter
did not respond. If the gifts of the Roman upper class tended to
increase in lavishness, this seems mainly to reflect the increasing
prestige and material advantages attaching to high office at Rome
as the Empire expanded and competition became more intense.
In the Latin west as a whole the municipal magistracies tended
to decline in attractiveness more rapidly than at the heart of the
Empire; but the evidence of recently-collected inscriptions
suggests that, while these magistracies were still flourishing,
generosity directed to social needs as ends in themselves was quite
rare. Another review of inscriptions, concerned specifically with
Roman Africa, suggests that precisely because the conferment of
office was the most common occasion for munificence, the
phrase ob liberalitatem, which appears in a relatively small number
of cases, may reflect the rare occasions when there had not been
an explicit quid-pro-quo basis for giving.45
If this apparently Roman characteristic—at least of the upper
class—whereby, in Polybius’ caustic words, ‘nobody ever gives
anything of his own willingly to anybody’, is admitted, however,
it would be all the more paradoxical, if it were true, that there
occurred under the Principate that swift or early change of attitude
posited by Bolkestein. In fact political patronage had not so much
disappeared at Rome as come to be monopolized by one man, the
Princeps', and the emperor’s supremacy still depended to some
extent on the loyalty, if not on the votes, of the populace—a
loyalty arising out of gratitude for benefits received or anticipated.
Moreover, throughout the remainder of the upper class the
client-patron relationship remained as important as ever in terms
of social prestige. There is clear evidence of this in the letters of
Pliny and in the satires ofjuvenal and Martial. ‘Sometimes it seems’,
wrote Gilbert Highet, ‘as though nine out of ten Romans were
living on charity at tins time, five ofthem on public-welfare schemes
run by the government, and the other four as dependents of the
tenth.’ In general, therefore, it appears that the emphasis on recipro­
city in giving continued at Rome well into the Empire period, that
the lure of honour remained a powerful and essential motive.46
 CHAPTER IV

THE NATURE OF THE

RETURN

Honour is asserted by Aristotle to be the greatest of external

goods: it is that ‘which we assign to the gods as their due and
which is desired by the eminent and awarded as the prize of
victory in the most glorious contests’. Another dictum, reminiscent
of that of Aristotle on friendship, is attributed to Theophras­
tus : ‘Generous actions and honour and the giving of assistance
provide the bond between men in their life.’ Demosthenes
asserted of the Athenians collectively what Aristotle asserted of
the individual, when he told them: ‘You are more concerned
about a good reputation than about material goods, and this is
not only true of you but was true of your forefathers also.’ One of
the chief ways of acquiring honour within the social or political
group was by giving; and neither Greek nor Roman shrank from
the admission that this was an essential motive of their beneficence.
‘It is quite clear’, says Cicero, ‘that most people are generous in
their gifts not so much by natural inclination as by reason of the
lure of honour—they simply want to be seen as beneficent.’
Pliny makes the same point more epigrammatically in speaking
of those who embellish their own acts of beneficence in fair
words: ‘Their boasting as to their good deeds is considered to be,
not the consequence of the latter, but their motive.’4?
It is, of course, to this very fact, and the open admission of it,
that we owe much of our detailed evidence of the giving of
members of the upper class in the classical world, their concern for
honour causing them to seek public recognition of their
generosity, not only by word of mouth, but through lasting
memorials in stone or bronze, many of which survive to the
present day. The donor not infrequently gave the most precise
D
 50 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

instructions as to the nature and placing of the memorials which he

expected, as did a donor of Gytheion (D. 71): ‘I wish to confer
my gracious gift ... on the stated conditions, which are to be
published upon three marble stones; of these, one should be set up
in the market before my house, one should be erected in the
temple of the Caesars, close by the gates, and one in the gymna­
sium, so that to citizens and non-citizens alike at Gytheion my
philanthropic and kindly act may be evident and well known.’
Similarly a donor of Petelia in Italy (D. 31) made conditional a
clause in his will bequeathing a sum of money for annual distribu­
tion to his fellow townsmen: ‘If a pedestrian statue has been set
up in the upper forum, with a stone foundation ... I wish to be
given, etc.’ Where such a request was not made by the donor
himself, the recipients would recognize the response expected and
frequently include among the honours assigned to him a sum of
money to pay for a statue beneath which an appropriate inscrip­
tion would appear. Thereupon the benefactor would demonstrate
lais generosity still further by returning this sum—an act which
would be mentioned in the inscription—and by providing a
public feast or distribution at the dedication of the statue. Thus, a
certain Q. Flavius Lappianus (D. 46) was following a widespread
and long established custom when, c. ad 250, in accepting the
honour of a statue in recognition of his munificence to the town
of Thabarbus in Libya, he returned all the money (the amount of
which is stated to the last sesterce) ‘being content with the honour
alone’ (compare D. 10, 55).
The acceptance resolutions of social clubs and political
I
assemblies alike follow almost a set formula in stating the various
honours which the donor is to receive in return for his gift, a fact
which makes possible the almost certain restoration of quite
fragmentary inscriptions. The formula runs to the effect that in
recognizing the generosity of the donor the recipients have
conferred upon him honours which are not less, but rather more,
than the equivalent of his gift. The implication of this was three­
fold: firstly, that the obliged party had repaid his obligation, as
honour demanded, with interest; secondly, that it was now for the
donor, both as a matter of material interest and moral obligation,
 THE NATURE OF THE RETURN 51

to display his generosity still further; and, thirdly, that others

should be inspired to emulate it. Occasionally the expectation of
further gifts in return for honours conferred would be even more
explicitly spelt out, as for instance in a third-century ad resolution
giving the status of ‘patron’ to a certain Rutilius Viator at
Benevcntum in the following terms: ‘We are hopeful of receiving
still more lavish gifts hereafter from a man of whose high worth
we have been conscious in the past and therefore we co-opt
Rutilius Viator as patron’ (my italics).48
The careful grading of honours and distinctions could be
illustrated from a whole variety of inscriptions, relating to gifts
for purposes as diverse as the adorning of the temple of Hera by
the citizens of Samos, or the building of a temple to Dionysus by
the members of a religious society (thiaSos') at a Black Sea colony,
on the one hand, and the strengthening of city-walls at
Kolophon, on the other. Thus, an inscription, c. 310 bc, relating
to the latter records how ‘in order that the citizens may contribute
as generously as possible towards the walls, it is resolved by the
people that any citizen who wishes shall promise whatever
amount he desires’. But the sting is in the tail, for the inscription
continues: ‘with regard to the promises made, in the month of
Lenaion the people in plenary session are to take council, so that
each of those who have promised a gift shall bc honoured worthily
in proportion to his generosity, in die measure that seems good
to the people’. Still more explicit is a decree from Oropus, about
a century later, relating to a similar fund where those who
contributed more than a talent would receive the title of proxenos
and etiergctes, while, concerning those who might give less than
this ‘the people is to make an investigation as to what degree
of honour each deserves to receive’. It was perhaps a fair response
to such pressure that in this case apparently only a single con­
tributor came forward; nor was it an unparalleled response, as
we may judge from a third-century inscription from Olbia (D. 4).
On the other hand, social or political pressure might lead a donor,
even if grudgingly, to increase the size of his gifts, as apparently
did a certain Diotimos at Cibyra, who declares in an inscription
that he has now decided to give more than he had originally
52 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

intended ‘since he has come to recognize what is expected of

him’. The principle here involved is not essentially different, of
course, from that commonly followed today in the case of
subscriptions to a hospital fund, whereby the donor of ^25 may
perhaps have a bed named after him, while a whole ward will be
named after a subscriber of .£5,000. In the city-state, however,
the pressure on the wealthy was considerably greater in that,
should they fail to display the expected degree of generosity,
they might find themselves not only deprived of the honours
which they coveted but also burdened with unwanted liturgies;
they might even be subjected to vexatious prosecutions in the
lawcourts, involving positive dishonour (adoxia/ infamia), as well
as confiscation of their property.49
The inscriptions also make it abundantly clear that the mere
acceptance of an office, whether in club or state, was often seen
as tantamount to making a gift to the body concerned, and
welcomed in exactly the same terms as the latter (the verb epidi-
donai, with which the noun epidosis is connected, could be used
of giving a sum of money or of giving oneself for public service,
e.g. D.9). Ziebarth observed that the honouring of deserving
members was the central point about which the life of Greek
clubs revolved, so that the passing of an honorary resolution
was not the exception but the rule at the conclusion of a member’s
year of office—a year which would certainly have involved him
in some expenditure of the club’s behalf. Much the same is true
of the Roman club, as may be seen from one of the clauses of the
charter of a society of humble folk at Lanuvium (D. 28) which
was mainly concerned with securing the proper burial of its
members. It lays down that the chief officer (quinquentialis) is
to receive certain honours and immunities, some to be enjoyed
during his term of office and others afterwards, assigned with the
intention ‘that other qtiinqtientiales also may hope for the same by
properly performing their duties’. The last phrase in this case
referred to the provision of oil for members of the society in the
public baths before the annual banquet in honour of Diana and
Antinous. Such expenditure at club level might be comparatively
modest, but in the city-state most public offices called for parallel,
 THE NATURE OF THE RETURN 53

but more costly, services to all citizens. High-priesthoods were

especially notable (though not uniquely so) for involving their
incumbents in sacrificial feasts, the expense of which might often
be covered only in part by regular funds. Other offices, especially
those connected with the purchase or distribution of corn or other
commodities within the city, those of tire agoratiomoi, sitonai or
elaionoi in Greek cities, for example, or that of the aediles in
Republican Rome (though the corn distributed there often seems
to have come from the provinces or outside sources) were
expected to subsidize the market price, often at enormous
expense.50
The Greeks invented a number of special terms which were used
of the activities of officers who, in pursuit of controlling the
market or securing the supply of corn or oil, had subsidized their
fellow citizens by selling at below purchase price (e.g. D. 9) or
had persuaded merchants to co-operate towards that end. Where
they had gone so far as to supply free rations, the inscriptions often
state the current market price in order to make quite clear the
extent of the magistrate’s financial sacrifice; where some charge
was made, both the current market price and the price at which
the commodity was distributed may be stated. It is not surprising,
• therefore, that many honorary inscriptions mention both the
holding of office and the conferment of gifts as calling forth the
gratitude of those who had benefited. So an inscription from
Aphrodisias groups together the honorand’s ‘magistracies and
public services and embassies and lavish agoranomiai and contrib-
tions to public subscriptions and generous undertaking of public
burdens and most lavish high-priesthood’ (D. 79 offers a further
example). In some areas of die Greek east in the period of the
Roman Empire the exercise of priesthoods in particular tends to
be referred to by one or more of a series of stock adverbs or adjec­
tives which are little more than an abbreviated way of suggesting
the open-handed giving of feasts and distributions. In the west,
a donor of Lucania in Italy was held to have sealed the services
which he had rendered to his fatherland by his willing acceptance
of the office of duovir, as a late second-century inscription records.
In another inscription of roughly the same date the virtually
54 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

compulsory gifts bestowed by Q. Avelius Prisons (D. 24) in

respect of Iris various offices at Corfinium are given pride of place
over gifts independent of any office. He was another of those
donors who took upon himself the cost of the monument erected
in his honour.51
Not unnaturally it was when com or oil was in short supply,
and therefore expensive, that it proved most difficult to find
candidates for the offices serving the needs of the city. If it proved
impossible, unqualified people, including both women and
minors, or even gods, might be appointed—provided that they
had resources which could be drawn upon. However, before
such desperate measures were resorted to, a single individual, or
group of individuals acting together, might agree to hold several
offices in the same year, or to hold the same annual office con­
secutively year after year. Such devotion would again call for
special mention in honorary inscriptions, according to the formula
that X had accepted nomination for an office when no one else
had been willing to stand. Thus, towards the middle of the first
century three citizens of Akraephia in Bocotia were honoured
because they undertook ‘when called upon to do so’ the office of
polemarch, and in addition, ‘observing the straits to which the
city was reduced, accepted of their own free will the office of
market-controller and that for the supply of oil’ (D. 12). The
acceptance of the latter offices obliged them to make gifts of corn
or interest-free loans to the various tradesmen, apart from which
it would have been impossible for their fellow citizens to enjoy
‘unfailing cheap supplies’.53
The number of honorary statues and decrees eventually became
so large that there arose both for Greeks and Romans the tempta­
tion to re-use old material by, for example, replacing the head of
an old statue with another and erasing the original name in the
inscription and substituting a new one. Hence we find Cicero
writing as a provincial governor of Cilicia that he is utterly tired
of ‘falsas inscriptioties statuarum alietiartmi", the lying inscriptions
which really belong to somebody else’s statue. From Tacitus we
know that even the statues of deified emperors were not always
immune from such an indignity; the head of a statue of Augustus
 THE NATURE OF THE RETURN 55

gave way on at least one occasion to that of Tiberius when the

latter succeeded to the Principate and the position of supreme
patronage.53
Reference to the deified Augustus serves as a point of transition
in our argument, for it is a reminder that the honours commonly
sought by donors and benefactors were not simply those which
might be enjoyed in life: they also sought honours which would
continue after death and so gain them a measure of immortality.
‘If we are not going to confer favours unless we get them back,
we might as well die intestate,’ said Seneca—a good debating
point, but not in accordance with the facts. It is quite clear that
those who conferred favours by bequest at death—and in Italy
‘small gifts were more frequently made during the donors’ life­
time than were large ones’—counted on receiving such immor­
tality in return. Moreover, in many honorary decrees it is
provided that the distinctions assigned to a particular benefactor
should belong to his descendants for ever afterwards—as, for
example, in the case of Eudcmos of Miletus, whose place of
honour in certain ceremonies was to pass after his death to the
eldest of his descendants, as he had himself requested (D. 48;
see also D. 2, 10, 40). Sometimes we find the formula that the ’
honours voted to a person shall be such as are ‘worthy of inheri­
tance’ by his descendants.54
But a second and more important basis for immortality was the
continued commemoration of an honoured name by annual cere­
monies, the cost of which could be provided for by a foundation.
The best-known examples of this type of immortality are those
associated with the ‘ruler cult’, an essential aspect of which is the
obligation of the recipient of a favour to return a still larger favour
to the person who has conferred it. When, therefore, an individual
conferred a gift of almost superhuman proportions—and it was
the monarch of a great kingdom who was best placed to do so—
there seemed in a world where no clear distinction was made
between the human and the divine, little alternative but to accord
the donor the status of a god and to hold commemorative cere­
monies in his honour. In the acquisition of ‘divine’ status the
struggle for honour via giving and benevolence had reached its
56 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

logical conclusion, as had the concept of ‘friendship between

unequals for the sake of the advantageous’.5*
As we have seen, this development provided Hellenistic kings—
and, later, Roman emperors—with a convenient moral basis for
their rule. They claimed precedence in the state by virtue of their
outstripping all others in terms of benefits conferred. The
Hellenistic king was Euergetes (benefactor par excellence), or even
Soter (Saviour)—so dependent were his subjects on his beneficence.
It is generally agreed (against the emphasis of Bolkestein) that
there is little need to look to oriental influences behind this cult,
since theory supporting it can be found, for example, in Plato’s
PoliticHS. But, logically prior to any literary expression, it is
inherent in the very attitude towards giving and receiving. So,
in the familiar language of one of Menander’s characters we find
addressed to a man of quite modest means the dictum: ‘To give
aid to all men, to make as many as you can rich through your
own generosity—this is immortal.’ The Greeks came to express
the same thought more epigrammatically in the maxim ‘Man
likens himself to god in doing good’, which came to be rendered
in Latin ‘deus est mortal! mortalem iuvare’. The recognition of such
‘divinity’ is described by the elder Pliny as the ‘most ancient
manner of paying thanks to those who deserve them’, while his
younger namesake asks, ‘What greater thing can be given to a
man than glory and praise and thesefor all eternity?’ (‘gloria et laus
et aeternitas harum). Seneca observes of a certain act of favour that
nobody could speak of it as calling forth love (amabilis) without
also saying that it called forth worship (yenerabilis). It is not
surprising that we find Tertullian retorting, against those who
scoffed at the Christian doctrine of eternal life: ‘You pour forth
statues and inscribe sculptured images and have your honorary
epitaphs, reading “to the eternal memory of..Why, as far as it
lies in your power, you yourselves provide a kind of resurrection
for the dead!’56
In the early history of Greek and Roman family life a person
could rely upon a member of his family to carry out such rites
as he deemed essential for the peace, if not the positive well-being,
of his spirit beyond the grave. But eventually, both in the Greek
 THE NATURE OF THE RETURN 57

world, especially after c. 300 bc, and in tire Roman, early in the
present era, family loyalties weakened and could no longer be
relied upon for such services. It is true that at the same time
religious feelings had changed, so that the same religious rites
may no longer have been sought, having lost their original
meaning. But, as Tcrtullian’s exclamation implies, and as many
inscriptions confirm, ordinary people were still concerned with
life beyond the grave, if only in the sense that their memory
should not pass away. Typical is the declaration of Zosimos, a
benefactor at Pricnc, that through his benefaction he had acquired
for himself ‘riches’ in the shape of ‘praise from the living and of
remembrance from those who were yet to live’. Even the philo­
sopher Epicurus, whose philosophy taught that the gods do not
care about men and that religious fear is vain, provided in his
will (D. 80) that those to whom he bequeathed his property should
devote certain moneys ‘for the funeral offerings of my father and
mother and brothers, for the customary celebration on the tenth
day of Gamelion each year and also for the meeting of the
members of my school held on each month in remembrance of
me and Mctrodorus’.57
The basic method adopted by Epicurus to secure his purpose
was used with various modifications by many less famous and
more materially minded benefactors, who left a certain amount of
money or real property to friends or freedmen, or to the club or
city to which they belonged, at the same time seeking to place
upon the recipients the obligation to use some or all of the revenue
deriving therefrom for the annual celebration of religious rites or
of a sacred meal in their honour. Such ‘gifts’ with obligations
attached, as we have seen, fell short of the status of independent
foundations and involved a number of practical difficulties as far
as the intentions of the donor were concerned. Briefly, however,
the method was to give a limited group of people a material
interest in undertaking the arrangements for the desired cere­
monies, and, often, a larger group a more limited material interest
in attending them. In a sense this was only an adaptation of the
method followed as early as the fifth century by the Athenian
general Nicias, who consecrated to the god at Delos a tract of
58 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

land, which he had bought for ten thousand drachmae, the

revenues from which the Delians were to expend on sacrificial
banquets ‘at which many blessings should be invoked upon Nicias
from the gods’. It is probable that this was a more than usually
successful application of the method, for payments were still being
made under this endowment in the second century ad. In the
same way Satyros of Tenos (D. 37) provided sums of money to
secure a variety of religious and secular objectives, among them
6,000 denarii, ‘so that from the interest each year, on the day fixed
for the ceremony at the grave, there may be apportioned the sum
appropriate to the number of those who come together’. Here it
was a money distribution which was to attract attendance at the
ceremony; often it would be a feast or games or an athletic con­
test, or a combination of these. In the second century bc Kritolaos
of Amorgos (D. 5) left funds which were to be lent out in order to
provide an annual revenue for a feast and public athletic contest,
in this case for his dead son, Aleximachos; there was to be a sacri­
fice beside the statue of the latter, who was to be hailed as victor
in thepankration (a contest combining both wrestling and boxing),
for which event alone no prizes were to be offered—another
commemorative device.58
Even where no specifically religious ceremonies are provided
for, the choice of the birthday, as by Epicurus (compare D. 31, 34,
35, 40, 77), or the date of the donor’s death (or of the death of the
person in whose name the gift was given), for the public festival
or distribution, or the choice of the statue or grave of the person
as a venue, reveal the intention behind the gift. By variations of
the same essential method, benefactors could hope for a prolonged
period of remembrance after death; and the confident expressions,
so familiar in the political sphere, such as Cicero’s ‘si non spiritn, at
virtutis laude vivetnus’ (‘We may not draw the breath of life, yet
we shall live through praise of our high worth’), find their
parallel in not a few testamentary sentiments. For example,
Phainia Aromation of Gytheion (D. 71) asserts that ‘by this fitting
and benevolent act my idea is to achieve immortality’.59
Our records of the same method being used by the Romans are
late enough to suggest that they borrowed the idea from the
 THE NATURE OF THE RETURN 59

Greeks. Essentially parallel to the Greek model is the gift of

Flavius Syntrophus, sometime after AD 200, of certain gardens,
with buildings and enclosed vineyards, subject to the condition
that the revenue therefrom be shared by Aithales and his fellow
freedmen, and later by their descendants (one of the distributions,
significantly, is to take place on the donor’s birthday, another on
the Parentalia). But once the device of tire foundation came into
use for this purpose, the concern with self-commemoration (in
keeping with the Roman practical instinct) became more promin­
ent, and to achieve this there were offered to those who would
attend appropriate ceremonies, not merely feasts, but gladiatorial
shows and other attractions of a mundane or even coarse character.
Typical of this tendency is the testamentary gift of C. Titius
Valentinus of Pisaurum (D. 32) who gave one million sesterces,
the interest on 400,000 of which was to provide for a feast on the
birthday of his son, while that on the remaining 600,000 was to meet
the cost of a gladiatorial show every fifth year. It has been noted that
even the enlightened Pliny’s largest bequest (D. 36) provided in­
come for the maintenance of a hundred freedmen and, after their
death, for an annual feast for the whole populace at Comum—the
largest known priced bequest in Italy for this latter purpose.
Frequent, too, were distributions or feasts to commemorate the
dedication of some building project, paid for by the donor, which
might, but often did not, serve any social purpose. In Roman
Africa there seems to have been a tendency to record in the
appropriate inscription not only the amount given to meet the
cost of such distributions, which was perhaps advisable for obvious
reasons, but also the amount which had been spent on the building
itself; and from tliis habit, since not infrequently the latter sum
was the smaller of the two, it may be seen where the main interest
of the donor lay. The smallest foundation known from tliis part of
the Empire was the humble sum bequeathed by L. Acmilius Felix
of Theveste, to provide his fellow tribesmen with a feast on his
birthday. Inscriptions from Spain follow a similar pattern, thus
L. Aemilius Daphnus (D. 78) provided a denarius for every
citizen on the anniversary of the dedication of the public baths
which he had given to his township.60
60 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME
It was in keeping with the prime objective of Roman founda­
tions that the associations of humble folk (collegia tenuiortitn) con­
cerned themselves almost exclusively with the provision of funeral
expenses for their members, and were approved by the imperial
authorities strictly on that basis; in this they differed from their
nearest Greek counterparts which counted this aim, if at all, only
as one among several. The existence of these associations removed
from such folk the incentive to resort to individual foundations,
supposing any could afford them, but provided the wealthier
element with yet another way of achieving ‘immortality’ by
generosity, for these could become patrons of such associations, so
securing annual feasts in their honour, as did L. Cacscnnius Rufus
at Lanuvium (D. 28), not merely (like the rank and file) decent
burial.61
So the beneficent of the ancient world could look upon their
generosity in a manner not unlike that attributed to some of their
modern counterparts, as a ‘bargain in terms of perpetuity in tliis
world and the next’; and in this connexion it is noteworthy that
some of the early Christian Fathers found it difficult to avoid tire
kind of language and ideas appropriate to the background of the
classical city-state, when they came to speak of the reward of
eternal life for those who showed Christian charity. Thus Basil,
as L. Robert has observed, seems to have in mind a scene familiar
in the city-state when he visualizes the reception of the faithful
before the Lord’s judgment seat: ‘the whole people standing
around you . . . will call you nourisher (tropheus) and benefactor
(euergetes) and all the other titles which arc appropriate to philan-
pliilaii-
thropia’. The term trophens is simply one of the less common titles
(euergetes is the most common) invented with almost unlimited
ingenuity for benefactors in the Hellenistic age; it is found, for
example, linked with the title of ‘king’ (basileus) in an inscription
from Bithynia, c. ad 150, in honour of a certain P. Domitius, who
had given free distributions of corn, wine, oil and money to his
fellow citizens. The language of the Greek polis is thus transferred
to the heavenly city, however different the nature of the reward
itself, the one received of God, the other of men. In the same way
Gregory of Nyssa found it natural to urge the Christian to be
 THE NATURE OF THE RETURN 6l

philotimos in coming to the aid of brethren in peril. John Chrysos­

tom, on the other hand, was so conscious of the danger attaching
to the conception of the Christian reward in the familiar terms of
the city-state that he stressed that this reward must not be made
the motive for giving—the motive must be pity. Subsequently,
John Chrysostom came to adopt the extreme position that it is not
the act of handing over a sum of money which constitutes the
essence of Christian charity but the attitude of pity which
motivates it. By contrast the classical preoccupation with philo—
titilia left little room for any mention of pity—or of ‘the poor’
as peculiarly deserving of such pity.63
 CHAPTER V

THE POOR

The frequency with which ‘the poor’ are referred to in our

sources as deserving of private benefactions or public assistance
might lead one to suppose that Greek and Roman charity was to
a considerable extent specifically directed towards those members
of society whose material needs were the most acute. However,
the Greek and Latin terms commonly translated as ‘the poor’
seldom imply absolute poverty or destitution. They were applied,
in particular, to the vast majority of the people in any city-state
who, having no claim to the income of a large estate, lacked that
degree of leisure and independence regarded as essential to the
life of a gentleman. In many instances such men would own small
plots on which they would have to work themselves, though
perhaps with the help of hired labourers or slaves. They could
devote little or no time to the fuller life of the city. So Poverty, as
personified in Aristophanes’ Ploutos, airily distinguishes herself
from Beggary (Ptocheia), declaring ‘it is the beggar’s life to live
possessed of nothing, but the poor man’s life to live frugally and
by applying himself to work, with nothing to spare indeed, but
not really in want’. Similarly, Demosthenes can claim that he has
set to right the condition of‘the poor’, to whom he has referred a
moment earlier as those who ‘are possessed of only a modest or
small property’. In Latin, the father of the poet Horace is described
as ‘macro pauper agello’—poor, with only a miserable plot of
ground (lie also, as we know, had a slave or two). Martial, a
century later, re-echoes the theme of Aristophanes with the line
‘non est paupertas, Nestor, habere nihil’. Juvenal’s poor are still
better off: they always have ‘just enough to keep them going in
leisured indigence and their chief struggle is not to keep from
starving, but to avoid the degradation of having to work’. In a
political context, as a collective term, ‘the poor’ is commonly
 THE POOR 63

synonymous with die demos]popiilus, the general mass of thepeople,

particularly those who have no more dian the right of an
occasional vote in political assemblies. Whenever, therefore, we
find ‘the poor’ being referred to as the beneficiaries of any
measure in diis context, we can by no means assume that it is a
completely impoverished minority element which is intended.63
Such language was, of course, appropriate to members of the
upper class, fiom whom almost all of our classical literature comes.
Their tone was usually disparaging, but if it was the small farmer
whom the speaker had in mind, it might be odierwise, the farmer’s
status occasionally being idealized or even envied. Wherever the
upper class tended towards luxurious living and the abuse of
wealth, ‘poverty’ would be praised as the teacher of good and
honest living, and equated with virtues such as parsinionia. Where
the wealthy, just because of dieir wealth, were liable to vexatious
prosecutions, the poor man’s lot could be envied as immune from
such perils. But the terms suggestive of complete destitution—or
even of die lot of the class of labourers which possessed no land—
are seldom idealized.64
Such was the Greek term ptochos, a word suggesting ‘one who
crouches’, and so a ‘beggar’. Even here we must not over­
generalize, for, although its more frequent appearance in Hellen­
istic and Greek-Oriental literature, as compared with classical,
has been taken to reflect a higher incidence of dire poverty in this
period, we have to allow for die inevitable devaluation of word;
—for the Greek tendency to hyperbole and variation of language
for its own sake. In Menander’s Dyskolos, Gorgias can describe
himself as ptochos, in contrast with those who are ‘men of means’,
though it turns out that he is possessed (rather like Horace’s
father) of a small plot of land (in this case described by a double
diminutive) and a slave. Still earlier, Plato uses the same term of
those who do not belong to the few exercising control in the
oligarchical state. Even in Homer’s Odyssey, Irus had found him­
self some sort of a job, running errands for the wealthy suitors;
he is not a beggar in the sense of getting something for nothing.
None die less, the common distinction between the ‘poor’ and the
‘beggars’ is illustrated, for example, by Plato’s provision that in

AD DE ci:r

I
64 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

his ideal state ‘beggars shall not be admitted’, being described as

those ‘who make their livelihood by endless entreaties’; to have
excluded ‘the poor’ from the state would have been impossible,
for the state would have ceased to exist.®5
The ban of the political philosopher finds a parallel in the
attitude shown towards the beggar in the plays of Aristophanes:
there Ehrenberg found that ‘beggarly poverty is painted without
love and almost without pity’. Yet the Athens of Aristophanes
was an extreme exemplar of Greek democracy, and there (if any­
where) it might be expected that the poorest would find relatively
good treatment. As for Rome, Bolkestein instanced the common
attitude to real poverty by listing some of the adjectives with
which words suggestive of such a condition arc Imked. In contrast
with what is found in many Jewish texts, where the poor tend to
be equated with the pious and deserving who are destined for
happiness in the next world, if not in this, at Rome the poor are
described as leves, inquinati, improbi, scelerati, etc., terms implying
dishonesty. Indeed even those who work for their living but are
without land of their own may be so described, as they arc
by Cicero (no true aristocrat himself, but with an aristocrat’s
contempt): ‘Do you suppose that body of men to be the Roman
people which consists of those whose services are hired out for
pay? ... a mass of men, a herd of slaves, of hired men, of rogues
and destitutes?’ This was the urban proletariate which Cicero felt
it appropriate to describe as ‘sordetn urbis et faecem , the poverty-
stricken scum of the city, though ready to make political capital of
those who carried the metaphor a little further by suggesting that
this ‘scum’ should be ‘drained off’ to the colonics. Likewise the
satirist Juvenal, so bitter about ‘poverty’, is not (as Highct has
observed) really sorry for the very poor or working-class; he is
sorry for the middle-class men like himself who cannot get
advancement. Still less is there evidence of any really deep concern
about those who had to toil in mines, such as those of Attica,
Spain and Ethiopia, and whose condition of life was far worse
than that of the working class. Diodorus, writing at the beginning
of the present era, but perhaps reflecting the ideas of Posidonius a
century earlier, alone among classical writers, it has been claimed,
 THE POOR 65

describes with human sympathy the lot of the miners themselves,

instead of concerning himself with the profits and interests of
those who exploited them. His account of the slaves who were
provoked to rise against their masters on the large estates of Sicily
shows the same sympathetic spirit.66
If those who worked for their living merited so little regard,
it would be surprising if the beggar were viewed with any kind­
ness. Yet while noting this, it might be added that the lack of
sympathy for the beggar reflected a situation in which generally,
as for long periods in English history, beggars represented no real
social problem and unemployment could be equated with laziness.
That, indeed, is the basic meaning of the Greek aergos and the
Latin iners, both suggesting, not the lack of opportunity, but the
lack of will to work. Plato’s ban on beggars reflects what Madame
de Romilly has spoken of as ‘that optimistic outlook of much
Greek political thought’, in terms of which unemployment was
regarded as an avoidable evil, which could be legislated against or
banished on the strength of an expulsion order, should it begin to
assume serious proportions. The beggar was, in Homer’s langu­
age, pandemios, implying that one city after another could be
expected to send him packing. It is in the same context that
Solon’s law directed against ‘unemployment’ is to be seen. It
was aimed, probably, at those without means who did not work,
rather than intended to protect tire inherited property of those who
had means. Again, there is the response of a Spartan to a beggar,
quoted by Plutarch: ‘But if I gave to you, you would proceed to
beg all tire more; it was the man who gave to you in the first place
who made you idle and so is responsible for your disgraceful
state.’ Plautus makes the same point: ‘To give to a beggar is to do
him an ill service.’67
In Plato’s political theory, the ban on beggars should be
measured against the assumption that it was always possible to
build an ideal state from scratch—a state in which there would be
enough land to allow every full citizen a basic minimum for his
livelihood, and in which the number of citizens would be con­
trolled so as to prevent the fragmentation of this land, while
strict regulations as to the bequest of property would prevent its
E
66 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

accumulation in the hands of a few. Thus, in Plato’s Laws we find

a regulation that no citizen shall be allowed to hold an amount of
property more than five times the size of the smallest allotment;
any bequests which might infringe this limit were to be null and
void, and the amount in excess to be surrendered to the ‘city and
the gods of the city’. In this latter requirement there has been
seen a religious as well as a political emphasis, reflecting the fact
that the state and the ‘church’ were largely synonymous in
classical antiquity. Since the excess property surrendered was to be
made over to those citizens who otherwise might fall beneath the
basic minimum, there may be seen here an antecedent for that
‘portion for the soul’ which was the lesser standard of charity
required by the early Christian Fathers of those in the Christian
community who felt unable to meet the idea of selling all and
giving to the poor—but with this essential difference: that
whereas the latter was seen primarily as in the interest of personal
salvation, the chief purpose of the former was to secure the
internal cohesion of the community.68
Aristotle is as much opposed as Plato to casual, hand-to-mouth
help of the poor, but provides against any need for this in his
theoretical state by making part of the land entirely public, so as
to defray the expenses of worship and common meals for all the
citizens. Parallel to Plato’s demand for the surrender of excessive
property to the ‘city and the gods of the city’ is his insistence that
confiscations from the wealthy, where justified, should go to the
city temples. (Here already is enough to explain why a writer
such as Ruskin could regard himself as an apostle of Greek theory
in calling for a greater moral and humanitarian emphasis in the
approach to political economy.) Unfortunately, however, neither
Plato and Aristotle have much to say about the large mass of
people who serve the needs of tire city, but are, de hire or de facto,
largely excluded from its citizenship. How the welfare of these
people is to be secured is not explained, an omission no doubt in
part explicable once again on the optimistic assumption that,
being largely foreign traders and artisans who had come to the
city for their own private advantage, they could always go else­
where if they find it impossible to make a living.69
 THE POOR 67

The ideal of a minimum amount of property for each full

citizen was, of course, greatly influenced by the rule for centuries
followed, or aspired after, at Sparta; and it was the actual practice
of that ideal with regard to full citizens that the Spartan kings
Agis IV and Cleomenes III claimed to be re-asserting in the late
third century bc. A similar claim was made by Tiberius Gracchus
at Rome in the late second century, after social and economic
changes had deprived many small farmers of their living. Both at
Rome and in Sparta it was argued that, in the case of the ‘public
land’ at any rate, there should be a return to an idealized status quo
ante in which nobody had an excessive holding, this making it
possible for everyone to enjoy a basic minimum. Their pro­
gramme was, in fact, in accordance with the principle of Plato
that ‘in a city and under a constitution which is even moderately
well organized, it is beyond belief that any man possessed of a
modicum of worth could be allowed to fall into beggary’. This
‘modicum of worth’ was possessed by all those who were
potential soldiers, possession of land being a qualification for
military service. It is significant that the argument had to bc based
essentially on the rights of the soldier-citizen rather than on those
of a human being. Also significant is the contrast of the proposed
solution with, for example, that implemented in sixteenth­
century England after new farming methods, comparable in their
effect to those introduced in the Hellenistic world, had given rise
to a similar large-scale displacement of previously useful citizens
within a comparatively short period. The Elizabethan solution—
which, it has been argued, arose (not unlike that at Rome and
Sparta) from the recognition of a social threat, rather than from
any new ethical or religious insight—involved the admission that
there was such a condition as unavoidable unemployment, which
could bc met neither by casual alms-giving nor by any radical and
immediate reform. Elizabethan realism led to the development of
the Poor Law and encouraged the growth of private charities.
At Sparta and Rome, however, reformers optimistically assumed
that it was possible to revert to an over-idealized situation in the
past, and that a legislative act could permanently eradicate the
current poverty.70
68 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME
Such proposals come within our purview only in so far as they
help to explain why in the classical world there was seldom pro­
posed or adopted anything like a Poor Law—especially since
attempts to revert to the status quo ante invariably broke down in
practice. Yet, even if it was impossible to restore the ‘original
system’ within an existing city, it was possible, during the greater
part of our period, to resort to what Plato called ‘the ancient
device’—to found a new state, a colony, elsewhere. For the Greeks
especially, geographical factors encouraged the outflow of surplus
population and it is not improbable that in the great wave of coloni­
zation which began in the eighth century bc ‘it was the poor and the
landless who began to compete among the Greeks first’. In these
colonies, it seems to have been the practice to assign to each
participant an equal basic allotment of land—a practice which,
perhaps even before Plato’s time, underlined the sharp contrast
between the actual inequality in the mother cities themselves and
ideal equality which was supposed once to have obtained in them.
Even in the heyday of the Athenian Empire, the colony (cleruchy)
was seen as the answer to the problem of surplus citizens without
means of livelihood. The decree relating to Brea in Thrace,
admitting both the Zeugitae (traditionally, the small-farmer class)
and the Thetes (the lowest class) to a colonial venture, was prob­
ably an exception to the rule. For Romans, too, opportunities of
acquiring land in the colonies increased enormously as the
Empire expanded. Tenney Frank therefore saw little need for
state charity until Cato’s last years, since until that time there was
plenty of public land available. Even later, within little more than
a generation of Tiberius Gracchus’ reforms, we know that there
still existed opportunities of participating in colonial ventures,
though admittedly in the more distant and less fertile parts of
Italy to which few would be attracted.71
Another means of livelihood available to the very poor man
was to become a mercenary soldier. Thus, in the fourth century
thousands of Greeks enlisted in the service of Persian kings or
satraps. Driven out of their own cities by catastrophic economic
depression or internal strife, men who had temporarily become
ptochoi (beggars) found in the east, as xenoi, a kind of hospitality
 THE POOR 69

and a source of income which might eventually enable them to

acquire land. (As in the case of emigrating to a colony, however,
becoming a mercenary did not depend entirely on the initiative
of the poverty-stricken, since it was not uncommon for an officer
from the upper strata of society, such as Xenophon, to act as
leader.) Similarly in the late Roman Republic the proletarii might
gain material rewards by serving ambitious Roman generals or,
with the advent of the Principate, by becoming professional
soldiers in the legions—the acquisition of land again, perhaps,
being the ultimate aim of most. After the establishment of thep<i.v
Roniana, however, there would have been little booty to supple­
ment the soldier’s meagre pay and pension, so rendering this
alternative to poverty progressively less attractive.73
There were also negative methods of controlling poverty,
notably by regulating the birth-rate. ‘Fear of poverty and war
will make them keep the numbers of their families within their
means,’ wrote Plato of his citizens in the Republic. Contraception
or abortion (which tended to be confused in medical writings)
and exposure of the newly bom were the obvious expedients.
As to the former, all we need say here is that there is evidence that
in certain sections of society a variety of methods were known
and practised. As to the latter method, the extent of its application
at different periods and the motives behind it have been widely
debated. Its use in fifth-century Athens has been overestimated
by scholars lending undue weight to certain references in Aristo­
phanes and to the legal right of fathers to repudiate offspring at
birth. And Gomme pointed out that exposure of infants in Greek
drama is due not to pressure of poverty, but to the demands of
an oracle, or to illegitimacy and that the rescue of such infants
is almost invariably undertaken by poor people! None the less,
there can be little doubt that the Hellenistic age, with its high
incidence of poverty, witnessed infant-exposure on a large scale;
for we have not only the implications of New Comedy—which,
it has been said, seems to be ‘peuplee de petites Jilles abandonees’—
but also epigraphical evidence. From the latter, Tam concluded
that in the third and second centuries bc the one-child family was
commonest and that, although there was a certain desire for two
70 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

sons (to allow for a death, say in war), more than one daughter
was very rare. If this evidence is reliable and representative, it is
difficult to explain, except in terms of exposure.73
A whole series of quotations gathered by Stobaeus suggests
that the ‘cruelty’ shown to those children who were exposed was
viewed by parents rather as a loving concern that those who were
allowed to survive should not have to endure poverty. The politi­
cal theorists for their part were concerned with the interests of the
state as a whole. ‘If no restriction is imposed on the rate of repro­
duction (and this is the case in most of our states) poverty is the
inevitable result,’ maintains Aristotle, who later adds that ‘there
should certainly be a law to prevent the rearing of deformed
children’. These passages seem to indicate that in practice the
state did not normally impose a limit on the size of families, and
that it was not uncommon for deformed children to be reared.
Again, other remarks of Aristotle imply that there was in Iris day
a growing feeling that abortion was preferable to exposure as a
method of control. ‘There should be a law’, he says, ‘in all states
where the system of social habits is opposed to unrestricted
increase, to prevent the exposure of children to death merely in
order to restrict the population. The proper tiling to do is to limit
the size of each family, and if children are then conceived in excess
of the limit so fixed, to have a miscarriage induced before sense
and life have begun in the embryo’ (my italics). But how far
Aristotle was conscious (as Gomme argued) that most people
would oppose abortion as such, as distinct from opposing the
right of the state to decide when it was or was not to be carried
out, it is scarcely possible to determine. All we can suggest is that
for Aristotle any such opposition would have appeared (to borrow
words critical of an aspect of Victorian charity) a matter of being
‘kind to everyone except society’.7-*
Infant exposure continued to be practised in Greece under the
Roman Empire. A letter of Pliny to the Emperor Trajan discusses,
as a question which any provincial governor might frequently
have to consider, the rights of those who had rescued and brought
up abandoned children in cases where the latter were subsequently
claimed by their parents. At Rome itself and in the Latin-speaking
 THE POOR 71

provinces evidence of the practice is less full and clear (though the
right of the father under Roman law to exercise his patrici potestas
in this way is plain enough); and it is possible that for the Romans
at certain stages territorial expansion made it less necessary. But
it is significant that Musonius Rufus, commonly regarded as one
of the most humane thinkers of the first century ad, seems to have
had no better argument against infant exposure than that ‘it is
better for a child to have many brothers than much material
wealth’—an argument in which the child is valued relatively
rather than in its own right. Although we should note his almost
New Testament answer to the poor man’s question as to how he
would feed his children, were he to have many: ‘But from where
do the little birds, so much more helpless than you, the swallows
and nightingales and larks and blackbirds, feed their young? . . .
Do they lay aside and store up food?’ A possible index to the
attitude of Romans of Stoic persuasion to the idea of sparing a
child for a life in penury is the doctrine prescribing suicide should
a man, once prosperous, find himself reduced to a state in which
it is ‘more in keeping with nature’ to die than live. Significant,
too, is the fact that after the Emperors Constantine and Theodosius
I had, under Christian influence, forbidden the practice of infant
exposure, it became necessary to admit instead the parents’ right
in cases of extreme poverty to sell a new-born child.75
It is true that this latter practice belongs to a time of abnormal
economic stress. But, we may ask, was the general condition of
‘the poor’ in the city-state very much better in comparatively
prosperous periods? Take fifth-century Athens: she was probably
as prosperous—and as democratic—as any Greek city-state ever
was, and according to Ehrenberg, could boast the ‘unity of a
middle class embracing town and country, including craftsmen,
peasants, shopkeepers and traders’. But the term ‘middle class’
could well be misleading; so, more recently, it has been held that
in spite of the alleged profits of empire ‘the life of the ordinary
Athenian was characterized by extreme frugality together with
meanness and avarice which are bom of a miserable struggle for
existence’ and that ‘Athens never in fact banished the poverty
which the Greeks had come to accept as a fact of life’. It is possible
72 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

that too much may have been read into the fact that in public­
building accounts we find the same wage being paid to the free
citizen of the fifth century and the slave who worked beside him
—since the slave’s wage was his master’s fee—but there are other
references implying the assimilation of the material condition of
the poor to that of the slave. For example, there must have been
some basis in fact for the allegation of the satirical pamphleteer
that in the city streets one could not distinguish between the free
and the enslaved. In the fourth century taxation evidence shows a
heavy concentration of wealth in the hands of no more than three
hundred families. Moreover, Aristotle observes that in most city-
states the middle class was small, and refers to its enlargement as a
theoretical method of achieving greater political stability. In less
prosperous cities and periods the assimilation of the poor man to
the slave, rather than the enhancement of the latter’s status, is
suggested by their participating on equal terms in public banquets
and distributions. It is also worth noting that where, as in fifth­
century Athens, special conditions led to great commercial expan­
sion, it would often be the non-citizen class possessed of capital
which benefited most.76
At Rome, too, the wealth of empire brought fortunes to men of
capital, but did not penetrate beyond a comparatively narrow
class; and, again, the merchants, as distinct from the big financiers,
were commonly non-Roman. The assimilation of free workers,
who hired out their labour, to slaves within the Roman familia
has been described by de Robertis, who emphasized the tendency,
not only to give no preference to freemen in a labour force but
even to assign positions of control to the slave. It is not surprising,
therefore, that both are found as members on equal terms of the
collegia tenuiorum (the societies of humble folk largely concerned
with ensuring a decent burial for deceased members). And it is,
no doubt, against this background that the upper-class aversion to
paid work is largely to be seen. Throughout the Roman west the
same general pattern held good. Thus, in the Roman Africa of the
first and second centuries ad epigraphical evidence confirms the
impression given by our literary sources that the available wealth
was almost wholly monopolized by a small group of families
 THE POOR 73

which were also the source of most of the income of the cities in
which they lived. It is probably no coincidence that in Africa, as
I compared with Italy, there is little evidence of modest founda­
tions. As to the pattern in the Roman east W. M. Ramsay wrote
of ‘those great families possessed of immense estates which adapted
themselves to every change in circumstances, floating on the
i currents of history’. The members of these families, though
perhaps deprived of their priestly powers, acted as magistrates in
‘autonomous cities’ which maintained little more than the forms
of Greco-Roman democracy. In southern Asia Minor, for
example, Mcnodora of Sillyon was able to make an impressive
series of benefactions, for herself and for her son and daughter,
as each in turn was elected to a magistracy or priesthood (D. 41);
while enormous wealth must also have been at the disposal of
Opramoas of Lycia, who was commemorated by a great monu­
ment on which were inscribed copies of scores of documents,
letters from emperors and government officials and resolutions
of public bodies, all honouring the remarkable munificence which
he had extended to many cities.77
As a result of this imbalance of wealth a relatively narrow
margin must have separated the many ‘poor’ from the destitute,
so encouraging the majority of citizens to limit their families by
any method not wholly inimical to ethical or religious feelings.
Perhaps it is significant that Polybius should have attributed the
decline of Greece in the third and second century bc to oligan-
thropia (a shortage of manpower); while shortly afterwards
Romans began to voice the fear that Rome might decline for the
same reason. In any event, it is unlikely that an upper class which
could openly recommend and itself practise infant exposure and
abortion, to the extent of arousing the deepest indignation of
Musonius Rufus, would be pre-disposed to discourage such
practices among die poor. In this context we might also notice
that provisions relating to orphans and adoption, of which there
is a fair amount of evidence, in both the Greek and Roman worlds,
dealt mainly with die protection of property-rights and so con­
cerned only orphans of the propertied class; they had little or
nothing to do with the welfare of orphans as such, except in the
74 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

case of war-orphans whom the state might feel obliged to care for.
Indeed, it was the absence of public orphanages and foundling
hospitals (hospitals themselves were foreign to ancient Greece)
which Gomme singled out as the most distinctive feature of
ancient, as compared with modern, social thought and practice
in this sphere.78
Certainly the emphasis in classical literature is not ‘give to the
penniless’, but ‘give to the good when they ask you’—words of
Theognis in the sixth century bc, echoed in the fourth-century
treatise ad Deiiioniaim, attributed to Isocrates, by ‘do good to the
good’, and again two centuries later in Cato’s ‘bono benefacito’.
Give to those who are ‘worthy’ (idonei), urges Cicero; give to the
‘most deserving’ (dignissimi), declares Seneca—to the ‘good’ or to
those who are ‘capable of being made good’. ‘It is a mistake’,
Seneca continues, ‘if anyone thinks that it is an easy thing to
give.... To certain people I shall not give, even though there is a
need, because there will still be a need, even if I do give.’ Aristotle
had said the same; tire generous man would not give to ‘any Tom,
Dick or Harry’.7®
What did this demand for ‘goodness’ or ‘worth’ amount to?
Generally speaking, since these are the precepts of the educated
upper class, it amounted to those qualities of mind or character
which could either serve or be appreciated by that class, qualities
which could scarcely be possessed unless the approved recipient
had at some time enjoyed comfortable circumstances and the
education which these made possible. Thus, Cicero speaks of the
need to take into account a man’s ‘sympathetic and co-operative
attitude towards our (the benefactor’s) way of life, and the con­
tribution which he has already made to our well-being’. In
Aristotle’s Ethics the good and ‘happy’ man will consider worthy
of his love and friendship above all the person who is the closest
counterpart of himself; but, just as it will have been impossible
for the former to have achieved his state of‘virtue’ and ‘happiness’
in the absence of a certain choregia (material assets), so it follows
that any ‘friend’ should not be totally without these, or at least
should not always have lacked them. Hence the educated slave or
freedman would normally be regarded as more worthy of‘friend-
 THE POOR 75

ship’ (and its material expression) than the freeman who had
always been poor. The number of Roman legal texts relating to
legacies to freedmen, which exceeds those relating to children
or fellow-citizens, points in the same direction. Right through the
history of subsequent moralizing on giving, therefore, it is seldom
possible to accept in its most obvious sense even so generalized an
injunction as that of Seneca: ‘Wherever there is a man, there is an
opportunity for doing a good turn’, the apparent universality of
which contrasts sharply with what a recent writer has called its
author’s contempt for the common people, arising from his
‘deeply rooted consciousness of his own intellectual aristocracy’.
The same sort of doubt may be felt about the younger Pliny’s
simple exhortation to give especially to ‘poor friends’; for the
term amici may be at least as operative as its epithet, while the
latter may be taken in a strictly comparative sense.80
Indeed, there arose, even on the part of some of the Christian
Fathers, a demand for a certain worth (dignitas) in the case of those
who asked for alms or who were adjudged fit to receive them.
Not all agreed with John Chrysostom that it was of no conse­
quence to the Christian to discover whether a poor man who
begged for his help really required or deserved it, and that the
onus was rather on the poor not to accept without need. Many
followed Seneca in thinking that it was no such easy a matter to
give; but the ‘worthiness’ now demanded did not require any
material assets as its basis, although in contrast with the classical
demand, it might involve an expectation that the indigent would
accept any work offered.81
At its most stringent, however, the Christian demand involved
the surrender by the wealthy of all their wealth to the poor. That
there was so little suggestion of any such extreme sacrifice by the
wealthy Greek or Roman may in part be attributable to the fact
that the ‘poor’ who were considered to be worthy of gifts in
classical times did not exist in utter destitution. Certainly such
evidence as we have suggests that classical benefactors normally
gave out of regular income deriving from their estates or from
past savings, rarely out of capital. This seems to have been true
even of such a man as the younger Pliny, though rightly adjudged
76 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

one of the most enlightened and generous philanthropists of the

classical world. Indeed, it is well known that at certain periods the
wealthy were extremely reluctant to realize the value of their
estates even to pay off debts, preferring to associate themselves
with revolutionary programmes for the cancellation of debts
instead. Some of these debts, however, may have been incurred as
a result of over-ambitious attempts to help their own city (as well
as to secure self-advancement); Rostovtzeff accepted Plutarch’s
assertion that in his time many were ruined in such attempts.82
Apart from these, there were a few, in the Cynic tradition
especially, who did anticipate the Christian ethic, both in urging
the total renunciation of material possessions by the wealthy and
in advancing as a prime motive for doing so the opportunity
which it provided for the contemplation of real and lasting values.
In this way, it was claimed, the soul might become independent of
the material world (the term which they used of this independence,
autarkeia, was to be used by St Paul) and, by assimilation to the
immortal and immaterial itself, might achieve immortality. But,
as Tarn observed, unfortunately for the poorest element of society
the parallel ended there, and the few who applied this ethic did not
anticipate the Christian insistence that the possessions so renounced
should go to those most in need. They apparently failed to dis­
tinguish between their own situation and that of those who had
never known any wealth which they could give up—or tire
leisure which it afforded for reflection on non-material values.
In general, therefore, the conditions of the poor were little
ameliorated by the rich; the poor man’s hope of better circum­
stances depended for its fulfilment rather upon his willingness to
seize any opportunity of resorting to ‘the ancient device’, of
making a new beginning elsewhere.83
 CHAPTER VI

PITY FOR THE DESTITUTE

‘When you do some act of charity, do not announce it with a
flourish of trumpets.’ Such is the New English Bible translation of
some familiar words in St Matthew’s gospel. The Authorized
Version, with its more archaic language—‘when thou doest thine
alms’—underlines more effectively for the classical mind the
narrow sense of ‘charity’ originally intended. The Greek which
lies behind the English version means literally no more than ‘when
thou doest thine [act of] pity’, the abstract term eleemostnie (pity)
being used, not merely of the motive inspiring a gift, but of the
gift itself. This usage is quite foreign to classical Greek, as is the
parallel use of inisericordia to classical Latin. (Often the Greek term
is merely transliterated.) It was, as we have seen, terms like
philotimia and philodoxia, winch classical Greek used in a precisely
analogous way in the case of the gifts which come to our notice.
Thus, the wealthy arc called upon, or themselves claim, to display
‘love-of-honour’, a disposition finding concrete expression in
‘acts-of-love-of-honour’.8-*
This bare statement of terminology pinpoints the sharp con­
trast between the dominant motive which it was thought appropri­
ate to emphasize in the case of classical giving, on the one hand,
and of Christian, on the other. But how far arc we entitled to
deny that some classical ‘acts-of-lovc-of-honour’—which ex­
tended to the lower classes, even though not confined to them—
were motivated by a degree of pity? How far should we assume
that the classical donor would himself have repudiated such a
motive? Behind the Christian emphasis is a long tradition of a
God of pity, not only in the Old Testament, but also in Egyptian
literature, a God who looks with mercy on the ‘poor’, in the
absolute sense of the term. We may begin by asking whether in
classical literature there is any suggestion that the Greek and
78 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

Roman gods adopted a similar attitude towards the poor and

were concerned to inspire the same in their worshippers. At first
sight, Homer might seem to offer an affirmative answer in, for
instance, the claim of Odysseus to kindly treatment on the
grounds that ‘strangers and beggars are under the protection of
Zeus’. Yet (as Bolkestein urged) doubts arise; for even if we pass
over the possibility that at such a point a fairy-tale element is to be
detected in the story, Odysseus’ claim seems to rest essentially
upon the fact that he is a stranger, a traveller seeking hospitality,
rather than upon the fact that he is a beggar, utterly without
means. The reader is expected to bear in mind that Odysseus is a
beggar only per accidens, that he belongs by birth to a class of men
who are very well aware of the reciprocal implications of a
claim to hospitality, and that he will be in a position to meet his
obligations in the end. The father of the gods was never known as
Zeus Ptochios, god of beggars, but as Zeus Xenios, god of strangers;
thus, the normal attitude towards beggars was to send them
packing (unless, like Irus, they could make themselves temporarily
useful), an attitude untroubled by religious scruples. ‘Those
closest to the god in Homer’, it has been observed, ‘arc not the
poor and the meek, but the stronger and the powerful’; hence
the occasional suggestion in his work that the poor, so far from
receiving better treatment from the gods according to their needs
and deserts, will receive worse because of their inability to offer
adequate gifts and sacrifices. This was an argument rejected at an
early date, as by Socrates in Xenophon’s Memorabilia, on the
grounds that it would involve a divine prejudice in favour of the
wicked who were rich over the good who were ‘poor’; but we
have already seen how difficult it was for any Greek of the upper
class to conceive of ‘goodness’ being compatible with absolute
poverty, so that here, too, we may be justified in taking the term
‘poor’ in a comparative sense.85
In Greek drama the claims of pity not infrequently urged upon
the great and the wealthy are connected, not with the gods’ pity
for the poor as such, but with their envy of the prosperous—an
envy by which the latter are lured into presumption and so to
their downfall. The prosperous therefore had special reason to
 PITY FOR THE DESTITUTE 79

regard themselves as liable to a catastrophic change of fortune by

which (in the words of the dramatist Philemon) ‘the wealthy of
today becomes the beggar of the morrow’ and to ensure pity for
themselves in the hour of need by a readiness to extend it to their
fellows. So looking upon the downfall of Ajax, in Sophocles’
play, Odysseus declares: ‘I pity him, for I see his lot as mine no
less than his.’ The words of Homer which Scipio Acmilianus, the
conqueror of Carthage (146 bc), is said to have repeated as he
watched the flames destroy it, ‘There shall come a day when holy
Troy shall perish’, so foreshadowing the time when Rome would
look in vain for pity from her enemies, illustrate how the Roman
nobiles had imbibed the lesson of many a Greek tragedy. Such a
disregard (or belated regard) of the claims of pity was sheer
imprudence, as Seneca was to re-emphasize: ‘So many instances of
wealthy men becoming beggars overnight, and yet never a
thought on our part for the slippery slope on which our own
prosperity is set.’ The prudent would be more concerned to see
that in case of misfortune there would be (to return to Philemon)
‘comrades and friends and associates to contribute their aid’.86
The Greek term used by Philemon for this contribution of aid
is of interest, for it was used of subscriptions paid into a club
whose members shared in certain mutual benefits only so long as
they continued to subscribe. We find Demosthenes using exactly
the same metaphor in relation to the appropriate behaviour of the
wealthy man in the life of the city-state. Addressing a popular
court, in whose hands lie the fortunes of the wealthy Mcidias, he
philosophizes thus: ‘I consider that all men make contributions
over the whole of their life towards their own fortunes, not
merely those contributions which certain people collect and pay
in, but others also; for instance, in the case of a man who shows
moderation and decent feeling [philanthropic!] and pity for the
masses, it is right that he should receive the same treatment from
all, should he ever be in need or peril.’ The basic attitude is clearly
the same; the only point of difference, as compared with many a
scene in tragedy, is that here, in an actual democracy, ‘pity’ must
be shown not merely to other individual men of wealth, but to the
demos collectively. Both on the stage and in real life, therefore,
 80 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

pity is seen as an attitude to be adopted on an essentially quid-pro-

quo basis, just as philaiithropia itself. Thucydides makes Cleon
express the same view of pity without equivocation: ‘Pity is
appropriately given on an exchange basis to men of like charac­
ter, and not to those who are not going to show pity in return.’
Demosthenes is prepared to be no less blunt on occasion: ‘Nobody
is entitled to meet with pity who docs not display pity, nor with
sympathetic consideration who does not show such consideration.’
Rather more gently, Xenophon makes the same point: ‘Menneed
each other and so they pity and help each other, working in
co-operation.’ Accordingly, as applied to the popular law courts,
this meant that the people could show ‘pity’ by resisting the
temptation to condemn the wealthy man with a view to their
own advantage (through the confiscation of his property); while
the wealthy man could point out that he had earned their ‘pity’,
by reference to Iris own show of pity in having voluntarily
allowed the people to benefit materially from Iris prosperity. In
the language of the Roman Republic this exchange between
defendant and jury was just one type of exchange of benejicia
between an individual and a larger group.87
The failure of a wealthy individual to show ‘pity’ to the people
could, however, only marginally affect the condition of life of the
ordinary citizen. It was the people’s withdrawal of pity from that
individual which could be catastrophic. So, when occasionally
a city erected an Altar of Pity (a rare occurrence), it was clearly
intended as a place of refuge for the wealthy faced with calamity,
especially that arising from political strife; there was no altar or
sanctuary to which the poor and weak could flee (as was possible
for a long time in Egypt) to draw attention to their permanent
condition of life. Homer Thomson has described the sculptures
which probably belonged to the altar set up in the agora at Athens:
it had four panels, each representing a ‘piteous situation induced
by a reversal of fortune’. We are reminded of Aristotle’s view of
tragedy, as arousing pity and fear through a sudden change of
fortune befalling its hero, who had to be a man of fame or
wealth. The poor, by definition, could not experience the
reversal from prosperity to misfortune which called forth these
 PITY FOR THE DESTITUTE 8l

emotions. Still less could the general mass of slaves, who, in their
occasional revolts—particularly in the seventy years after c. 140 bc
—looked to no Greek or Roman god for protection or inspiration.
Aristonicus, who called out the slaves of Pergamum c. 133 BC, has
been thought by some to have given to his projected new state the
name ‘Heliopolis’ to suggest—under the influence of Greek
philosophic, if not religious, ideas of equality—a city where
everything would be shared, as is the sun, by all alike. But it is
more likely that the bulk of his followers, if not he himself, took
this name as suggestive of a city where worship would be directed
towards an oriental baal, a god more appropriate to their origins
and more likely to be seen as interested in their fate, since his
justice was equated with pity. When, a generation later, the
slaves revolted in Sicily, it was a Syrian goddess to whom they
turned.88
The pity to which we find the wealthy challenged, both on the
stage and in real life, was thus essentially linked with fear; the
philosopher Anaximenes had himself observed that ‘the wealthy
arc not accustomed to pity the unfortunate in the same way as do
the poor. It is fear for themselves that engenders their pity for the
misfortunes of others.’ And it is through recognizing this that we
are to understand the well-known Stoic attitude to pity which,
taken out of context, might well seem inconsistent with their
doctrine of ‘well-doing’. They repudiated pity because they saw
it as an essentially self-regarding emotion; like fear it was a pathos,
a feeling which a person suffered by imagining himself the victim
of a catastrophe which had befallen another. As such, pity was
seen, not as a liberating emotion necessary to inspire the selfless
service of others, but as an emotion which enslaved a man’s mind
and spirit, and undermined the good man’s claim to self-sufficiency
and self-command (atitarkeia). Before the Stoics, Plato had banned
drama from his ideal state precisely because it stirred up the
emotions of pity and fear; while Aristotle only assented to the
expression of these emotions on the stage the better to suppress
them in real life. For the Stoic, a pity linked with fear was doubly
objectionable: firstly, in that it questioned the wisdom of the
universe, implying that a particular turn of events should never
F
82 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

have been ‘allowed’ to happen; and secondly, in that it implied an

instability of character in the pitier, suggestive of the person who
maintains the view that nothing happens contra naturam (contrary
to nature) until it happens or seems likely to happen to him. So
the Stoic caricatured by Cicero declares that no one is given to
pity except the man who is without wisdom or stability—a
doctrine which perhaps came easily to the typical Roman aristo­
crat, who was given to making a virtue o£ gravitas.*9
For the Stoic, then, pity was not necessary to inspire generous
action. ‘Are we not able to be generous without pity?’ asks
Cicero, who himself answers: ‘Surely we can, for our obligation
is not to take upon ourselves bitterness and pain for the sake of
others; it is simply, where possible, to relieve others of their pain.’
A Stoic was by definition phttsei koinonikos kai praktikos ‘possessed
of a social conscience and given to act upon it’, but expected to
make a rational rather than an emotional response to any situation
—and to be moved no more by love of fame than by pity, such
love and pity being regarded as diseases of the mind. Thus, Seneca
can claim that ‘there is no sect more gentle and kindly, none more
full of love for mankind or more concerned for the common
good.’ His Stoic prince will ‘rush to the aid of another in response
to the latter’s tears, but will not join in them; he will give help to
the shipwrecked, refuge to the exile, and a copper to the penniless;
nor will it be that disdainful help offered by the majority, who
wish to appear given to pity, that help which is offered with
contempt and loathing by men reluctant to come into contact
with the unfortunate; rather will he give as man to man out of
that which is common to man [ex coinimini]. He will give a son to
a mother’s tears, will bid Iris chains be loosed and save him from
the arena; he will bury even the body of a criminal, but will do so
unperturbed in mind and countenance’. The attitude is summed
up in two lines quoted by Stobacus: ‘If I being a man do not aid
man’s lot, how shall I appear of right mind?’ (where we might
have said ‘of sympathetic heart’). Similarly, the ‘clemency’ of
Seneca’s prince, rationi accedit, comes close to ‘right thinking’.90
These few quotations are enough to show that, as far as theory
was concerned, the Stoics could claim a high ethical ideal by which
 PITY FOR THE DESTITUTE 83

the wise man will do everything that the man of compassion

might do, but without thinking of, or being afraid for, himself.
(‘Es besser ist, mit zu helfen als mit zu leiden.) Their rejection of
pity arose from a typically Greek awareness of the degree of self-
interest which may lie behind even those attitudes and actions
which are commonly taken as non-self-regarding; from a psycho­
logy which, as Cochrane put it, saw morality either as reason or
as emotion, a dichotomy which was only later to be cut across by
the bona voluntas of Christian ethics. And if it appears that the
Stoic remains self-concerned, intent on his own composure of
mind rather than interested in the plight of others, he might have
replied to the Christian moralist that this concentration on the
eternal reality, resulting in an assimilation to it, was not wholly
unlike the latter’s ‘laying hold of eternal life’ in this present world,
by identification with Christ in ‘charity’.91
The cold, rational nature of the Stoic doctrine as originally
expounded had in fact been modified, perhaps especially by the
influence of Posidonius in the early first century bc, and certainly
some time before it found expression in the Latin of Cicero. By
the time of Seneca, while it is still denied that the Stoic sage will
experience actual pain even at the loss of his own children or
friends, it is admitted that he may undergo something like an
emotional disturbance (aliquid simile perturbation!) which is no
longer regarded as a fault or evil, though it still cannot bc accorded
positive approval as good or praiseworthy. This greater allowance
for human, personal feelings represents just one aspect of a change,
very clearly seen in Seneca, whereby the wise man’s adherence to
an impersonal eternal principle ofjustice and benevolence comes
nearer to the response to a personal and indwelling god. It was a
change which encouraged the attempt (through bogus corres­
pondence) to establish a link between the philosopher and St Paul,
the contemporary expositor of Christianity to the classical
world.92
In this connection, Seneca’s insistence that the Stoic prince
will ‘avoid all disdain’ in his ready response to the needs of others
is particularly worthy of note, for it reappears in the teaching of
the Christian Fathers, being carried to an extreme by John
84 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

Chrysostom, who asserts that where one has nothing to give, the
mere utterance of a kindly word (that is, almost, the mere
avoidance of disdain) may be accounted ‘charity’. But the same
insistence is found prior to both Seneca and Christianity in the
writings of Hellenized Jews at Alexandria; and it was because
Bolkestein linked the Stoic prince’s ‘copper for the penniless’ and
two other Senecan passages, in which a ‘crust for the starving’ and
‘a coin for the beggar’ are added to the traditional human obliga­
tions which fell under the arai Botizygeiai, with parallel demands
found in the writings of Josephus and Philo, that he concluded
that at Rome also oriental influences were beginning to create a
new attitude of pity for the poor in this period. There had cer­
tainly long been scope for such syncretism at Alexandria, and in
Philo we find the significant addition that all such giving should
be ‘out of respect for God’. At Rome, however, the additional
obligations may reflect the more urban life of Seneca’s day, and to
judge from its context, the action of his Stoic prince seems to
relate to persons suddenly reduced to poverty or destitution rather
than to those poor ‘whom always you have with you’. It appears
to resemble the attitude adopted towards war-captives by the
upper class of the Hellenistic world, which readily ransomed men
of their own class but left to their fate the proletarians of the
towns or the peasants, once sold on the slave market’ The philo­
sophy with which such giving is connected, namely that ‘our gift
is not to a man but to mankind’, repeats a dictum familiar to the
Greeks (Diogenes Laertius was to put it into the mouth of
Aristotle), the very generality of which, as has been noticed, is in
sharp contrast with the particularity, for instance, of the parable of
the Good Samaritan: ‘the idea of humanity is not a motive for
love in the New Testament’.93
Some of the very passages quoted to illustrate the basis of the
Stoic attack on pity make it clear that not all of the wealthier class
would have been anxious to deny pity as a motive for their
beneficence (nor did all shrink from appealing to it when charged
with a crime, since it was customary for defendants who had no
beneficia to rely on, to parade theirwives and children in court.) As
to the vast unphilosophical majority, an analysis of prose epitaphs
 PITY FOR THE DESTITUTE 85

has indicated that among the Greeks at any rate there was little
desire to record of the departed that they were given to pity. It
was apparently sufficient to say of a man that ‘he was the friend of
all and caused pain to none’. The element of pity involved in the
response to the needs of the beggar and penniless, when brought
under the scope of the arai Bouzygeiai, might therefore be identi­
fied with that which even the Christian apologist John Chryso­
stom recognized as a natural human reaction (as Plassman puts
it, ‘aus reinem Naturtrieb"), and therefore of no special ‘merit’ to the
Christian.94
In the more democratic type of city, however, it was not always
politic for the ruling class in their dealings with the rank and file to
lay undue stress on pity, except on the quid-pro-quo basis noticed;
for such an emphasis would have implied that the material
benefits which they conferred were something to which the
recipients had no moral claim, thus denying the whole basis of the
bargain which we have seen to be implicit in the concept of
the polis. If mentioned at all, pity tended to be linked with terms
like ‘fraternization’, ‘co-operation’, and ‘civil concord’—as it was
by the philosopher Democritus in talking of the loans which the
upper classes sometimes made to the poor. The Rhodians, de­
scribed by Strabo as having ‘cared for their poor, although not
operating a democratic constitution’, would have claimed to be
more just and prudent than other ruling oligarchies rather thari
more given to pity, recognizing, with Aristotle, that ‘it is in the
interest of the prosperous themselves to distribute surplus revenue
to the poor’. Moreover, the attitude of a man admitting to acts
of pity or clemency might even have been taken by his fellow
citizens as an admission of his ‘tyrannical’ status: in a ‘free
state’ justice could not be identified with pity or mercy, as in
the Hebrew or Egyptian languages. In Dittenberger’s collection
of Greek inscriptions reference to pity occurs but once and then
only as a motive denied by Nero in announcing his benefactions
to the Greeks, lest their ‘freedom’ might seem to be questioned.95
It has also been suggested that the institution of slavery made it
natural for the wealthy to think of their dealings with the lower
class in terms of self-interest rather than sympathy. They were
86 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

accustomed to seeing the poor free man and the slave at work
together, so it would be easy for them to think of their dealings
with both in much the same way. The influence of slavery, how­
ever, worked two ways; thus, there were certain slaves of high
education, employed mainly in the households of the wealthy,
whose masters could not fail to recognize that in culture and
ability they were more advanced, not merely than the average free
man, but than themselves. Such slaves, above all, were capable of
becoming the ‘friends’ of their masters qua men, as Aristotle
emphasized (although it is more commonly remembered against
him that qua slaves they could only be regarded as ‘tools which
have life’). Even those who performed for their masters personal
services which called for qualities of character rather than intellect
might be seen as ‘friends’ in some sense; such were the ‘humites
amici’ noted in a letter of Seneca. It is this kind of relationship
between master and slave which in fact again illustrates and
confirms that the classical estimate of the ‘worthiness’ of a person
to receive acts of beneficence, and so, in some sense, the sympathy
with which he was viewed, tended to depend in practice, not on
his legal status, but on lais disciplina et mores (education and
character), even if the latter had been achieved during a period of
freedom and reasonable affluence which misfortune had ended.96
At this point it is appropriate to introduce the Latin concept of
humanitas which, in its original usage, more than any other is
expressive of this mutual appreciation of a common culture,
irrespective of barriers of race or legal status. Gellius tells us that
die term was originally used to express what the Greeks called
paideia (education), and so it came to convey that kindly or
humane attitude which one educated person might be expected
to feel for another. Later, however, the term became assimilated
in meaning rather to die Greek philauthropia (as not infrequently
in Cicero’s letters), which had itself, by the Hellenistic period (or
even earlier, according to one view which sees it as expressive of
the ideals of fourth-century Attic society), come to indicate
something like a feeling of human decency. But the term philan-
thropia, by reason of its very derivation, tended to suggest the
relationship between social inferior and social superior: it could
 PITY FOR THE DESTITUTE 87

be used in a clearly derogatory sense and applied to beings other

than human, for instance, to the fawning of a dog in response to
the kindness of his master. Humanitas was not naturally used in the
same way, and some have suggested that by the late first century
ad it may have conveyed the idea of a warm, human sympathy
for the weak and helpless in a measure which philanthropia never
did.97
It has been suggested that this wider sympathy had its origins
and found expression in Rome’s dealings with many different
peoples as her empire expanded, leading her to see these peoples as
deserving of individual treatment and yet also as possessed of a
certain common worth enabling them to be grouped eventually
under a single citizenship—something which the Greeks, perhaps
because of their too coldly logical concept of ‘friendship’ or
philanthropia between man and man, failed to achieve in practice.
In another sense it might be seen as the extension of that attitude
of pietas (is there a Greek word suggestive of the same depth of
personal feeling?) from the narrow sphere of the Roman family
to that of a family of provinces and peoples. In the cultural sphere
tliis deeper emotional feeling perhaps finds expression in the more
personal character (the limited evidence may be deceptive) of
Latin elegy, as compared with Greek, or in that quality in Virgil
which gives rise to such lines as die famous and untranslatable
‘sunt lacriniae rerum’. In philosophy it may be found in Cicero’s
call for the display of reverentia, rather than merely of amicitia,
towards all men, not only die best, foreshadowing Seneca’s
‘homo sacra res homini’ and the religious expression of Stoic
philosophy already noticed in Seneca. The same attitude of
‘reverence’ is demanded of the teacher towards the child by
Juvenal, and Quintilian’s whole discourse on education breathes
the same spirit, as indeed much earlier do certain passages of
Lucretius’ poetry with their ‘very Roman love of children and
feeling for the family’. In the realm of law we see this humanitas
inspiring the laws of the second-century Roman Empire in the
interests of slaves vis-a-vis their masters, a trend running parallel
to the development of administrative provision for the needs of
children which reached its peak in the same period.98
88 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

Yet before we ascribe to Roman civilization, on the basis of the

word hutnanitas, the development of what Dill called a ‘pure
human charity... a feeling of duty to the helpless, whether young
or old’ greater than anything which the Greeks had known, two
notes of caution need be sounded. Firstly, there are many who
believe that if our evidence for the Hellenistic age were fuller, we
should find there a charity no less (if no more) purely human.
Thus, a recent investigation of the term benignitas led to the con­
clusion that its development belonged to the evolution of
charitable thought in the second century with its ‘triple current,
Greek, Stoic and perhaps Christian’. Already in Hellenistic com­
edy we see represented that kindly relationship between master
and slave which seems to represent the ideal at which Roman
legislation hinted; and from inscriptions we see slaves and freed
men participating in certain public feasts and distributions on
equal terms with the free citizens—though there was more than
one side to this development. Secondly, we must certainly
emphasize that any such distinctive sympathy was narrowly
confined and ‘Roman’ only in the sense that it finds expression in
the Latin-speaking west rather than in the Greek east. In general
it would probably not be disputed that there was in the Roman
character a coarse and even brutal element which it needed the
graces of Hellenism to refine—an element expressed in the love of
the arena show rather than of the cultural or athletic festival, even
though it may be true that under Roman influence the Greeks,
too, eventually acquired a similar preference. There were those
who protested their dislike of such amusements, but rarely
through a sense of sympathy with the victims; and the protestors
seem to have been few and come notably from the country towns
of Italy, such as Comum, or from the provinces—the home back­
ground of most of the paternalistic emperors (and not a few of
their advisers) in the second century ad. It is therefore among a
comparatively few rare spirits, even within the cultured Latin­
speaking class of the Empire, that this distinctive humanity is, if
anywhere, to be sought."
 CHAPTER VII

THE PROVISION OF
BASIC COMMODITIES
Corn, oil and cash were the commodities most commonly
distributed in the classical world, and since cash must normally
have been used, even where not officially intended, for the pur­
chase of food, it is convenient to treat all three together. We have
evidence of a very large number of such private gifts, whether given
during life or at death, whether recurrent (provided for by founda­
tions) or non-rccurrent. In this giving, however, wc may safely
generalize that the poorest class of society was never singled out
for specially favourable treatment, although where the amount to
be distributed by the donor was large enough, they might be
treated on an equal footing with the more well-to-do, more
especially when the occasion was of a religious character. Wealthy
men who accepted supposedly civil magistracies often found
themselves presiding over at least one popular religious occasion,
perhaps involving a sacrificial feast, the whole or partial cost of
which they would bear themselves. Those who accepted priest­
hoods or who, as private individuals, undertook the maintenance
or revival of religious festivals—acts more apparently falling into
the category of charity which Lord Macnaghten labelled ‘the
advancement of religion’—were likely to involve themselves in
still greater expenditure; and while personal, political or social
distinction was usually thereby achieved, Rostovtzeff regarded the
devotion of the Greek bourgeoisie to the Pan-Hellenic and city
gods as a ‘genuine reflection of their religious sentiment’.100
For the common people, whenever food was distributed to all
alike, as L. Robert wrote, ‘I’essentiel dans le sacrifice est le banquet qui
le suit’. Robert provided a good example, that of Epaminondas of
Akraephia in Boeotia, who in the mid-first century ad gained
90 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

great popularity through his revival of the sacrifice and festival

for Apollo (since this was associated with the Emperor cult at the
time, it would also have gained the Emperor’s approval). A
lengthy inscription records of his five-year presidency of the
revived festival that' he neglected no expenditure or sacrifice’ and,
not satisfied with that, ‘at the beginning of the festival in the sixth
year he made a distribution throughout the city to all citizens,
residents and slaves, giving to each man a measure of corn and
half a measure of wine’. The inscription goes on to describe how,
‘out of reverence for the gods’, he sacrificed a bull to the gods and
to the deified Emperors, ‘being unfailing in his due provision of
distributions of meat and meals and sweetmeats and dinners,
while lais wife, from the twentieth to the diirtieth day, provided
in turn at all meals for the children of the citizens, the slaves who
had reached manhood, the wives of the citizens, the young women
and the adult women slaves; he did not even pass over the booth­
holders and those who were putting on the festival, but gave them
a meal at his own expense by public invitation, something which
none of his predecessors had done’ (the last phrase was one in
which benefactors seem particularly to have revelled). The people,
not unnaturally, were grateful and when a number of them met
him, as he came down from the temple, to express that gratitude,
he responded by making yet another sacrifice to Zeus and a feast
for all those who had so gathered; and so the sequence might
continue almost indefinitely.101
A more famous example, as benefactor at Athens about a cen­
tury later, was T. Claudius Atticus, ‘who would often sacrifice
one hundred oxen to the goddess in a single day and entertain at a
sacrificial feast the whole population of Athens by tribes and
families’, while the annual celebration of the Dionysia would
provoke similar generosity (D. 80). It was on such occasions
especially that women and children, non-citizens and slaves
frequently seem to have been included during and after the late
Hellenistic period. Thus, an inscription of the first century bc
mentions the children of slaves who, following a sacrifice to all
the gods, had shared in more than one banquet given by Soteles of
Pegae (D. io), near Megara. And in certain cities of Asia Minor
 THE PROVISION OF BASIC COMMODITIES 91

particularly, such as Stratonicea (D. 33), with her two great tem­
ples of Panamarus and Lagina, a picture emerges from inscrip­
tions of men, women, children, foreigners and slaves of every age
and condition constantly participating in such feasts, whether within
or without the sanctuaries—although in thus area we must allow
for non-Grcck and perhaps Jewish influences. But the extent to
which religious festivals might depend on the continuing readi­
ness of affluent citizens to pay for them is evident in our example
of Akracphia (D. 12), for only a generation after the revival of the
Apollinc festival by Epaminondas the celebrations were once
more threatened by lack of money, causing the town to turn to
the generosity of three of her citizens acting in concert, as it did
also for other services essential to the general well-being.103
However, where the amount which a person had to give was on
a lesser scale (and it was only a few men who could give a really
worthwhile gift to everyone, as did T. Claudius Atticus (D. 80)
in bequeathing a sum sufficient to provide every Athenian with a
tnina annually) the money was likely to go to the town-councillors
or to that particular section of tire upper class to which the donor
himself belonged. This was true not only of a few gifts which
might be regarded as mainly religious in character, but par­
ticularly of those where the emphasis was social rather than
religious (in so far as these two aspects can be distinguished). The
distribution was thus confined to those held ‘worthy of honour’
or, if spread over the whole population, was received in larger
proportions by the former. This tendency has been noted both in
Greek Asia Minor and in the Roman west; and most recently in
Italy itself—Duncan-Jones has collected the evidence (D. 40, 42,
43). Here in fifty-eight inscriptions relating to multiple distri­
butions (distributions in which different sections of the populace
receive different amounts) the town-councillors never fail to
appear as recipients and usually appear as the most privileged
class. It is the next most affluent class, the Augustales, who receive
at the second-highest rate, gaining special consideration in forty-
four instances. In extreme cases the discrimination against the
common people is in the ratio of fifty to one, and discrimination
by factors of three or five is quite normal. Again, where children
92 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

or wives are specifically mentioned as eligible (where they receive

no mention, the presumption is that they did not qualify) it is
usually those of the higher social classes who are so favoured.
Certain multiple distributions in the Greek east (D. 41) seem at
first sight rather more equitable, in granting ahnost equal amounts
to members of both assembly and council, but the almost certain
explanation is that in these cities there was a property qualification
for membership of the assembly, which would not therefore
represent the common people. It may be that the rarity of dona­
tions to cities for the relief of the burden of poll taxes, such as are
known at Tenos and Ibiza under the Roman Empire (D. 37, 3 8), is
to be seen in this context, for such donations would go against the
normal trend in benefiting all classes equally, the tax being at a
flat rate.103
Are we then simply to say that the regulation of the Italian
sportulae (and of other comparable multiple distributions) was
governed by honorific, not philanthropic, considerations? Such a
generalization may perhaps be upheld, but we should be careful to
make two qualifications. Firstly, we need to emphasize that, had
there not been some degree of philanthropic feeling motivating
the donors, the lowest class might have been excluded from the
distribution altogether. This point becomes the more interesting
in the case of Italy when we learn, unless our inscriptions are very
unrepresentative, that multiple distributions were much common­
er in the more depressed areas of central Italy and the urban
south than they were in the prosperous north; for this might be
taken to mean that members of the upper class did feel that money,
which otherwise might have been distributed solely within their
own class or expended on projects of pure self-glorification,
should to a small degree at any rate be shared by the lower class on
the grounds of sheer need. A certain element of pietas could be
allowed for, a sense of duty towards the extended family of the
city, assuming a form which perhaps did not seem as compelling
in northern Italy.10*
Secondly, there did clearly come a stage in the history of all
municipalities when certain donors felt that by such special
inducements men, otherwise unwilling, might be persuaded to
 THE PROVISION OF BASIC COMMODITIES 93

stand for the offices essential to the life of the city, and not least to
the material well-being of the lower class, calling as they did for
so much private expenditure. Thus, a donor at Petelia in Italy
left a sum of money for the acquisition of certain equipment for
the priests of the cult of Augustus, considering that ‘men will more
readily take upon themselves the burden of the priest of Augustus
as long as they have this asset before their eyes’. Looking eastwards
we may quote the donation of Tiberius Piso Mithridatianus
towards the liturgical expenses of officials connected with the
gymnasiarchy at Apamea in Phrygia, or a similar attempt to be
‘both philanthropic and useful’ by a donor at Oxyrhynchus in
Egypt (D. 44). Into the same context fits evidence from Athens,
from the first half of the second century onwards, where in­
scriptions show that the expenses faced by the presiding committee
of the Council (holding office for a month only) were commonly
met by wealthy citizens who did not belong, as was once required,
to the tribe which provided that committee; and so their name
appeared, sometimes with that of Athena Polias (if her treasury
had also helped), and sometimes alone, as ‘eponymous’ (official
leader) of the ‘prytanizing’ tribe. By the diird century the city
itself is reinforcing the piety or patriotism of her citizens acting
in such ways, by extending to them, as to a certain Eubiotos and
his sons, a double portion in feasts at the town hall and council
chamber and tax exemptions into the bargain. It may be that
most of the inscriptions relating to multiple distributions in Italy
and elsewhere antedate the stage where such enticements hac
become necessary, but the matter is scarcely open to proof in each
particular instance.103
Even if a distribution for all equally was provided by a donor,
this would of course mean, as is often stated, especially in the case
of endowments with a strong funerary purpose, all who were
willing and able to turn up at the appropriate place and time. How
far can we suppose that in fact only the poorest class would turn up
for a gift which was bound to be comparatively small because of
the large number of those eligible to receive it? There is good
reason to be cautious of such an assumption. As we have seen, in
most city-states the large majority of the population, though not
94 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

penniless, could not afford to disregard even small material

benefits, particularly if the occasion happened to be a public
holiday offering no opportunity for material gain by work. On
such occasions the ‘poor’ will have been glad to rub shoulders
with the poorest. As for the wealthy, the evidence of multiple
distributions is a fair indication of their readiness to receive
amounts which to them were still trifling, even when greater than
those received by the general populace. And we might take
account of their reaction at Rome when in 58 bc the tribune
Clodius established a free public ration of corn. According to
Cassius Dio they proceeded to manumit their slaves in order that
as freedmen (and as such scarcely less useful to their late masters)
the latter might receive the corn ration—even though they, tire
masters, were quite capable of supplying such corn themselves.
Not that we should suppose that this meanness obtained among
all members of the upper class, though the over-readincss of the
Roman to receive from wealthy patrons, matching his un­
readiness to give, is amply documented in the satires of Juvenal
(where the wealthy slave-owners elbow out ‘the poor’ when the
patron’s gifts are being dispensed) and in certain passages of Pliny’s
letters some two centuries after Clodius. We may reasonably
suspect that the tendency, apparent from the Hellenistic period,
to make private distributions of com, oil and, more commonly,
sacrificial feasts, accessible to slaves was as much in the interests of
their masters as of the slaves themselves, and that it was in fact
contrary to the interests of the really poor among the free popu­
lation who now had a larger number of rivals to contend with.106
But even if we allow for a mixture of motives behind private
giving, these various factors should certainly give us pause before
we assume, when we turn to the regular public provision of food
or cash in die city state, that these distributions are to be seen as
‘doles’ for those particularly in need; especially as the financial
resources sustaining them must generally have derived, directly or
indirectly, from the class providing private benefactions. It has
been with regard to the distribution of com by the state that the
‘dole’ interpretation has occasionally been advanced, and it is for
this reason that we shall argue in terms of com distributions,
 THE PROVISION OF BASIC COMMODITIES 95

although our argument will apply in general to other commodi­

ties distributed.107
The regular public distribution of corn in Greek cities is to be
seen in the context of the constant resort to epidoseis (subscrip­
tions), one of the most common purposes of which was to meet
emergencies relating to the food supply. Even though special
officers were appointed to maintain adequate supplies of corn and
control its price, the very frequency of the need to rely upon their
generosity or that of wealthy subscribers led in the Hellenistic
period to the recognition in many cities that it would be better to
establish a permanent fund producing an annual revenue sufficient
to provide in advance against such emergencies. Our most de­
tailed evidence as to such a fund comes from Samos in a lengthy,
though incomplete, inscription (D. 6). Had the inscription been
complete we might have known more than merely the names
of those who combined to establish this fund and the amounts
contributed. But we may safely presume that it came from the
same class of wealthy men who were always expected to subscribe
to epidoseis or even found schemes of their own, as did Euphrosy-
nus at Mantinca (D. 13), who left to the city an amount of land,
the revenue from which was to be used to ‘provide an unfailing
supply of food in perpetuity'’.108
The Samian decree provides us with a great deal of detail as to
the administration of the fluid. We note the great care with which
one set of officers is appointed to attend to the lending out of the
money, another to receive the revenue with which the corn is
to be purchased, the provisions regarding securities to be obtained
from those who borrow and the fining of officials who fail to
perform their duties satisfactorily, and the instructions as to where
corn is to be bought (the district of Anaia on the mainland
opposite, a convenient source, since it was temple land and the
money paid became in fact a kind of financial reserve for the city,
as it was understood that the money of a god could always be
borrowed!). We notice, too, the very emphatic and detailed veto
against any misapplication of the fund: ‘Let no one have the right
to use this money for anything else, nor the revenue deriving
from it, except for the provision of com etc.’ Then there is the
96 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

special provision made for those travelling or ill at the time of

distribution. But among all these provisions and safeguards we
find none whereby only those who were in genuine need should
benefit; nor is there any suggestion of more generous provision
being made for the fathers of large families. The wording of the
decree, in fact, makes it extremely difficult to assume (as did
Francotte) that ‘it was understood’ that the fund was intended for
the poor: ‘Let them measure out all the com that has been bought
individually to the citizens in residence by chiliastys (subdivisions
of the tribes) giving to each a ration of two measures a month free.’
The distribution was to ‘begin in the month of Pelusion and to
continue as long as the supply lasts’; thus, even though it was fore­
seen that such a distribution could not be maintained throughout
the year, there was no attempt to disqualify the well-to-do so as to
enable benefit to the poor to extend further.109
More fragmentary or shorter inscriptions have been found
relating to other funds. One of the more recent comes from Sam-
othrace (D. 8), and relates to the early or middle years of the
second century bc. As its editor, P. M. Fraser, suggests, it may be
significant that half a century earlier Samothrace had had to make
special request to one of King Ptolemy of Egypt’s generals
stationed in the Hellespont and Thraceward regions, for per­
mission to import corn tax-free from the Pontic Chersonese.
Clearly, then, Samothrace had found difficulty in maintaining her
food supply and presumably tire emergencies became so frequent
that something more reliable than a scries of ad hoc remedies was
felt to be essential. The matter was also seen as affecting the island
as a whole, and it was in the interests of all, not simply of any one
section of the populace, that the fund was established.110
No doubt, once a permanent revenue had been made available
for this purpose, further supplementary gifts were always
acceptable, whether or not called forth by an epidosis. Such may
have been the context of an inscription from lasos, dating c. 150
bc, which refers to certain citizens who had given a sum of money
‘so that the people might ever live prosperously with ample
supplies of corn, there being established for all the citizens from
the public funds the principle of equal-rations’. The last word,
 THE PROVISION OF BASIC COMMODITIES 97

sitometria, conveys something like the idea of a ‘fair share for all’,
to ison kai dikaion, as applied to the com supply in particular. The
concept was to find a close parallel at Rome under the Empire,
when on coins representing corn distributions there appeared the
symbol ‘equality’ (aequitas'), while in Galatia, in the period of tire
early Empire, an inscription speaks of a nobleman who ‘gave
sitometria , at the level of 5 modii per head.111
From Messcne in the Peloponnese, too, we have epigraphical
evidence for the existence of a permanent fund for the supply of
corn, though in this case the inscription appears to deal not (as was
once thought) with the arrangements for issuing each citizen
with his proper share; rather it is concerned with the most ad­
vantageous exploitation of a glut of com which had come into the
hands of com-commissioners, whereby the amount in excess of
the year’s need was to be handed over to any person who could
use it, on condition that he returned its value with interest in the
subsequent year. But there is no reason to doubt that these
arrangements were being made for die benefit of die citizen-body
as a whole.112
For Athens we have no evidence of a permanent public fund
for free distribution, but it is consistent with the general picture
that, on the occasion of the gift of a large quantity of corn to die
Athenians by Psammetichos of Egypt in the mid-fifth century,
there was no attempt to allocate it to those most in need. Then
is indeed reliable evidence of an attempt to limit the number o
recipients, but the reduction was achieved only by an investiga­
tion of the citizen list with a view to removing non-citizens whose
names had no right to appear there. Again, a century and more
later, when a subscription was established to enable corn to be
sold at the normal price in a period of widespread shortage
(329-324 bc), this was in the interest of the citizen body as a whole;
and, in keeping with the principle of sitometria, a corn rationing
system was applied at the same time.113
In such cases the advantage to the poor is not to be overlooked.
Were it not for such schemes the well-to-do might have been
prepared to pay an exorbitant price for com in times of shortage,
so leaving die poor with nothing at all. Yet, undoubtedly another
G
98 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

important factor in a city such as Athens was that the profits from
the selling of corn at a black-market price would not ordinarily go
to die well-to-do citizens but to the merchant of non-citizen
(inetic) status. Against him the rich and poor alike had a common
interest in sitometria, and schemes to establish it were seen as
providing a positive safeguard against the ever suspected attempts
of the merchant class to cause artificial shortages of commodities
which had to be imported in some quantity. So sitometria balanced
the negative safeguard represented by the heavy penalties imposed
on those who infringed the stringent regulations relating to a
commodity’s import and marketing.114
The Athenian method of distributing gifts of corn had an early
precedent, hi 483 bc, it was planned to distribute to each citizen an
equal share of silver—a windfall of some hundred talents deriving
from the mines in the Laurium district—since, like the windfall of
corn, it was regarded as belonging to all alike (in the event,
however, with Xerxes threatening invasion, Themistoclcs had
the money spent on defence). This leads us on to consider two
kinds of periodic money distribution at Athens: the thcorikon,
which comes into prominence in the fourth century BC, though it
may have existed in some form in the fifth; and the diobelia, which
belongs to the late fifth century.115
In a sense the thcorikon was an assertion of the principle that the
profits of the ‘society’ of all Athenians should be shared. Its
official purpose, so Libanius tells us, was (as its name suggests) to
provide the cost of a theatre ticket, so enabling the poorer classes
in particular to attend the dramatic festival at a time when
admission to the theatre still had to be paid for. But there is the
clear implication in Libanius’ account that all citizens were
entitled to receive it. Part of the explanation for this lies in the fact
that the dramatic festival was not merely a state religious occasion
but, in the Periclean period (if it is accepted that the institution
already existed in some form by then), an occasion for parading
before the people the material evidence of their empire, the tribute
of its member states—a moment of national pride in which it
might be felt that all should share. In the fourth century, however,
the theatre-money’ was seen by Eubulus and his supporters as a
 THE PROVISION OF BASIC COMMODITIES 99
means of giving the people as a whole a material interest in the
maintenance of peace at a time when Athenian finances were in
constant difficulties owing to allegedly unnecessary military and
naval adventures. For the people could now be discouraged from
approving such adventures—which were themselves attractive
mainly because they offered hope of material gain—by an
arrangement whereby any saving through cuts in military
expenditure would be made available each year for distribution
among the people. The actual amounts which were distributed is
one of several points still in doubt. There is certainly no reason to
believe that the increasing sums which passed through the hands of
the commissioners of the theoric fund were all intended for
distributions, and one estimate suggests that a sum greater than 12
drachmae per citizen per year—less than a week’s pay for a heavily
armed soldier at fifth-century rates—was rare. But however large
or small the amount distributed, again it appears that all citizens
were eligible to receive it, though doubtless the demos, in the
sense of the mass of ordinary citizens (rather than as also including
the wealthy few—the word was conveniently clastic), had the
greater interest in the scheme. It would be in recognition of
this fact that a fourth-century politician called the theorikon the
‘cement of democracy’; while Aristode, by going on to discuss
more positive and permanent methods of dealing with poverty
after rejecting such distributions in principle, also makes it clear
that herein lay their advertised purpose. For Aristotle himself it
was clear that the purpose would never be achieved in that way,
for ‘the people, in the act of taking, ask for the same again.... Tc
help the poor [a clear case where the latter term is synonymou
with ‘the people’] in this way is to fill a leaky jar’.”6
In the case of the diobelia, die two-obol payment, there is more
doubt as to the intended recipients. The payment has been
identified by some scholars with the ‘theatre money’; by others
with the juryman’s pay, as reintroduced by Clcophon in the later
years of the Peloponnesian War, the disasters of which had
caused these payments to be dropped after 413 bc. If the diobelia
was in fact equivalent to the first, then presumably it went to all
citizens; if to die second, it cannot be strictly regarded as a dole,
100 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

but as the payment rendered by the state for the typical service of
the small man in a radical democracy (although some have seen
the establishment of large, paid juries as little more than a device
for meeting the needs of older men oppressed by poverty even in
the greater prosperity of the mid-fifth century). But a third possi­
bility is that the diobelia was a payment specifically intended for
needy citizens, irrespective of any services or attendances at state
festivals, and its introduction may belong to the period when the
principle asserted by the revolutionary government of 41 x bc,
that no one should receive payment for any kind of civil office,
was still being maintained, even after that government had been
overthrown. In this period it would be that section of the populace
which had previously relied upon the juryman’s pay for subsistence,
perhaps a thousand or so ‘drastically unemployed citizens’, who
would suffer most, especially under wartime conditions; and the
years of ascendancy of men of moderate outlook, like Theramenes,
might have provided the right political climate for such a pro­
vision as a temporary expedient. We may recall that Aristotle,
who admired Theramenes, recognized that it was the duty of a
‘genuine democrat’ to ensure that the masses are not excessively
poor. One cannot indeed deny the force of the observation of
recent commentators that it is ‘perhaps more in accordance with
Athenian traditions’ to interpret the diobelia as a re-introduction
of fees for everybody at a lower level. Yet, were the Athenians
unique in this respect? They are the only Greek people known
to us who made special provision for their poorer disabled
citizens—perhaps originally those disabled in war (D. 61). It
could therefore be surmised that they made special provision for
those suffering acutely from the economic effects of war as well.
Such a measure would come nearer to poor relief in the modern
sense than almost any other of which we have evidence; but it
could not long have outlived the crisis which gave it birth.117
> At Rome the great influx of population into the city and the
need to import vast quantities of corn to feed it, especially in
the last two centuries of the Republic, eventually gave rise to the
same sort of permanent problem which had faced many Greek
states. The traditional assistance of clients by patrons, even when
 THE PROVISION OF BASIC COMMODITIES IOI

supplemented by the casual gifts of friendly kings, or by the

occasional abundance resulting from success in war or the ‘public
spirit’ of the aediles (which could cause the price of corn to fall as
low as one as) was quite inadequate. In the tribunate of Gaius
Gracchus, therefore, a permanent scheme was introduced (123
bc) whereby corn was to be provided monthly, not free (as at
Samos), but at a fixed and moderate price, presumably through­
out the year. The capital sum required to provide the revenue for
this subsidy may have brought Rome a step nearer to the idea of the
‘foundation’, but in this case it was not drawn directly from the
wealth of the upper class, in the way that the Samian fund had
been, but rather from the profits of empire. There is a famous
story concerning one of the chief opponents of the law of 123,
L. Piso, who explained his presence at a subsequent distribution by
saying: ‘I would prefer that you were not of a mind to divide my
property among the citizens individually, but seeing that you arc
dividing it, then I shall ask for my share.’ But Piso could claim
that it was his property which was being divided only in the sense
that it was part of the publica, the people’s funds, which were his as
much as anybody else’s—it was a stock criticism of any such law
that it was a drain upon public funds. Piso’s answer, however,
makes it quite clear that the Gracchan scheme resembled that at
Samos in making the subsidized corn available to every citizen,
thus serving as a corrective against any literal interpretation of
Plutarch’s statement that the scheme provided cheap corn for ‘the
poor’. Gaius’ surprise at Piso’s appearance at the distribution was
due, not to the fact that he was wealthy and so had no right to
attend, but simply to his inconsistency in seeking to benefit from a
a law which he had opposed. Appian speaks quite clearly of the
law’s ‘fixing for each of the citizens a monthly ration of corn’,
though less accurately in suggesting that the ration was already
free. Again, we observe, there is no provision for an extra supply
for the fathers of large families, such as a welfare scheme might
demand."8
On the other hand, we should not discount the disproportion­
ate real value of cheap com to the poor man as compared with the
wealthy; it is this (rather than the legal situation) which Plutarch
102 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

was concerned to bring out, as did Cicero, though with obvious

political bias, when he spoke of such measures being welcome to
the poor ‘because food was supplied in free measure without
their needing to work for it’; and while the scheme undoubtedly
owed much to Greek precedent, it may be regarded in part as an
extension, on a more impersonal basis, of the Roman client­
patron relationship, whereby the upper class was being called upon
to admit a degree of collective responsibility for the lower
classes.11’
Provision of corn at a moderate price did eventually lead on to
its free provision as a result of a law of tire famous P. Clodius,
tribune of 58 bc, whose whole career, however, makes it unlikely
that he regarded it anything more than a vote-catching device (not
that we need suppose that Gaius Gracchus was unmindful of this
aspect of liis original scheme, especially if we accept Appian’s
chronology of liis tribunates). Between the tribunates of Gaius
Gracchus and Clodius, yet another tribune, Saturninus, had
attempted (in 103 or 100 bc) to reduce the price payable to five-
sixths of an as, but it is very doubtful whether he succeeded. Some
scholars, indeed, have supposed that he passed a law re-introducing
the scheme of Gaius Gracchus, on the assumption that the
latter’s law had already been replaced by a more moderate measure
of a certain M. Octavius. This suggestion, however, requires us
not only to emend the price as given in our sole source for
Saturninus’ proposal—an odd price, admittedly, for what could
only have been a nominal charge—but also to pass over a remark
of Cicero which seems to make Octavius a contemporary of
young men who were coming into political prominence in the
early decades of tire first century bc. It is better, then, to regard
the Gracchan law as remaining in force mi til the time of Sulla’s
ascendancy, about 80 bc, and to suppose that Octavius was acting
in accordance with Sudan ideas in limiting the original scheme in
some way. Whether Sulla himself ever totally abolished the corn
distribution, as is commonly affirmed, the very poor evidence
scarcely entitles us to say. If he did, then this was one of the areas
in which Sulla most obviously failed to move with the times, and
by about 75 bc the tribunes were once again assuming their
 THE PROVISION OF BASIC COMMODITIES 103

traditional role in protesting about the inadequacy of the current

arrangements, whatever these may have been. A law passed in
73 bc may have restored the Gracchan price but provided only a
limited amount of com, in practice, therefore, restricting either
the number of citizens who could benefit under it or the amount
of corn which each could buy. Public agitation continued, but the
words put by Sallust into the mouth of Licinius Macer, who was
active in arousing the agitation, are worthy of notice: ‘The people
responsible for tliis law have valued the liberty of all of you at
five bushels per head.’ It was in the name of libertas that the protest
was made, not in that of humanitas (in its wider sense), with the
emphasis on the rights of free men qua citizens rather than on the
special needs of the destitute qua men. This emphasis foreshadowed
that of the imperial coinage where the representation of a state
corn distribution is accompanied by the legend ‘libertas’, or at­
tended by Libertas personified.120
The emphasis on libertas also implied, of course, that slaves were
not included among the recipients of Clodius’ free corn. But now,
as we have already noticed, the masters of slaves in many cases
took the hint and freed their slaves in order to make them
eligible for a ration. Not only that, but there was a further
difficulty in limiting the distribution to those normally resident in
the city: Appian tells us that ‘idlers and beggars throughout Italy’
flocked to Rome in order to benefit. As a result of this, the need to
draw up a list of those entitled to receive on grounds of domicile
at Rome quickly became apparent, and Caesar, during his dictator­
ship (49-44 bc), did eventually reduce the number of beneficiaries
to 150,000, as compared with the 320,000 said to have been
receiving corn in die immediately preceding period.121
But was domicile at Rome the criterion which Caesar followed
in so reducing the number of beneficiaries? Mommsen held that
the criterion had now come to be that of need, Caesar converting
what had been a general distribution into a genuine dole for the
poor. Tliis view was based in part on certain paragraphs of the
Lex Tabulae Heracleensis, a municipal charter (or the raw material
for one) apparendy representing regulations introduced at Rome
relating to the registration of those who were to receive a com
104 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

ration. Penalties are laid down to deter magistrates from giving

corn to any person whose name does not appear on the list, and
the assumption is that on this list there appeared only those whose
property fell below a certain minimum. A certain plausibility may
be lent to this suggestion in that in Inis agrarian law of 59 bc
Caesar had shown readiness to regulate public assistance according
to need, when it was fathers of three or more children who were
offered allotments. None the less, Bolkestein came independently
to the same conclusion as Van Berchcm in a study specifically
devoted to corn and cash distributions at Rome, namely that no
‘means test’ was introduced. Their views differed only in that,
whereas Bolkestein emphasized the introduction of domicile as a
criterion, Van Berchem insisted that this had always been the
legal requirement and explained the reduction in numbers by
reference to the extensive emigration encouraged by Caesar
(according to Suetonius 80,000 colonists went overseas) and to the
effects of civil war. The reduction of those admitted to the corn
ration might even have been intended to act as a spur to colon­
ization. It is pertinent, however, to observe with Van Berchem
that the resort to lot, also ascribed to Caesar, in order to fill up the
gaps in the list caused by death, does not argue for a careful
determination of the recipients on the basis of need, though it docs
not necessarily exclude a means test; nor significantly is anything
known of a provision whereby the living might be replaced in
case they rose above the supposed minimum on which eligibility
turned. But one may wonder, too, whether there ever was a list,
prior to Caesar, with 320,000 names upon it; the figure is suspect
as being precisely that of the largest number of people ever to
receive congiciria from Augustus Caesar, with which it could
easily—and perhaps conveniently—have been confused.122
As with so much of Caesar’s legislation, the intention behind
this particular measure must be left in doubt. In any case, after his
death, the maximum number of recipients which he had set was
ignored, and we have no certain evidence of the use of stibsortitio n
denwrtuorum locum. Cassius Dio describes the number of those
receiving corn in 2 bc as unlimited; three years earlier it may have
reached 320,000, on the assumption that the same number of
 THE PROVISION OF BASIC COMMODITIES IO5

people were entitled to regular distributions of corn as were

admitted to the occasional congiaria of the Emperor Augustus. The
imperial congiaria themselves may be dealt with briefly in passing,
since they represented merely the continuation through the
Emperor—‘the first and foremost and universal benefactor’, as
Philo described him—of the distributions of corn or oil which had
once been offered, especially by the aediles, to the people under the
Republic. Just as the aediles had been accustomed to confirm the
people in their goodwill by lavish distributions—originally of
wine or oil, later of money—so the Emperor, though commonly
holding no annual civil magistracy, did likewise on a vaster scale,
especially on the occasion of his accession or of the introduction of
his intended successor to public life. The most extensive distribu­
tion belongs to the occasion of Augustus’ introduction of his
grandson (and adopted son) Gaius, as heir apparent to the Princi-
patc. The Emperor’s congiaria, unlike the monthly corn rations,
represented ‘tin acte qtie le prince acconiplit a titre personnel etgracieux’
—and as such they are referred to on the coinage by the legend
liberalitas, which may be accompanied by an ordinal number to
indicate the number of such distributions to date in the current
reign. These congiaria, in accordance with their past history,
naturally went to all citizens alike, the only change being that in
the reign of Augustus boys under the age of eleven were included
among the recipients, an extension which may be seen as a prece­
dent for the institution of regular maintenance allowances for
children by the end of the first century’ ad. But Augustus found it
difficult to confine the congiaria even to this extended number of
recipients, for the wealthy, repeating the manoeuvre which they
had adopted in order to benefit from Clodius’ frce-corn bill,
again proceeded to manumit their slaves. The Emperor was
provoked to declare that he would not give to those who had been
freed after the announcement of a distribution, and that those who
had been freed in anticipation of the announcement would in any
case only cause a reduction in the ration for the individual
recipient.123
With regard to the regular corn ration, the same problems arose
as under the Republic, necessitating the occasional expulsion of
106 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

foreigners from the city, together with some slaves, in face of food
shortages. Indeed, Suetonius tells us that Augustus seriously
thought of abolishing the public distributions once and for all,
and credits him with no loftier motive for abandoning the idea
than his belief that ‘someone would restore them sooner or later
through the desire to win favour (ambitio)’. Eventually, by 2 bc, he
fixed the number of recipients at 200,000, though there may have
been a subsequent reduction to 150,000, the number known to
have benefited from Augustus’ legacy to the people. There is still,
however, no evidence that this reduction was based on any means
test, and there is some evidence to the contrary. Thus, the impli­
cations of Suetonius’ statements already quoted may be supported
by the scholiast’s comment on a line of Persius that all who became
Roman citizens by manumission were automatically included in
the number of those who received frumentum publicum. Further­
more, we have inscriptions in which certain individuals speci­
fically claim that they were in receipt offrumentum or frumentum
publicum-, and, with a few possible exceptions, these arc most
easily explained as claims to Roman citizenship where there was no
other ready way of proving it. On the hypothesis that mere
citizenship and residence at Rome remained the only qualifica­
tion, we are faced, indeed, with the conclusion that the citizen
population of Rome may not have amounted to much more than
a fifth of the total resident population of the city; but such a
conclusion is by no means out of harmony with the general
impression of the populace of Rome derived from literary
sources.12*
Augustus may accordingly have limited himself mainly to
changes in organization, in particular to the issue of tesserae,
tokens or ‘coupons’. At first, apparently, these had actual pur­
chasing power (hence the adjective ‘nummariae’ applied to them
by Suetonius), but they came to be mere ration-cards, taking the
form of wooden tablets (represented on the coinage) and indicated
the eligibility of the holder to receive his ration, the day of the
month on which he was to collect it, and the door of the Porticus
Mimicia at which he was to apply. A change by which the issue of
corn was to take place at four-monthly intervals was also considered
 THE PROVISION OF BASIC COMMODITIES IO7

but not put into effect. Otherwise, the essential tradition of the
Republic was maintained, particularly in that the actual distribu­
tions, although remaining under the general supervision of the
Emperor, were effected through the praefecti frumenti dandi,
appointed from the Senate, a procedure which was probably not
significantly altered by a further reorganization under Claudius.
Such propaganda devices, however, as the grouping of the dis­
tributions offrumentum publicum with the handing-out of personal
largess (congiaria) in the official record of Augustus’ achievements
(Res Gestae), and the later representation of the Emperor at the corn­
distribution scenes portrayed on the coinage, served to remind the
recipient of the real source of his ration. Still more effective remin­
ders would have been those occasions ofspecial stress when Augustus
showed that he understood his tenure of the cura annonae to carry
withit diemoral duty to override dienormal official limits. In AD 6,
for example, he gave ‘free of cost to those who were in receipt of
rations of corn as much again as they regularly received’—per­
haps the occasion when Suetonius records that he ‘tesserasque
nummarias duplicavit’—while at the same time he set a limit on the
amount which anyone could buy on the market. Here we have an
instance where it is practically impossible to disentangle the public
and private aspects of the Emperor’s activity. A coin issued in the
reign of the Emperor Nerva bearing the legend ‘plebei urbanae
frumento constitute S.C.’ may best be understood as pointing to
another instance of an extraordinary imperial distribution, though
still advertising—through S(enatus) C(onsultum)—the nominal
control of the Senate. In the next reign the special intervention of
Trajan caused 5,000 boys, as it appears from the vague terms of
Pliny’s panegyric, to be included among the recipients of fru-
mentum publicum from infancy. It was only with the advent of the
Severi that the replacement of the praefecti frumenti dandi by an
equestrian curator aquarum et Minutiae tore away the last suggestion
of the Senate’s nominal control of distributions. At the same time
the references to the origo and domus of the recipients on docu­
ments cease, probably betraying the effect of the extension of
Roman citizenship by the famous constitutio of 212, and more
especially of the Severan tendency to deprive Italy of her
108 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

privileged position in relation to the rest of the Empire.125

Apart, then, from the ultimate origin of the funds which pro­
vided for these large distributions, the corn ration at Rome, on the
present interpretation, remained in principle essentially the same
as that at other cities of the classical world; and the special provi­
sion of individual emperors, whether through separate cougiaria or
through subventions to an existing corn fund, was not essentially
different from that of many a municipal benefactor, such as
Q. Avelius Priscus at Corfinium (D. 24), or Haterius Claudius
Summus at Salzburg (D. 29). The provision of Trajan in favour of
boys ab infantia, however, leads us a step further, to an institution
specifically concerned with the needs of children, the alimetita,
which from Trajan’s time, if not before, was organized at ‘govern­
ment’ level (D. 18, 19), but which had precedents in private
schemes going back at least as far as the reign of Nero. It was not
later than Nero’s reign that T. Helvius Basila left to the people of
Atina 400,000 sesterces, the revenue from which was to be used to
provide corn for their children until their coming of age, upon
which day they were to receive the sum of 1,000 sesterces (D. 16).
/ The regular revenue necessary for this scheme was provided by
investing money in land, as in the case of many Greek foundations
directed to different purposes. It was only the emphasis on the
needs of children that was new. As to this, we have already seen
that Augustus had pointed the way by including tiiitiores pneri
among the recipients of his occasional cougiaria', and Helvius
Basila, who had been a legatus Augiisti, would have known the
mind of the emperor of the day no less than did Pliny that of
Trajan when he established a private scheme at Comum (D. 17)—
and perhaps celebrated its tenth anniversary by the publication of
a letter to match Trajan’s celebration of the government scheme
by a special commemorative coin issue./In this respect it is not a
point of much practical importance whether the original idea is
regarded as imperial or private in origin. Clearly, however, the
Emperor’s role was given special prominence from Trajan’s time,
not only on the coinage or in public panegyric, such as that
directed to Trajan by Pliny, but also in works of sculpture. One
extant example from the Roman forum, representing the Emperor
 THE PROVISION OF BASIC COMMODITIES 109

seated on a platform in a toga, with the personified Italia and two

children before him, corresponds closely with the scene repre­
sented on certain coins of the period.136
The imperial scheme has occasionally been seen as designed, not
merely to provide subsistence for children, but also to aid small
farmers in need of capital to develop their land—an interpretation
based not least on the fact that an essential part of the scheme
involved the advancing of loans to farmers at a comparatively
low rate of interest. But such loans, as we have noticed, were the
common basis for any scheme designed to provide a permanent
revenue, and the rate of interest was probably kept low in defer­
ence to those who were ‘invited’ to accept loans which were not
repayable when no longer required by the borrower—a point in
which the scheme again followed Greek precedent. A recent
investigation of the distribution of loans under the government
scheme at Vclcia (Liguria) has in fact led to the conclusion that the
aim was not to provide an amenity for farmers but to spread
the load of state investment. This is most obvious in the case of the
preliminary limited scheme initiated by the consular Gallicanus,
for which the largest landholders were chosen, apparently on the
ground that upon them the burden of such unwanted loans would
rest the most lightly. In the main scheme, property worth the
considerable sum of 50,000 sesterces was the minimum for
eligibility, and this security had to be twelve times or more the
amount of the sum borrowed. The fact that the curiales (town
councillors), though invariably large landholders, are scarcely
represented among the borrowers suggests that, in view of the
other calls upon their pockets in their permanent official capacity,
they were possibly protected from what was regarded by the
upper class as just another public burden.137
From one of Pliny’s letters we know that Trajan deprecated the
imposition of non-repayable forced loans in the provinces;
but such loans provided the simplest means of ensuring that the
annual revenue essential to a fund did not fail, and here they could
be justified as being in the public interest. Pliny himself had
financed a similar scheme for die maintenance of boys and girls—
by making over a piece of land to the actor piiblicus of Comum and
IIO CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

then renting it back for 30,000 sesterces a year. Since the annual
yield on the land amounted to a considerably larger sum Pliny
felt confident that the land would ‘always find an owner to work
it’, and that the revenue for his scheme was therefore assured (D.
17). The emperor, however, could not employ such a method, for
at this time imperial land was not sufficiently extensive. The
opening words of the inscription from Vcleia (D. 19) may be
taken as stating the one and only objective of the government
scheme: ‘Mortgages on properties to the amount of 1,044,000
sesterces, whereby in accordance with the kindly purpose of the
best and greatest princeps, the Emperor Caesar Nerva Trajan
Augustus Germanicus Dacicus, boys and girls may receive
maintenance allowances.’ The numbers of children to benefit
follow; there is no hint that the farmer-mortgagees are receiving
anything through the Emperor’s indulgentia.12*
There is evidence that the government scheme was extended
by Trajan’s successor, Hadrian, and then by Antoninus Pius,
Marcus Aurelius and, in the third century, by Alexander Severus.
Hadrian’s action, however, may have been limited to raising the
upper age limit of beneficiaries. But the appearance of the legend
libertas restituta accompanying distribution scenes on coins of his
reign, almost identical with those of his predecessor, recalls that
equation of freedom with ‘freedom from want’ already noticed in
a speech attributed to the late Republican tribune, Licinius Macer,
and symbolized later by the representation of Libertas on coins
advertizing regular frutnentationes. Apart from this, only for
Antoninus Pius is there any substantial epigraphical or numismatic
evidence: namely, dedications to him by ptieri and. pnellae alinien-
tarii, and the legend puellae Faustinianae on coins relating to the
fund established by Pius to commemorate his wife Faustina. But
while the government alimenta spread to many parts of Italy, if
only to a minority of its four hundred towns, many private
schemes were established in die Latin speaking provinces (only
two are known in the Greek east, and one of these was personally
established by Hadrian). In Italy a growing imperial bureaucracy
was directed to supervise the payments under the various funds
(originally private schemes could also gain imperial protection),
 THE PROVISION OF BASIC COMMODITIES III

though the routine administration of particular schemes may have

remained partly under local control. The chief officials, operating
in some nine districts of Italy, the praefecti aliinentoruni, usually men
of senatorial status acting as airatores viartun or equestrian pro-
enratores aliinentoruni, arc frequently referred to in inscriptions, as
are their subordinates; and there is no doubt that the general
scheme continued until the reign of Aurelian, with an interrup­
tion, rather than a deliberate cessation, of payments under
Commodus. It has been doubted, however, whether the govern­
ment organization was altogether beneficial; it seems to have had
the effect of discouraging private schemes, unless it is merely
coincidental that after Trajan’s reign the evidence for private
schemes comes largely from the provinces, where government
competition was less formidable.129
But what caused the government to take an interest in such
schemes? In so far as the personal initiative of the emperor was
involved, Bolkestein saw here something closely approaching the
oriental’ type of non-rcciprocal philanthropy, on the grounds
that neither the children themselves, as the recipients, nor their
parents, could have claimed that they had earned or were entitled
to any such consideration. The days in which the common people
had played any significant part in legislation or elections had long
since passed. It might be added that the alimentary schemes
initiated by the Emperors wrere, unlike the frninentationes, not
confined to the urban populace of Rome, which had in large
measure continued to provide the electorate on which high
office depended, even in the period when citizensliip was widely
extended. Henderson offered a similarly idealized interpretation,
though without the same emphasis on oriental influences. In the
mounting of such schemes he discerned ‘the obligation of wealth
to supply the luxuries for the poor—a splendid feature of ancient
civilization’, and ‘a characteristically Roman virtue’.130
Others have offered more cynical interpretations. Laum, for
instance, saw the government scheme as ‘tnehr ein Akt der Politik ah
der reinen Menschenliebe’; and it is, indeed, relevant to keep in mind
that in the very process of establishing his power, Augustus (or
Octavian as he then was) recognized the importance of an
112 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

extra-constitutional appeal to ‘all Italy’, on which he relied for the

greater part of his military backing. Moreover, in Pliny’s refer­
ences to Trajan’s special provision for children on the occasion of
distributions of corn, if not to the alimentary scheme as such,
there is the strong suggestion that, although the recipients had not
yet performed any service on the Emperor’s behalf, it could be
confidently anticipated that they would eventually make a return
by way of military service, at a time when it was difficult to find
willing recruits in Italy. Thus, in the Panegyric, Pliny addresses
to Trajan the hope that through the alinienta these new recipients
may be brought into the Emperor’s service: ‘these are being
brought up at public expense as a source of strength in war
and to adorn our name in peace’ (some thirty legions, it should be
remembered, were needed to maintain the Roman peace); ‘from
these our camps, from these our tribes will be replenished’. His
more humanely expressed doctrine, ‘for poor people the one
means of bringing up their children is a good Emperor’, only
carries a small step further that expressed by Livy in the Augustan
age (but projected back to the earliest Republic by the historian)
that ‘poor people make sufficient contribution [to the state] if
they bring up their children’.131
Henderson doubted this less idealized interpretation on the
grounds that from the Flavian period onwards Italy was seldom
called upon to supply legionary recruits, and yet it is to Italy
that almost all the records of government alimentary schemes
belong. He therefore preferred to see here the latest expression of
Roman pietas. However, although it is true that recruitment to
existing legions, which were exclusively stationed in the provinces
in this period, was normally done locally, mainly for reasons of
administrative convenience and economy, it was not out of the
question for new legions to be raised in Italy, as Marcus Aurelius
was to make clear; nor can we assume that Trajan himself
approved entirely of the dwindling Italian element in the legions
of lais day. Pietas, for the Roman, moreover, usually had a practi­
cal rather than sentimental mode of expression, as it did for the
heroic exponent of this virtue in Virgil’s epic. For Aeneas, pietas
was essentially connected with a belief in and a self-dedication to
 THE PROVISION OF BASIC COMMODITIES 113

the idea of the eternity of Rome, which took precedence over all
other considerations. In the early Empire this aeternitas was
represented as depending not a little on die emperor’s care and
foresight, his procidentia, applied, inter alia, to the maintenance of
the number and quality of the Roman citizen body. Here, indeed,
we find the continued expression of that concern for a dwindling
population (or for its ‘best’ elements) which had lain behind the
famous proposal of the censor of 131 bc, Q. Metellus, for com­
pulsory marriage, the agrarian reforms of Tiberius Gracchus, and
the land law of Julius Caesar giving special consideration to
fathers of three or more children. Augustus himself—although it
is his concern for the decline in the birth-rate of the upper class and
his attempt to counteract it by a policy of rewards and penalties
which is usually emphasized—also introduced measures relating
to die manumission of slaves. These gave legal access to full
citizenship to a considerable number of the more reliable of the
slave population, who had previously been left in an uncertain
position following unofficial manumission. In the Trajanic period
itself we find Pliny, on hearing of the many manumissions of a
certain Fabatus, writing that he welcomes the news, ‘for I desire
our fatherland to be increased in anything, but above all in the
number of its citizen body’.132
How far, if at all, there was in fact during the Trajanic period,
or earlier, a serious decline in the population is a question much
disputed, and perhaps beyond certain answer. But we need only
posit a belief in such a decline, or the likelihood of it, in order to
provide one explanation of the aliinenta, if the encouragement of
philanthropy in seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century
England by statesmen (and by men prominent in trade and
commerce) ‘haunted by the spectre of a declining population’ on
the very eve of a population explosion, is allowed to provide a
parallel. Some scholars, such as Sirago, have gone still further
and supposed that owing to a concern to swell Iris legions Trajan
discriminated numerically in favour of boys as against girls in lais
alimentary programme. Certainly at Veleia the relevant inscrip­
tion shows that in the main scheme 246 boys received allowances
as against 35 girls, while in the earlier scheme the ratio is 18 boys
H
114 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

to i girl. The problem here is whether this inequality was foreseen

and intended by the author of the scheme or whether it was
accidental. Inevitably, some scholars have regarded these figures
as reflecting the more frequent exposure of girls than boys.
Duncan-Jones, however, has suggested that the disparity may have
been due to a limitation on the number of children who could
benefit in any one family, which caused fathers of large families to
register their sons rather than their daughters for allowances
which were larger, as in many private schemes, for boys than
for girls. If that were so, it would mean that, as in the corn
distributions to citizens, large families received less favourable
treatment than those not as large, which would again undermine
an attempt to see any pure concept of ‘welfare’ attaching to the
scheme. It could be argued, too, that the explicit provision
normally made in private schemes for an equal number of boys
and girls as recipients reinforces the suggestion that the Emperor
evidently had military requirements in mind. And yet it might be
that such provision had been made by these private benefactors
only because of their knowledge of how the scheme at Veleia had,
unintentionally, turned out. The question must probably remain
open, as must another, still more fundamental and already im­
plicit in a previous argument: Was it the case, even now, that the
poorest children in any community were specified and deliberately
picked out as recipients? There is no sure evidence to support
any such assertion, beyond the statement of Victor that the
alimenta were designed to aid ‘boys and girls born to poor
parents’. If Pliny’s example is at all typical, it may be noteworthy
that his other benefaction concerned with the welfare of children
(D. 51) clearly supported those whose parents were of sufficient
means to send their sons from Comum to Milan for their school­
ing- Again, the applicant, known from a papyrus, under Hadrian s
scheme at Antinoopolis in Egypt (D. 22), shows no consciousness
of a need to attest his limited means—indeed he describes him­
self as ‘living in his own house’—but simply the genuineness of
the details of Iris birth and parentage. It may be prudent then to
place the main emphasis of die alimenta on children, without
further definition, taking the institution perhaps as the practical
 THE PROVISION OF BASIC COMMODITIES II5

expression of that deeper regard for the child which we have seen
reflected in the literature of the early and middle Empire. And
we may wonder whether it might not have been men like Pliny,
(childless himself, as far as we know) who would in particular be
conscious not only of the desire but also of the wisdom of setting
up such fluids, so showing themselves worthy of exemption from
the penalties and political hindrances which since the time of
Augustus had been imposed on those who did not undertake the
burdens of parenthood.133
Almost as essential a commodity as com in the classical world
was oil—useful not only as a comestible but also as a washing
agent and as a fuel for lighting. In addition, particularly in the
gymnasia of Greek cities, oil was regarded, in die words of an
inscription, as ‘most essential for the bodies of men and above all
for those of old men’. ‘Bread and oil’ therefore came to be ex­
pected of public benefactors among the Greeks just as ‘bread and
circuses’ was the cry at Rome under the Empire. But in so far as
the distribution of oil in the gymnasia was intended for use there
alone—and it was probably an act of unusual generosity for oil to
be distributed there for consumption by recipients at home—we
may appropriately defer the discussion of such benefactions to a
later chapter. As for the distribution of oil for more general
purposes, we need say only that private distributions followed the
same pattern as those of corn (and odier food-stuffs); once again
there is no indication that any private donor discriminated in
favour of the lower classes nor has there been any tendency to
regard public distributions as doles instituted primarily to aid the
destitute.13 ♦

»
 CHAPTER VIII

EDUCATION AND CULTURE

That ‘the advancement of education’ was one of the three
specific categories put forward by Lord Macnaghten, in his
attempt to tidy up the Elizabethan Act of Charitable Uses, is in
itself a sufficient indication of the importance of education among
charitable objectives in the modern world. But what evidence is
there to suggest that education was seen in the classical world as an
appropriate field for private giving or public support? In taking up
this question it will be convenient—though un-Hellcnic in spirit!
—to consider academic and physical education separately. In this
chapter we shall concentrate on the former and turn first to that
final stage of education in the Greek city-state which most
obviously called forth both public and private subventions,
namely that associated with the institution of the ephebeia. This
institution, as inaugurated, or re-established on a broader basis,
probably under the influence of the Athenian statesman Lycurgus,
c. 335 bc, was mainly, if not exclusively, concerned with physical
and military training. It provided all young men of eighteen with
a two-year period of ‘national service’, during which they were
taught what it was to be an Athenian citizen, the course having
to be completed before they could enter into that citizenship. But
because the poorer elements of Athenian society could not
afford to attend for such a period, the state provided a subsidy of
some 40 talents a year, which probably (the matter has been dis­
puted) enabled even those of the lowest class, the Thetes, to
participate.135
This system was a limited application of that principle of com­
pulsory and universal ‘education’ for all of citizen status which had
long since been practised at Sparta in the case of children from the
age of six upwards. But the Spartan agoge had remained essentially
military in its nature and objectives, being designed to make each
 EDUCATION AND CULTURE 117

Spartan permanently fit and available as a soldier, and little, if at

all, concerned with his intellectual development. For that very
reason it was criticized in the fourth century by Plato and Aristotle,
who were otherwise clearly much impressed and influenced by it
in their thinking. What was needed, the philosophers urged, was
to follow the Spartan example but include in this long period of
training by the state intellectual as well as physical education. At
Athens the military aspect of the ephebeia very gradually withered
away and by the early first century bc inscriptions suggest that it
had become ‘permanently, if not absolutely, demilitarized’; and
in this form, entailing a varied (though not very systematic)
intellectual training, it spread to most cities of the Hellenistic
world, and so requires a prominent place in any study of classical
education.13 6
Who, then, was in a position to enjoy the opportunities offered
by the ephebeia in its developed form? Certainly not, at Athens,
all who had originally been compulsorily enrolled for training.
By 322 bc (perhaps before the academic side of the course had
been established), a property qualification of 2,000 drachmae
introduced by an oligarchic government, backed by Antipater,
had already cut down the number of young men entitled to enter,
and only a few decades later the course was reduced to a year and
made no longer compulsory for those entitled to attend, where­
upon the numbers of ephebes dropped sharply. The reason for
this drop was almost certainly that not even the democracy, when
restored, found it possible to re-institute the subsidy, so that many
of those eligible found the financial burden of devoting as little as
a year to the course beyond their means. The actual cost of such
academic instruction as had been so far introduced was probably
not a decisive factor, however, for this came largely to be met by
magistrates and other generous individuals, even if the state
withdrew or limited financial support. Not merely were lecture
courses provided by these individuals, but competitions (both
gymnastic and academic) and prizes for those who excelled in
them. It is the gymnasiarchs, in particular, who are commended
for this kind of generosity. One of them was Elpinikos of Eretria,
who about 100 bc, among much else to the advantage of the
I

I
Il8 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

physical training of the gymnasium, ‘provided from his own

funds a teacher of rhetoric’ (D. 56); another was Mantidoros, who
met the salary of a Homeric scholar, an Athenian named Philotas
who ‘gave a course in the gymnasium for the young men and the
boys and for all others who were suitably disposed for education’
(D. 57). At Priene, shortly afterwards, Zosimus (a Roman by birth
who became first a citizen and then a magistrate of Priene),
provided for the ephebes an instructor in grammar and philology,
in accordance with his declared aim to make them, not only
energetic in body (as proved by other generous donations), but
to arouse in their minds the quality and feelings proper to men’.
At Pergamum the gymnasiarch, Straton, continued ‘to secure the
publicly maintained teachers by the appropriate rewards [philan­
thropic—the term is significant] and introduced, besides, another
two, meeting the expense out of his own pocket, so that nothing
of die instruction which was necessary should be lacking’ (D. 54).
Another gymnasiarch in the same city, in addition to meeting the
salary of a teacher, established prizes for every field of instruction
and a supply of equipment of every kind (the latter presumably
for gymnastics). It is noticeable that permanent funds established by
individuals tend on the whole to be directed rather to the provision
of oil, to suit the gynmastic rather than the academic aspects of
the ephebeia, although it is likely enough that such funds as existed
at Pergamum for the latter originated from private endowments
which had come to be publicly administered; the same bias may
be noticed in the inscription for Menas of Sestos (D. 55).137
However, even where the costs of salaries and equipment were
met by private benefactions, there was still a considerable amount
of expenditure which the ephebe might be called upon to meet,
both during his course and after ‘graduation’, when he would
expect to join die neoi, who devoted themselves exclusively, it
appears, to sports and gymnastics. At Athens, for instance, each
ephebe was eventually expected to provide a certain number of
books for the library attached to the gymnasium. More generally
the ephebes were involved in various ceremonial and religious
occasions, accompanied often by a public sacrifice. The extent of
the expenses in which they diereby became involved is apparent
 EDUCATION AND CULTURE 119

from a number of inscriptions praising the ephcbes as having met

their obligations (liturgies) with devotion and enthusiasm. At
Cibyra the oath of the ephebes included a clause whereby they
undertook to ‘safeguard die gymnasiarchy and its due income’,
the type of oath which in the classical world usually meant
meeting any deficit out of one’s own pocket. At Mytilcne the
iieoi are found responding to ‘the demand for contributions to the
corn-purchase fund’ with the large gift of 3,100 staters. In short, it
is clear that the acceptance of this period of education came to be
regarded, not so much as a privilege extended by the state, but
rather as a burden undertaken in the interests of die state—the
ephebeia being a kind of showpiece demonstrating the intellectual,
religious and social aspects of a city’s life in the persons of those
few who were wealthy enough to afford to belong to it, and
competing with its counterpart in other cities. So it became
normal at Athens and elsewhere for decrees to be passed by council
and people complimenting the ephebes and their instructors en bloc
for their good discipline or serious application to the course.
Athenian decrees award a wreath of olive to the ephebes, a crown
of gold to the instructors, while the kosmetes (director of the
ephebes) who served for glory alone, and not for pay, it seems, is
also in some inscriptions awarded a crown of gold. Other in­
scriptions make specific reference to sacrifices carried out for the
‘health and well-being of the city’ or its component institutions.
Such inscriptions were for a long time inscribed upon stone at
public expense, though the stage did come at Athens (perhaps
when it became increasingly difficult for the ephebes to claim that
their institution had much to do with the safety of the state) when
they had to seek an audience with the council and request per­
mission to honour their kosmetes with a statue, presumably bearing
the cost of this themselves.138
The number of ephebes at Athens would have decreased even
more sharply, had not admission to the ephebeia, by the late second
century bc, become virtually purchasable by wealthy young non­
citizens, along with citizenship. Among the citizens it was not un­
common for die wealthiest indirectly to support the less wealthy,
the kosmetes himself sometimes encouraging such generosity
120 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

by his own example, in return for which the title of ‘gymna-

siarch’ (of the ephebes, as distinct from that of city gymnasiarchy)
was being conferred in some cities by the first century BC. But
these subventions did not do more than maintain the number of
ephebes at the low level which had so quickly established itself—
essentially a matter of maintaining the privileged circle at its by
now traditional dimensions.139
But it would in any case have been impossible to add greatly to
the number of those benefitting from the higher education which
the ephebeia offered, for the simple reason that most citizens could
not afford to provide their sons with the required preliminary
education, and in most states little was done, privately or publi­
cally, to help them. There do exist inscriptions relating to
generosity at this level, but they are very few compared with
those concerned with gifts to the ephebeia, let alone those provid­
ing for distributions of foodstuffs or cash. This perhaps did not
prevent most citizens from learning to read and write—such at
least has been argued of Athens in the fifth century, on the basis of
our knowledge of the working of Athenian democracy, in winch
the institution of ostracism, for instance, implied the literacy of at
least six thousand citizens. The same is implied by the kind of
plays produced at Athens for a popular audience—Euripides’
Theseus is especially notable for its inclusion of a spelling scene.
This was, indeed, in a city whose radical democracy and cultural
efflorescence gave to the average man a more than usual incentive
to acquire a basic education. Much depended on whether one
lived in town or country, however, and literary evidence suggests
there was little emphasis on education for girls. Yet a passing
reference by Thucydides to Mycalessus, a small town in Bocotia,
may indicate that even there at least three schools were to be
found in the same period.1-*0
But if this was so—and of the Hellenistic period it has been as­
serted that in fully Greek areas it was normal for the children (in
some cases, as much for the daughters as for the sons) ofall free men
to go to school, paidonomoi (controllers of youth) being appointed to
supervise their schooling—then the explanation must lie largely in
the low fees which the elementary teacher could command, so low
 EDUCATION AND CULTURE 121

that even the poorer classes could afford to send their children to
him, at least for a year or two. The possible character of such school­
ing and the upper class estimate of its value are well known from the
unconcealed contempt with which the orator Demosthenes once
spoke of the alleged association of Aeschines, his rival, with such
an institution. Indeed, the social ethos according to which it was
felt appropriate for a man of wealth to refer to another’s education
in public argument ad hominem has obvious significance for our
study. Five centuries later a similar attitude is also evident at
Prusa, birthplace of Dio Chrysostom. In part, the explanation of
the apparently widespread evidence of ‘basic education’ will be
that bare literacy may well have been achieved without any for­
mal schooling; for there is certainly no evidence of, widespread
private contributions towards the establishment of schools similar,
for instance, to the Charity or Ragged Schools of eighteenth- and
nineteenth-century England.141
Two inscriptions of the Hellenistic period, one from Teos and
the other from Miletus, (D. 47, 48) are exceptions to the rule,
relating as they do to private gifts for the support of the earlier, if
not the earliest, stages of education, though otherwise true to
type in their unequivocal assertion of the donors’ concern fo
their own renown. Such renown is secured for Eudemos of Mile
tus through the public display of an honorary decree on two stone
pillars, the stipulation of certain religious and ceremonial duties,
and the naming of the fifth day of the month (presumably that of
Eudemos’ birth) as a holiday. This latter provision points towards,
though it falls short of, the actual cult of the founders ofgymnasia,
which might involve burial within their walls. The inscriptions
are also true to type in that they give no suggestion that the funds
provided are to be used to assist those most in need, and in that
they offer to teachers themselves little more than was earned in
fifth-century Athens by common sailors.'42
Both donors provide a capital sum, the interest from which is
wholly or in part to be devoted to the payment of the salaries of
the teachers, who are to be chosen by a vote of the people on an
annual basis. The donors, we note, once having handed over their
money to their city, can expect to have no further direct part in
122 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

the administration of the fund, the gift being treated on exactly

the same principles as those handed over for other purposes. The
Teos inscription differs, however, from the Milesian, in that it is
not exclusively concerned with elementary education but pro­
vides also for the appointment of military instructors by the
‘controller of youth’ (paidonomos') and the gymnasiarch. Although,
therefore, all free boys arenamed as the intended beneficiaries of the
fund, die implication is that the education to be provided would
take place in the gymnasia, probably those maintained for the
ephebeia, and would lead up to the type of course normally
followed by the ephebes. It is possible, indeed, that there already
existed endowments or state provision for all Tean youths to
continue their education at this level too, as had originally been
the case at Athens, but, if not, we may doubt whether those who
had no prospects of following the latter course would be con­
sidered, or consider themselves, eligible to benefit from the fund
which Polythrous had made available. In the same inscription
there is a rather enigmatic reference to the likelihood of the
elementary teachers ‘disputing among themselves about the
number of the children’ (in which case the paidonomos was to
decide the matter). We may wonder whether the disputes en­
visaged were expected to relate to too few, rather than too many
children. Was it recognized that not all who were theoretically
entitled to free education would in fact receive it, but that the
parents of boys who did attend might supplement the teachers’
pay (which, it appears, is to remain static) with philanthropiai of
their own?1*’
Two other gifts, belonging to the second century bc, relate to
the provision of elementary education, but both have an ‘inter­
national’ character, being the benefactions of Pergamene kings.
The first of these, that of Eumenes II, in 162, took the form of a
large quantity of corn, the proceeds from the sale of which were to
be devoted to the ‘provision of salaries for the teachers and
instructors of the boys’. It is of interest not least because of
Polybius, caustic comment upon the Rhodian acceptance of the
gift: ‘One might accept this from friends in case of financial
embarrassment, as one might accept a gift in private life rather
 EDUCATION AND CULTURE I23

than allow children to remain uneducated for want of means.’ He

clearly implies that the Rhodians had demeaned themselves and
surrendered something of their independent status by accepting a
gift unnecessarily. The remark is of obvious relevance to the
Greek concept of friendship and of giving in relation to friendship,
but certainly does not justify any assumption that the fluid was to
be used specifically to help parents ‘without means’, in the abso­
lute sense. Two or three years later Attains II sent to the city of
Delphi the sum of 18,000 Alexandrian silver drachmae ‘in ready
response’ to a request for aid. The latter phrase suggests that there
may have been already established some fund for this purpose at
Delplii which had proved inadequate (as may well be true for
Rhodes). But any such fund would probably derive from previous
gifts handed over by private donors to be publicly administered,
rather than from a regular revenue directly raised and allocated by
the state for education; for in spite of the widespread appointment
of officials such as the paidonomoi, in the cities of the Hellenistic
world, it appears diat their function was essentially supervisory, to
regulate the education of those children whose parents could
afford to meet the expense of their schooling rather than to insist
on the same opportunities for the children of parents who could
not. Plutarch may be quoted for a late first-century ad view as
having urged that ‘as far as possible’ poor children and even slaves
should receive an education; but the limited opportunity of the
Hellenistic period is suggested by one of the mimes of Herondas
in which the thirtieth of the month is represented as a bitter day,
since it is the day on which the schoolmaster demands his fee.144
Since private individuals so seldom, it appears, saw fit to give fo.i
the furtherance of elementary education, we should hardly expec
that collectively they would welcome the burden of publi
provision, and the occasional reference in our ancient sources
which might seem to suggest otherwise may well be illusory.
Thus, Diodorus records of the lawgiver Charondas of Catana that
in drawing up laws for die colony of Thurii in Southern Italy ‘he
looked to that which was neglected by previous legislators in
providing that all the sons of citizens should have an elementary
education, the funds needed for teachers’ salaries being provided
124 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

by the city; for he thought that those who were without means of
making a livelihood would be deprived of the noblest of pursuits’.
But a belief in the main statement is not encouraged by the ob­
vious error of detail, by which the activities of a seventh-century
lawgiver are related to the foundation of a mid-fifth-century
Italian colony. The statement may simply reflect Diodorus’
awareness ofproposals for publicly provided elementary education
in his own day (the late first century bc) ; but we have already
noticed the likely origin of the funds which would then be drawn
upon. If Charondas did make such a proposal for any colony, then
the explanation may be sought in connexion with those equali-
tarian tendencies evident in the establishment of a Greek colony,
by which each of the original settlers received Iris individual
allotment, and so would be able, as a ‘man of means’, to meet the
incidental expenses which the scheme would entail. Alternatively,
we may suspect that a property qualification kept the citizen body
narrowly defined and excluded from the privileges of citizenship
any who fell below it as mere residents, so leading to a situation
rather like that at Sparta, where all the true Spartans received their
peculiar type of public education from boyhood, but not die
large non-citizen population.
Such a narrow definition of citizenship was certainly true of
Plato’s and Aristotle’s thinking in the fourth century. Both
declare the lack of any publicly provided education for Athenian
children in their period and protest loudly against it. ‘No father’,
so Plato would legislate, ‘shall either send or keep away his son as a
pupil from school at his own whim, but every Tom, Dick and
Harry, so to speak, must as far as possible, be compelled to receive
education’. Aristotle argues similarly that ‘the system of education
must also be one and the same for all. . . it cannot be left, as it is
at present, to private enterprise, with each parent making private
provision for his children and having them privately instructed as
he himself thinks fit’. But just as Plato’s state excludes from the
citizenship traders and craftsmen, so in Aristotle the best form of
state will not admit ‘mechanics’ (or labourers) as citizens, on the
grounds that a man who lives the life of a mechanic or labourer
‘cannot pursue the things which belong to excellence’. In neither
 EDUCATION AND CULTURE 125

case, then, would children of these classes qualify for that educa­
tion which Plato and Aristotle are discussing. There are suggestions
in the Republic that a system of upgrading according to ability
would allow the lower classes (who do appear there to be citizens
of a sort) to enjoy an appropriate education, but the mechanism
for this is left suspiciously vague. Moreover, these assertions are
made not so much because a child has a right to be educated, but
because an educated citizen is an asset to the state; for ‘they are the
children of the state even more than the children of their own
parents’.146
The state of affairs against which Plato and Aristotle arc found
protesting in the fourth century implies a need for caution in
drawing any wide conclusion from Plutarch’s well-known report
that in 480 bc the people of Troczen met the expense of teachers
for Athenian boys evacuated there in the face of the Persian
danger; or from a reference in Plato’s Crito to a law of Solon
calling upon each Athenian father to provide for his son’s educa­
tion—a ‘law’ which would at most represent the demands of
social convention among diose who could afford to heed it,
rather than indicate that the state provided all citizens with the
means of heeding it. Until recently, an inscription from Elcusis
(D. 52) did seem at least to suggest that the state took some posi­
tive interest in the education of boys towards the end of Plato’s
lifetime, since it commends a certain Derkylos, a general, and
records the award to him of a golden crown and other privileges
because of his distinguished service (philotimia) on behalf of the
deme of Eleusis ‘especially with regard to the education of boys’.
The generals are known to have been connected with the early
history of the ephebeia at Athens (and elsewhere), so that, as long
as this inscription was dated to c. 350 bc it appeared that they may
have had some (though rather mysterious) connection with the
education of boys as well, prior to the inception of the wider
ephcbic system. However, there has recently been offered a more
satisfactory explanation, based on a dating to 319/18, a year in
which a Derkylos was certainly general; at this date his service
could have involved much more than the education of boys,
as indeed the size of his reward suggests, namely the maintenance
126 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

within his own deme of the ephebic course on an unofficial

basis, after it had been severely cut down, if not abolished, by a
pro-Macedonian oligarchy. His office as general would have made
it easier for him to carry out this service, in view of the mainly
military character of the ephebeia at this period; while the refer­
ence to ‘boys’ (a flexible term) rather than ephebes would have
been determined simply by diplomatic considerations. If this
interpretation is accepted, then Derkylos’ gesture was much more
patriotic and political than charitable in motivation.147
The number of people who could hope to benefit from, the
more advanced teaching which came to be available in the gym­
nasia must therefore have been very limited, even though in
theory it was open to all equally. Peripatetic scholars in particular
might give occasional lectures open to all, perhaps mainly to
establish their reputation. Such a scholar was Epikrates, son of
Demetrios (D. 53) who received public commendation and
Samian citizenship, having remained at Samos for a considerable
time, during which he not only served the needs of private
individuals, but was well known for his generosity towards the
people, ‘in that for those of the common people who could not
pay his normal fee he gave his time at no charge’.148
Epikrates belonged to a class of men of learning who did nor­
mally charge a fee. But some of the most famous schools of Greek
philosophy followed the Socratic view that a fee should not be
demanded by those whose function was conceived to be that
merely of calling forth the knowledge of the truth already buried
deep within the mind of the ‘pupil’, so that it was here above all
that education at the highest level was offered without regard to
material advantage. The schools of philosophy created by Plato
and Aristotle, and later by Epicurus and others, were organized as
religious brotherhoods, worshipping at the altar of the Muses (so,
too, avoiding undue suspicion of being illegal political organ­
izations), and offered no more to their founders than those
honours which were felt appropriate to any founder, honours
carrying the hope of‘immortality’. It was the spirit offree learning
which Socrates, Plato and (more doubtfully) Aristotle established,
rather than a school in the physical sense, for their teaching began
 EDUCATION AND CULTURE I27

in public gymnasia, the Academy and the Lyceum—though

Plato eventually established, close to the Academy, his own
school, with a sanctuary of the Muses and a lecture room, which
bore the same name. But the will of Epicurus (D. 59), for instance,
may be quoted to illustrate how the actual material possessions, as
as well as the teaching, of such philosophers might become the
common property of those who shared in the pursuit of truth:
‘I give all my property to Amynomachos, son of Philokrates, of
Bate, and to Timokrates, son of Demetrios, of Potamos ... on
condition that they shall make available the garden and its
appurtenances to Hermarchos, son of Agemortos, ofMytilenc, and
to his fellow-philosophers and to whomsoever Hermarchos leaves
it as his successors, to live and pursue philosophy therein; and I
entrust tire school in the garden in perpetuity to those who are its
members, so that they may preserve it to the best of their ability,
together with Amynomachos and Timokrates, and to their
successors.’ The will goes on to provide for those offerings and
celebrations of a quasi-religious kind already noticed. Thus,
Epicurus used for the perpetuation ofliis objective the same method
that was followed by so many others for more mundane objcct-
tives; and for some six hundred years tire provisions were largely
effective, though they passed through some perilous days,
described in one of Cicero’s letters, in the first century bc. The
will of Theophrastus (D. 60), who took over the presidency of
Aristotle’s Lyceum, is very similar in style and spirit. Thus, the
philosophic schools were the nearest pagan equivalent to those
early Christian communities which held everything in common,
while pursuing a different kind of truth. But inevitably it was
mainly men of considerable means who shared in these brother­
hoods ; it is no coincidence that the earlier among them retained a
distinctly aristocratic character in a period when the claims of
aristocracy were passing out of favour.149
At Rome Polybius was amazed to find in the middle of the
second century bc that even higher education was left in the hands
of parents. There can then be little doubt that the same was true
for the earlier stages of education—and so it remained for the most
part, even under the Empire. Here, too, therefore, the low fees
128 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

payable to elementary schoolmasters must provide the main basis

for any claim that most children went to school. By the time of
Pliny the Younger, at the end of the first century ad, we learn
that in many places ‘praeceptores publice conductmtur, a fact which
Pliny used in attempting to persuade parents at Comum to
subscribe towards a similar arrangement there (D. 51). He also
offered an incentive of a kind not uncommon in charitable
appeals today, namely that he would add a third to whatever the
parents thought fit to contribute, though he himself had no
children. We need not doubt the sincerity of his assertion that he
would have been willing to meet the total cost, were it not for
the consideration that ‘those who are perhaps irresponsible in
handling the money of others will at least be careful with their
own’ (compare with D. 48). In a way Pliny’s offer parallels that of
Eudemos and Polythrous, yet the whole drift of the relevant
letter makes it clear that it was parents of some means whom he
was helping; for at the time of the offer these parents were
educating their children in Milan, so involving themselves in
both accommodation and travel expenses in addition to those
for tuition, and Pliny’s main argument is that it was more
economical, as well as more in keeping with local municipal
pride (an important factor in the acquisition of municipal
amenities of any kind) that Comum should have a school of its
own to which these children could go. There is nothing to indicate
that it was intended that parents who failed to contribute would be
allowed to send their children, supposing that they could meet the
incidental expenses. Even if this was Pliny’s intention, he clearly
did not think that its declaration would serve as an incentive to
those invited to subscribe. We may suspect that the same would be
true of those other towns at which ‘teachers were employed on a
public basis’.150
For young men collegia iuveiiiiiii came into being in Italy and the
Latin-speaking provinces, bearing a resemblance to the ephebeia,
or perhaps to the clubs of neoi, in the Greek world, and, like them,
attracting private benevolence. But, from the time of the earliest
inscriptions relating to them, the collegia seem to have been
‘fashionable clubs for the aristocracy where gilded youths could
 EDUCATION AND CULTURE 129

learn how to live properly and how to enjoy their brand of sport’
—winch, in view of the Roman aristocrats’ distaste for the
athletic activities of the Greek gymnasia, meant that of the circus
or the amphitheatre rather than of the stadium. There is some
evidence of the admission of freedmen, and even of slaves; but
they had to be rich.151
Public funds to support higher education came to be given
under the Empire indirectly through an edict of Vespasian in ad
74, whereby doctors and teachers (but not primary teachers) were
granted exemptions from taxation. This encouraged the setting up
of secondary schools which, Ulpian implies, were to be found in
every village of the Empire in die second century. But it was only
at the highest level of learning and only at Rome that the Emperor
Vespasian provided direct support, by establishing two chairs, one
for Latin and one for Greek rhetoric, out of public fluids—a step
which was followed up about a century later by Marcus Aurelius,
who established four chairs of philosophy at Athens. Clearly this
must have been of advantage to die sons of parents of modest
means, though scarcely to those who had never been able to
afford more than the rudiments of education. The same might be
said of the municipal libraries established through the generosity
ofvarious benefactors, among whom again the younger Pliny is to
be numbered (D. 36). More famous, however, was the library
established by Tiberius Julius Celsus Polemaeanus and his son at
Ephesus, later in the same century.152
Had there been any criticism of a situation in which private
and public funds were so largely directed to the advantage of the
wealthier element of society, it would have probably been met
along lines indicated by Plato—that these privileged few wer<
being trained for the task of administering (normally without pay)
the affairs of their city. Some have held that this was Plato’s main
objective in establishing Iris Academy, and certainly the associa­
tions of ephebes and neoi modelled their organizations on the city-
state, with parallel magistracies and treasury. The considerable
element of self-interest on the part of those who subscribed
towards such an objective is not, of course, to be denied, en­
hancing as it did the claim of the sons of the upper class to inherit
1
 130 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

their fathers’ social status. But neither can we deny the benefactors’
general conviction that in so doing they were providing their city
with a governing class which would exercise control hi accord­
ance with certain standards of honesty and efficiency by which
every class could benefit—a conviction which could be compared
with that behind much of the ‘charity’ devoted to the advance­
ment of education in England; Owen found it ‘almost impossible
to isolate the philanthropic component in the English school
structure’.153
I Nor should we regard as foreign to the thought of all but a
Plato (or a Pericles) the consideration that the very environment of
the polls might provide the ordinary citizen with a kind of informal
education. Thus, it might be held that the poorer element in
many a Greek city benefited more from the expenditure of those
who (like Kritolaos and Parmenion at Amorgos—D. 23) accepted
■
the public burden of staging the plays at dramatic festivals, than
they could have done from the application of the same expendi­
ture to formal education. Similarly, as the people (of Athens,
especially) moved among great works of architecture and
sculpture reflecting the ‘love of glory’ of the wealthy, they might
have found, in Plato’s words, that ‘all the works of art they see
influence them for good, like breezes from some healthy climate’.
In so far as this was true, it is undeniable that the Greeks in
particular were concerned in some sense with education for all.154
 CHAPTER IX

HEALTH AND HYGIENE

The extent to which individual physicians of the classical
world saw fit to tend the sick, and the state to provide general
medical care, regardless of a patient’s ability to pay a fee, is a
possible measure of the extent to which we might expect to find
evidence of pity or altruism in other spheres. The ethics of Greek
medicine, as expressed in the Maxims of Hippocrates, parts of
which may not post-date the lifetime of the famous doctor of that
name by much more than a century, do not, however, venture
significantly beyond the familiar terms of more general ethical
writings. Accordingly rather than any emphasis on money as of no
importance compared with the patient’s need, we have the fam­
iliar suggestion that it is of secondary importance as compared
with honour: ‘the quickness of the disease . . . spurs on the good
doctor not to seek his profit, but rather to lay hold on reputation’,
and when the maxim continues with the practical point that ‘it is
better to reproach a patient after you have saved him rather than
extort money from those who are at death’s door’, it appears that
the patient envisaged is not entirely without means of eventually
making a material return. Another maxim, typically Hellenistic
in expression, urges the doctor to avoid undue apanthropia (the
negation of‘philanthropy’) and to take into account the resources
of the patient, and sometimes to be ready to give treatment
without a fee. But this, too, is diluted by an apparent reference (the
text is uncertain) to the ‘memory of a former favour received or
of present approval’, leading us to wonder whether we are to take
in an unqualified sense the following precept, that ‘if the chance
arises to serve a stranger who is without means [aporein] you
should make a special point of giving treatment to such, since
where philanthropia is to be seen there also is philotechnia, devotion
to one’s art’. How absolutely ‘without means’ is that stranger?
132 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

And others belonged to the empiric school of medicine, whose

practitioners held less ‘philanthropic’ views, explicitly naming the
making of money as their prime objective.155
Doctors did, indeed, commonly regard themselves as worship­
pers of the god of medicine, Askl epios, who was certainly a god of
much greater gentleness than the Olympian deities—so much so
that he was apparently singled out by Christian apologists as a
more serious rival than the Olympians to the Christian God.
Aristophanes might make Chremylus speak satirically of the
‘patriotism and wisdom’ of the god in causing Wealth (in the
play of that name) to see; but centuries later, in the face of Christian
claims, the Emperor Julian was to contend that Asklcpios did not
‘heal men with hope of a reward but everywhere gratifies his own
loving concern (philanthropeutna) for mankind’. Bolkestein read
into this, in conjunction with another passage from the same
source, the provision of free medical treatment at his temples.
There seems little or no evidence, however, to justify such a view
or, indeed, a belief in any actual medical attention at these temples
before at least the second century ad; and Edelstein concluded
that there was no religious organization, any more than a moral or
professional code, which obliged doctors to give their service
freely to the poor. At most, it seems, the outbuildings or hostels
attached to some of his sanctuaries were open to poor and rich
alike, for accommodation, while they waited in hope of a cure of
a non-medical kind. In this way they provided some precedent for
the Christian hospital—which, as the name suggests, was for long
a refuge for the poor and infirm, for travellers and unfortunates,
‘an ecclesiastical, not a medical, institution’—especially where the
Church took over these hostels together with the pagan temples
themselves for its own purposes.156
Inscriptions, however, make it quite clear that for the sake of
‘honour’ not a few doctors were ready, as Hippocrates urged, to
regard money as of secondary importance. Such was Menokritos
of Samos (D. 67), who ‘had saved many of the townsfolk of
Brycous [Carpathus] when they were in a critical condition,
accepting no fee, and continuing to display a proper sense of
devotion in his attendance upon each of the residents in the
 HEALTH AND HYGIENE 133

suburbs of the city’. The doctor of Gytheion (D. 68), who was
praised for ‘being fair to all alike, both rich and poor, both slaves
and free’, presumably scaled his charges in accordance with the
means of his clients, or made himself equally available to all at
moderate cost, as did Xcnotimos at Cos (D. 63), who accorded
special favour to no one, but ‘saved mens’ lives by his ready service
of all equally’. Diodoros (D. 65), who won a testimonial for
service at Samos over many years, also followed a Hippocratic
maxim, when he gave treatment not only to the Samians but to
certain judges who had come to Samos and fallen ill, displaying an
‘uncomplaining readiness to help all alike’. The same doctor is
also commended for his exceptional services at a time of emer­
gency following an earthquake, when again he did not discrim­
inate between those in need. At Gortyn in Crete, Hcrmias of Cos
(D. 64) also extended his services, after attending to those whom
he had been called to serve, to many allies in time of war, ‘display­
ing the same care for them and saving them from great dangers’.
Inevitably they had their rewards of honour; these included such
titles as proxenos and euergetes, the vote of a golden crown, and
(more important, materially) the right to possess land and a house
in the city of their residence, and even, in the case of Hcrmias,
citizenship which was to be inherited by his descendants.
So far we have concerned ourselves with the actions of doctors
acting in a private capacity, and it was as such that Menokritos,
for instance, had foregone his fee in attending to the needs of
people of Brycous resident at Rhodes. But the same inscription
tells us that Menokritos thereafter became a doctor in public
service (intros deinosieuoii), a position which he held for twenty
years, and the recurrence of this title in a number of cities has led
to the widespread view that the state came to appoint doctors who
were contractually obliged to give free medical attention to all
who might require it, the free gifts or service of individuals having
led in this sphere, as in others, to free provision by the state.157
The evidence, however, as to any such obligation on the part of
doctors bearing this title—or of doctors who were called to service
in a particular city by a public decision, whatever their official
title—to give treatment without charge is, at best, not very strong,
134 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

as has been argued by Cohn-Haft in a recent monograph. It

depends largely upon the testimony of a scholiast to a line from
Aristophanes’ play, the Acharnians, in which a farmer, who has
‘cried Iris eyes out’ over two oxen, says to Dikaiopolis: ‘Come!
ointment for my eyes! Set me at peace without delay’, only to
meet with the reply: ‘But, you wretch, I am not acting as a man
in public service [demosieuon]’
In explanation of this the scholiast informs us that ‘the doctors
chosen by the people to be public doctors, provided medical care
at no charge’. What Dikaiopolis means, then, according to the
scholiast, is that he is not going to supply the farmer with oint­
ment for nothing. But is the scholiast right with regard to fifth­
century Athens, or even to the practice of the Hellenistic period?
Or is he reflecting institutions of his own day, perhaps no earlier
than the fifth century ad?158
Another piece of literary evidence derives from Diodorus, who
tells us that Charondas of Catana ‘went beyond previous legis­
lators who had provided that the sick among private citizens
should be treated by doctors at public expense’ when he made
provision for elementary education for the sons of all citizens.
Unfortunately this is the passage the latter part of which we have
already felt it necessary to question. Can we trust the earlier
part of it either, whether for tire existence of such a medical
service in Charondas’ day or in that of Diodorus?159
Both these questions receive a negative answer from Cohn-
Haft, who argues largely from the evidence of inscriptions. But he
does not perhaps prove as much as he wishes by Iris argument that,
because there is no confirmation, even in Hellenistic inscriptions,
of Diodorus’ suggestion of the allocation of public funds for
education, we may suppose his reference to medical treatment at
public expense to be equally out of touch with reality. For
although Cohn-Haft may be right in regarding the Teos inscrip­
tion, for instance, as evidence merely of the public administration
of private endowments, rather than of a state-supported system of
education, in practice this may have been largely a distinction
without a difference. As we have seen, many of the city funds
providing cheap or free corn probably derived originally, not
 HEALTH AND HYGIENE 135

from the revenue of direct taxation imposed specifically to meet

the cost of such distributions, but from private endowments or
subscriptions, and to that extent they also might be regarded as not
wholly ‘public’ in character. It is by no means inconceivable that
some cities had received gifts from private individuals with the
request that they should be used to provide free medical care for
all citizens, and, if that were so, these funds could be regarded as
no less, if no more, public, than the others.
It is true, however, that as far as the inscriptions go, most of
those which use the word ‘freely’ or ‘as a gift’ in relation to the
activities of doctors dcniosienontes can be interpreted as implying
that these doctors forewent their salary rather than that they gave
free medical attention. And where, rarely, the free provision of
medical attention is clearly intended (the most certain case seems
to relate to a veterinary doctor), we are faced with the simple
logic that this free service must be the outstanding and tintisual
action which called forth the honorary decree, not something
which was true of every doctor who bore the title. On the
orthodox view, therefore, it is argued that the mention of free
service in such decree is completely superfluous: ‘the physician is
being praised for having done simply what he was hired to do’.160
Even this argument is not as strong as might appear at first
sight, in view of the fact, already noticed, that the honorary decree
was the almost inevitable result of any public service, even though
the honorand had done no more than it was his duty to do. Take,
for instance, the many decrees in honour of ephebes for diligent
attention to their training, or the decree passed in praise of a
fourth-century Athenian councillor because he had shown him­
self ‘not given to the acceptance of bribes’ during his term of
office (it was presumably not intended to imply that the latter had
gone beyond the call of duty). Yet, there is, admittedly, a distinc­
tion between these cases and the deniosieuontes, for the former had
been providing unpaid services as citizens, while the latter seem
normally to have been non-citizens and in receipt of pay.1®1
It is, in fact, the normal (though not invariable) foreign origin
of the demosienon which leads Cohn-Haft to his suggestion as to
the significance of the appointment in many cities of doctors with
136 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

this title; for this is taken to indicate that the skilled practitioner
was something of a rarity in the Greek world and not readily
available, so that the smaller Greek cities sought to guarantee the
presence of at least one in their community by offering a public
salary: ‘that the town had a public doctor meant simply this:
a doctor was available’. On this view, the salary was merely a
retainer, and did not preclude its recipient from charging fees as
well; and we may recognize that in some of the poorer and more
remote cities a doctor might well find that, not merely his limited
number of remedies, but the unreadiness of the sick—except in
desperate need—to pay any fee, made it almost impossible for
him to make a decent living, apart from the assurance of a basic
minimum. The Greek physician, commonly trained at the medi­
cal school of Cos, was necessarily a man of some culture and social
standing; he would not (it is reasonable to think) expect to live
from hand to mouth, dependent on nothing but fees. Indeed, it
could be that there was not simply an absolute shortage of skilled
practitioners but a shortage of cities in which the latter could hope
to make the kind of living which they felt was their due.163
If the title deniosieuon implied a doctor receiving a retainer in
smaller cities, did it mean the same tiling in cities such as Athens
and Cos as well? Cos, so far from being short of doctors, supplied
them to other cities on request, while at Athens a passage in Plato’s
Gorgias may indicate that the people were able to choose between
the claims of rival doctors, instead of simply requesting the Coans
(as did the people of Gortyn in Crete, for instance) to send a doc­
tor of their own choice. At Athens and Cos, therefore, it is
suggested, the title indicated a ‘doctor whose professional qualifi­
cations are publicly endorsed’, without implying the payment of a
retainer. Yet, if the payment of retainers is admitted for the smaller
cities, it might be thought that the Athenians too would find it
advisable to offer a similar financial inducement, if they wished to
obtain the best doctors available. Thus, any degree of competition
for appointment at Athens, in contrast with the lack of it at
Gortyn, could be accounted for, if not simply by a higher
retainer, then by the greater prestige which a doctor who had been
appointed by the Athenians would almost certainly enjoy. Such an
 HEALTH AND HYGIENE 137

appointment might open up the way (if a famous story of the late
sixth-century Demokedes of Croton is anything to go by) for a
claim to higher fees at the next city to which he went, whether or
not in the capacity of demosieuoii.163
As to the nature of any payments by patients which such doctors
may have received, Cohn-Haft perhaps discounts too readily the
suggestion that these may have been regarded officially as gifts
rather than fees. Indeed, in view of the social and cultural standing
of the skilled physician, we may reasonably wonder whether the
retainer itself would not have been politely styled as philanthropon,
the term used for at least some of the rewards secured for publicly
maintained teachers by Straton of Pergamum (D. 54). Particularly
when such doctors came to attend to citizens of similar standing to
themselves it would be entirely in keeping with what we have
said of relationships within their class for the reward for their
service to be offered (and expected) as a ‘gift’ rather than demanded
as a fee. And since it would be upon upper-class patients that the
financial success of his period in residence would largely depend, a
doctor may have found it prudent to waive any payment which
the ‘poor’ could afford, particularly in a city in which the appoint­
ment of the demosieuoii depended on a popular vote. It is perhaps
as likely as not that a polite silence was maintained as to whether
the demosieuoii might contractually demand a fee. If he could, then
the humane doctor would have been the one who did not assign
priority to his patients acording to the amount they were likely to
be able to pay. By this test, if by no higher, doctors such as
Damiadas of Sparta are credited with a proper sense of humanity
—and if it is the humanity of a man sophron kai pepaideumenos (as
the inscription has it), more suggestive of the prudence necessary
for the man who wished to be socially accepted than of any deep
emotional feeling, it may be that the ascription of the less common
philostorgia (rather than the conventional eunoia') with which it is
linked, is meant to redress the balance.164
At Athens the hypothesis of free medical attention available to
all would be in line with the provision made for the physically
lame and incapable, whose property assessment was less than three
minae. Such cripples received an allowance of two obols a day by
138 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

the mid-fourth century (apparently only one obol at an earlier

date). Our literary sources are not agreed as to whether the
payment was introduced by Solon early in the sixth century, or
by Peisistratus a generation later; while among modern scholars,
Jacoby would regard it as one of the social measures of the radical
democracy under Pericles, designed originally for those disabled
by war, but extended almost immediately to all in this condition.
But the point of particular interest here is the application of a
‘means test’, not found in other areas of private or public
beneficence. If fees were payable to public doctors, there may
be grounds for a belief in some similar arrangement with regard
to medical attention for the poorer class, as well.16*
Whatever the answer to this question, a well-known passage in
Plato’s Republic makes quite clear that for the ordinary Athenian
of the early fourth century any lengthy cure was out of the
question. ‘When the carpenter is ill’, we are told, ‘he expects his
doctor to give him medicine which will expel the disease by
vomiting or purging, or to cauterize or cut the wound and set him
right. If anyone prescribes him a long course of treatment... he
says at once that he has not time to be ill and that it does not pay
him to live like that, giving all his attention to his illness and
neglecting his proper work. With this he bids his doctor good-day
and goes back to his ordinary way of life, regains his health and
lives on doing Iris work, or if his body is not strong enough to
carry him through, he dies and is released from his troubles.’
And Socrates approves of this state of affairs; he challenges only
the common assumption that another standard applies in the case
of the wealthy man who can afford to ‘live, in the sense of pro­
tracting his physical existence, through continual medical atten­
tion; for unless the latter too can do his job (which meant, for
Socrates, the practice of arete: that sort of activity which promotes
the good life both for state and individual), then he too should not
be encouraged to ‘live like that’. The whole question, like that of
rearing deformed or surplus children, is seen mainly as a social
rather than personal question; and to Asklepios, the god of
healing himself, is attributed the view that ‘it was not right
to treat a man who could not live in his ordinary round of
 HEALTH AND HYGIENE 139

duties, such a man being useless to himself and to the state’.166

The view that a system of free public medicine was widespread
has also been based to some extent on references in Greek docu­
ments of the Hellenistic period to a tax known as the iatrikon.
These documents, however, are very narrowly distributed in time
and space, most being Egyptian papyri of the third and early
second century bc though three come from the Aegean area, Cos,
Teos and Delos. It is difficult to give an entirely consistent
explanation of all of them, but the balance of likelihood is that in
Egypt this was a tax introduced by the Ptolemies, payable
(normally in produce rather than money) only by Greek settlers
in the Egyptian chora, which entitled them alone to ‘free’ treat­
ment. No necessary connection with the ‘doctors in public service’
of our other documents can be posited.167
It is from Egyptian papyri, too, that we have a score of references
to deinosioi iatroi, ranging over a period from the late first century
AD to the middle of the fifth century. But the failure to overlap
with references to the iatrikon tax is noteworthy. The deinosioi
iatroi have been equated with iatroi demosienontes, and the latter,
again, with doctors bearing the tide of archiatroi who are found
both in the western and eastern parts of the Roman Empire by the
second century ad, suggesting that a system of free public medi­
cine became still more widespread in Roman times. The identi­
fication? on which die doctrine rests, however, are open to
challenge, and it is to be observed diat die documents (though
they may, of course, be unrepresentative) seem mainly to relate
to matters of forensic medicine—there is reference to violence in
every document except one—where doctors or medical officers
have been called upon to attest to such matters as a person s
death or the illness of an employee. Indeed, it has been argued that
the doctor was only a secondary figure in many cases, the expert
called in by a superior civil servant for a particular purpose.
Moreover, in the cases where the doctor does seem to be the chief
figure involved, another possibility arises, namely that since these
cases all fall after ad 173—shortly after the date at which Anton­
inus Pius introduced a limitation on the number of doctors
within a municipality who could enjoy immunity from public
140 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

obligations—the title was used to distinguish the privileged doctor

from the unprivileged.168
In view of these various uncertainties it would be bold to assert
categorically that the Greek world under Rome made any more
progress towards a free public medical service than had indepen­
dent Greek cities. The Romans themselves took over most of
their medical ideas and practice from the Greeks, and it is perhaps
indicative of a comparative lack of sensitivity towards the pain of
others that, as Pliny the Elder tells us, the medical art was the last of
the arts to be adopted by the Romans from the Greeks, Rome for
long relying on Greek slaves and freedmen for her doctors.
Although a really skilled physician needed to possess a considerable
degree of culture and social standing, the Roman upper class
apparently long felt that it was undignified for such a person, even
in the practice of medicine, to be under any contractual obligation
to serve the needs of another. Perhaps consistently with such an
attitude, even under the Empire medicine was given rather in­
direct support through the offer of fiscal immunity to doctors,
first by Vespasian and then on a larger scale by Hadrian. This may
have been intended to carry with it a moral (rather than contrac­
tual) obligation in the interests of those who might not be able to
afford a doctor’s fee. But it was only with the reign of Antoninus
Pius (in ad 161), as far as we know, in association with the
restriction of the numbers of such privileged doctors in each
municipality according to its size, that the enjoyment of the
privilege was made to depend inter alia upon the doctors’ perfor­
mance of his duties with diligence. These duties, however, are
unfortunately not defined in our sources, though it has commonly
been assumed that free treatment of the poor was expected, on the
analogy of the earlier practice supposed in Greek cities. The same
principle is inherent in Libanius’ declaration in the fourth century
that ‘the law demands of the doctors a single public obligation
(liturgy), namely that which arises from their craft’. But that this
did not mean that they were in fact equally at the service of poor
and rich is suggested by one of the provisions introduced by
Valentinian I for the archiatri of Rome, that they were ‘honestly to
attend to the poor rather than basely to serve the rich’. But within
 HEALTH AND HYGIENE 141

our chosen period there is no firm evidence of any legal obligation

upon the doctor so to act, and since the ‘public doctors’ ap­
pointed under the Empire must have depended everywhere for
their appointment upon the municipal councils rather than upon
a popular assembly (just as it was upon enrolment by a decree of
the council that a doctor depended, under Pius’ ruling, for
exemption from taxation), it would be the upper class which
determined how far such doctors had lived up to their obligations
and interpreted their nature.169
Still less can we suppose that the poorer classes would normally
benefit from the development of hospitals (no longer merely
hostels to receive the sick) under the later Empire. In agreement
with the Roman’s practical instinct, we learn of these first in
connexion especially with provision for the sick and wounded of
the legions, but valettidinaria and sanatoria spread to the households
of the wealthy and to the imperial court. In the wealthy household
indeed, medical care might on occasion be made available to the
humbler members, judging by the generous concern of men like
Cicero and Pliny for the well-being of their slaves or freedmen, or
even to those of the household of an amicus, but scarcely in any
case where no such personal relationship was involved.170
Perhaps more important to the health of the lower class than
theoretically available public doctors, however, were institutions
such as the gymnasia and the large public baths, and the aque­
ducts supplying the latter as well as the city as a whole. All acted as
preventive measures against disease by encouraging exercise and
cleanliness, so that in this context the view of Carnegie has been
aptly quoted that ‘the best means of benefiting the community
is to place within its reach the ladders upon which the aspiring can
rise—free libraries, parks and means of recreation; works of art...
and public institutions of various kinds which will improve the
condition of the people’. Clearly the baths and gymnasia were
such institutions. The physical recreation offered by the latter was
at least effectively open to a far greater proportion of the popula­
tion of cities than the intellectual education could have been, and
those who gave free supplies of oil for use in the gymnasia,
whether as gymnasiarchs or as private individuals, were making
142 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

available a commodity which was regarded almost as vital as com

itself. As in the case of corn, occasional gifts, or gifts in association
with magistracies, gave rise to foundations assuring a permanent
free supply. At Eretria, a certain Theopompos gave 40,000
drachmae, the interest on which was to be devoted to this purpose,
so ‘lightening the burden of the people’ (D. 69). Across die Ae­
gean, in Asia Minor, Attains of Aphrodisias, a man of princely
wealth, among many benefactions left a fund that ‘the citizens
might have no lack of oil for anointing, and that men might be
found more easily to serve as official oil-purchasers’; and at
Cibyra, Q. Veranius Philagrus permanently provided for the
expenses of the gymnasiarchy (of which a free supply of oil was
the chief), after holding twelve gymnasiarchies in his lifetime, with
a fund of 400,000 Rhodian drachmae.1’’1 It has been argued, from
the lack of archaeological evidence of oil-reservoirs in the
buildings of the gymnasia, that until the beginning of our era it
was normal for each person to bring his own supply, for which he
would presumably have paid himself. If that was so, the poorest
may until then in practice have been largely excluded from the
gymnasia—a fact possibly reflected in an inscription from
Priene which refers to the gymnasiarch Dioskurides ‘making
the place available even to those who, through evil fortune, were
not sharing in it’, though we may suspect that the reference is to
men suffering from comparatively recent ‘evil fortune’. Those,
then who had in practice been excluded for so long would
scarcely be expected suddenly to appear when supplies of oil were
eventually made available to ‘all’. And for many, lack of leisure
would be the decisive factor: not all could be available at the hour
fixed for distribution, as was recognized by one benefactor,
Zosimos of Priene, who made arrangements to supply oil
‘throughout the day, from sunrise to sunset’, as well as other
facilities, to those ‘who were being prevented by the fixed hours
laid down by the law’. To some distributions slaves as well as
resident aliens came to be admitted in Hellenistic times, as under
the terms of the donation of Phainia Aromation (though only on
specified days) at Gytheion (D. 71), while at Dorylaeum in
Phrygia we have evidence of a ‘gymnasiarch for slaves and free’.
 HEALTH AND HYGIENE 143

But this should not necessarily be taken as indicating a very wide

enjoyment by slaves of the facilities of the gymnasia. It is at least
in part another indication of the decline in the social status of the
free, in part an application of the advice given long since by
Aristotle, that masters of slaves should give to their slaves a train­
ing according to the purpose which they had in mind for them, on
which basis, indeed, they might occasionally enjoy also the intel­
lectual opportunities offered by the gymnasia.1’3
The gymnasia commonly had baths attached to them, which
sometimes received the specific attention of benefactors, such as
L. Vaccius Leo at Cyme in Asia Minor (another benefactor of
Roman origin), in the early years of our era (D. 55 refers to an
earlier example). But it was the Romans, who were little attracted
to the traditional Greek gymnastic programme, who developed
baths on a large scale in the Empire period. They also did this
largely through die gifts of the wealthy. Among the latter were
Gaius Torasius Severus of Spoletium (D. 35) and Pliny the
Younger, and L. Aemilius Daphnus (D. 78) in southern Spain
who involved themselves in very considerable expenditure. To
provide free access to the baths, others gave sums for a limited
period, or through permanent foundations. Well known among
these is Augustus’ right-hand man, M. Agrippa, as aedile in 33 bc
at Rome; his example was followed by T. Aviasius Servandus
at Bononia (D. 76), who made provision in perpetuity and
specified that both sexes should be included, and by C. Aurunceius
Cotta at Praeneste (D. 75), who included all temporary and
permanent non-citizen residents and their slaves as well. At
Novaria a woman benefactor provided both the baths themselves
and free access, while others were far-sighted enough to provide
for the upkeep of the baths, as did Pliny, or for the heating, as did
Satyros of Tenos (D. 37), or for both, as did a generous donor at
Altinum (D. 77). At the baths, as at the gymnasia, oil was also
needed, and another donor at Comum (who has sometimes been
identified with the father of Pliny the Younger) established a
foundation for an annual distribution of oil in the local baths, as
did others at Theveste and Gor in North Africa (D. 72, 73). In
the latter province die town of Timgad may be quoted as evidence
144 CHARITIES AND SOCIAL AID IN GREECE AND ROME

of the extent to which in some towns the baths must have been
frequented, for there are traces of no less than twelve separate
bathing establishments for a population of some fifteen thousand
inhabitants. Inscriptions, if representative, suggest that some
twelve per cent of the expenditure of benefactors for building
projects in Rome’s western provinces was devoted to baths. With
regard to Rome herself it has been said that ‘the emperors put
personal hygiene on the daily agenda and within reach of the
humblest; and the fabulous decoration lavished on the baths made
the exercise and care of the body a pleasure for all, a refreshment
accessible even to the very poor.’ As such, the baths brought
immense benefit to the people. It is of some interest to compare
the situation in nineteenth-century England, when it was found
prudent, in view of the lack of sanitary facilities in the cities, to set
up a committee to provide baths and washhouses, with the result
that in London the bathhouses ‘were credited with the awesome
total of two million baths a year’. This was essentially a method of
meeting a parallel need at the individual rather than at the
social level, and adopted very late in the day—long after that
period when, because of the less salubrious aspect of the baths of
classical times (hinted at in an inscription which refers to them as
being ‘essential not only for high living but for health and hy­
giene’) the unwashed state could be equated with godliness! Yet,
the more mundane needs were by no means totally neglected by
classical benefactors, as indicated by an inscription relating, it
seems, to tire destercoratio (cleansing) of the public latrines, for
which a Spanish benefactor provided a sum of money—following,
on a smaller scale, the example of M. Agrippa at Rome, who
during his aedileship had also met the expense of great improve­
ments in tire city’s sewage system.173
To provide a town with its water supply could be a still more
expensive gift. A donor at Aspendos in Asia Minor (D. 81) gave
eight million sesterces to this end, while Tiberius Claudius Atticus,
father of the famous Herodes Atticus of the mid-second century
AD, did not limit his generosity to Athens but supplemented the
cost of building an aqueduct at Troy (D. 80) to the tune of six­
teen million sesterces. Such expenditure only the very wealthiest
 HEALTH AND HYGIENE I45

could afford, though at other towns more modest schemes were

possible, as at Verona, where a donor provided some 600,000
sesterces. While such expenditure would undoubtedly display the
magnanimity (in its true classical sense) of the donors, it also served
the community by providing it with an amenity from which the
poor might derive equal, or almost equal, benefit along with the
rich. Probably most parts of the classical world, as men like
the Emperor Antoninus Pius recognised, would have been better
served by more benefactions of this type and less of those concerned
with the ‘largely frivolous provision of annual feasts and cash
distributions, and a group of purely self-regarding foundations
for rites in the memory of the donor’. But we already know
something of why the latter retained their prominence.174

K
1
 NOTES
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ABBREVIATIONS
The following abbreviations will be used for references to books, periodicals
and collections of inscriptions after the first (which will always be quoted
in full):
A. Ant. Hung. Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarium Htmgaricae
Abbott and Johnson, MARE F. F. Abbott and A. C. Johnson, Municipal
Administration in the Roman Empire (1926)
XBSA Annual of the British School at Athens
Adkins, MR A. W. H. Adkins, Merit and Responsibility (i960)
AE L’Annee Epigraphique
AHR American Historical Review
AJA American Journal ofArchaeology
AJPh. American Journal of Philology
BCH Bulletin de Correspondence Hellenique
Berchem, DBA D. van Berchem, Les distributions de ble et
d’argent h la plebe romaine sous I’Empire (1939)
BMC, Imp. H. Mattingly, ed., Coins of the Roman Empire in
the British Museum (1923- )
Bolkestein H. Bolkestein, Wohltiitigkeit mid Armenpflege
in vorchristlichen Altertum (1939)
Broughton, MRR T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the
Roman Republic
Bruck, FM E. F. Bruck, ‘Les facteurs moteurs de 1’originc
et du developpement des fondations grecques
et romaines’, RIDA, 1955, I59ff
Bruck, STR E. F. Bruck, Der Stiftungfiir die Toten in Recht,
Religion undpolttischen Denken der Romer (1954)
Bruck, TS E. F. Bruck, Totenteil und Seelgeriit (1926)
Bruns C. G. Bruns et. al., Fontes luris Romani Antiqui,
7th edition (1909)
Buchanan, Theorika J. J. Buchanan, Theorika: A Study of Monetary
Distributions to the Athenian Citizenry during the
148 NOTES

Fifth and Fourth Centuries BC (1962)

CAH The Cambridge Ancient History
Carcopino, DLAR J. Carcopino, Daily Life in Ancient Rome, transl.
E. O. Lorimer (1941)
CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum
Cohn-Haft, PPAG L. Cohn-Haft, The Public Physicians of Ancient
Greece (1956)
CR Classical Review
Crook, LLR J. A. Crook, Law and Life of Rome (1967)
CSSH Comparative Studies in Society and History
Day, EHA John Day, An Economic History of Athens under
Roman Domination (1942)
Delorme, Gymnasium J. Delorme, Gymnasium: ftude stir les monuments
consacrees a I’education en Grbce (i960)
Dessau H. Dessau, ed., Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae
Dittenbcrger W. Dittenbcrger, Sylloge Inscriptionum Grac-
cartim, 3rd edition (1915-24)
Edmonds, FAC J. M. Edmonds, The Fragments ofAttic Comedy
(1957-61)
Ehrenberg, PA V. Ehrenberg, The People ofAristophanes (1951)
Francotte, MN H. Francotte, ‘Le pain a bon marchc ct le pain
gratuit dans les cites grecqucs’, Melanges
Nicoles, 1905, 135-57
Frank, ESAR T. Frank, ed., Economic Survey ofAncient Rome
(i933-4o)
French, GAE A. French, The Growth of the Athenian Economy
(1964)
Gemct L. Gemet, ‘Droit et predroit en Grecc ancienne’,
L’Annde sociologique 1948-9
IBM Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum
I. Cret. M. Guarducci, cd., Inscriptiones Creticae
(i935-5o)
IG Inscriptiones Graecae
IGRP R. Cagnat et al., Inscriptiones Graecae ad Res
Romanas pertinentes, (1911-27)
ILAlg. S. Gscll, ed., Inscriptions latines de I’ Algerie, I
(1922), II (1957)
Inschr. von Priene Hiller von Gaertringen, Inschriften von Priene
(1906)
IRT J. M. Reynolds and J. B. Ward Perkins, ed.,
The Inscriptions of Roman Tripolitania (1952)
Jacoby, FGH F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der Griechischen
Historiker (1923- )
JHS Journal of Hellenic Studies
 NOTES 149
JOAI Jahreshefte des oesterreichischen archaeologischen
Instituts in Wien
Jones, AD N H. M. Jones, Athenian Democracy (1957)
Jones, GC A. H. M. Jones, The Greek City from Alexander
to Justinian (1940)
Jordan, PE W. K. Jordan, Philanthropy in England, 14S0-
1660 (1959)
JRS Journal of Roman Studies
Kabiersch, BPJ J. Kabiersch, Untersiichuiigen ziim Big riff der
Philanthropia bei dem Kaiser Julian (i960)
Laum B. Laum, Stiftmigen in der griechischen und
romischen Antike (1914)
Lc Bras, SR G. Le Bras, ‘Les fondations privees du haut
empire’, Studi Riccobono III (1936), 23ft
Lewis and Reinhold, RC II N. Lewis and M. Reinhold, Roman Civilization,
vol. II (1955)
Magie, RRAM D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (1950)
MAMA Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqna
Marron, HE>1 H. I. Marrou, History of Education in Antiquity,
transl. G. Lamb (1956)
MDAI(E) Mirteilungen des Deutschen Archdologischen Insti­
tuts (athenische Abt.)
Michel, GDR J. Michel, Gratuite en Droit remain (1962)
Nathan, CA Lord Nathan, The Charities Act, i960 (1962)
Not. Scav. Notizie degli Scavi di Antichitd !
OGIS W. Dittenberger, ed., Orientis Graeci Inscrip-
tiones Selectae (1903-5)
Owen, EP D. E. Owen, English Philanthropy, 1660-1960
(1965)
PBSR Papers ofthe British School at Rome
Pelekidis, Histoire C. Pelekidis, Histoire de I’ephebie attique des
origines <) 31 av.J. C. (1962)
Plassman, AJC Otto Plassman, Das Almosen bei Johannes
Chrysostomus (1961)
Pohlmann, GSF R. von Pohlmann, Geschichte der sozialen Frage i
mid des Sozialismus in der antiken Welt (1925)
Pouilloux, Choix J. Pouilloux, Choix d’lnscriptions Grecques (i960)
RE A. Pauly et al., ed. Real-Encyclopiidie der
classischen Altertumswissenschaft
REA Revue des Etudes Anciennes
REG Revue des Etudes Grecques
REL Revue des Andes Latines
RHDFE Revue Historique de Droitfran^ais et e'tranger
RIDA Revue Internationale des Droits de I’Antiquitd
150 NOTES
Robert, EA L. Robert, Etudes Anatoliennes (1937)
Rostovtzeff, SEHHW M. Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History
of the Hellenistic World (1941)
Rostovtzeff, SEHRE M. Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History
of the Roman Empire, 2nd edition, revised by
P. M. Fraser (1957)
SEG Suppiementum Epigraphicum Graecum
Sherwin-White, LP A. N. Sherwin-White, Letters of Pliny: A
Historical and Social Commentary (1966)
Smallwood E. Mary Smallwood, ed., Documents Illustrating
the Principates of Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian
(1966)
Snell, DM B. Snell, The Discovery of Mind (1953)
STh Studia Theologica
TAM Tituli Asiae Minoris
Tam and Griffith, HC W. W. Tam, Hellenistic Civilization, 3rd
edition, revised with G. T. Griffith (1952)
Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis
Treves, GET A. A. Treves, A History of Greek Economic
Thought (1916)
Ziebarth, GS E. Ziebarth, Aus dem griechischcn Schuhvesen,
2nd edition, enlarged (1913)
 CHAPTER I

1 W. W. Tam in Hellenistic Civilization 3rd edition, revised with G. T.

Griffith (1952). Elizabethan Act, cited from W. K. Jordan, Philanthropy in
England, 14S0-1660 (1959); his comment on the wording, 114; sec also his
article in AHR 1961, 40iff. The preamble is cited in modem English in
Lord Nathan, The Charities Act, i960 (1962), 23; Lord Macnaghtcn’s
revision, 24-5; see also D. E. Owen, English Philanthropy 1660-1960 (1965),
324. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Xlth cd., V, 861
2 Pity, Tam follows Bolkestein, 113 ff. Motives, Jordan, AHR, 1961, 406,
PE, 143ft'; Owen, EP, 395 (Owen also notes ‘antipathy to relatives’ as an
occasional motive); the particular testator, 322, cited from Transactions of
the Social Science Association, 1659, 69
3 Owen, EP, 578, quotes Mr Justice Vaisey in explaining why, in the
Charities Act of i960, the Elizabethan enumeration remains the ultimate
authority. For Rome, see T. Frank, Aspects of Social Behaviour in Ancient
Rome (1932), 97
4 Bolkestein, 426ff, language; his whole argument summarized, 45sff, and
the conclusion stated that Christian charity was in part ‘die antike
fiXavOpanria in der eingeschranken Bedeuting von ^lAowroJ^ia’, a
narrowing due to great impoverishment in the third century ad
5 Humanitas, see Chapter VI, n. 97. Private or public?—see the recent
discussion of the donations of Augustus, P. M. Brunt and J. M. Moore,
Res Gestae Divi Augusti (1967), 58. Public collections within the wider
citizen body are perhaps best attested epigraphically in the case of sums
raised to pay for statues in honour of public benefactors, J. S. Reid, The
Municipalities of the Roman Empire (1913), 498, the public response to
‘charity’; see, for example, D. 43
6 Tiberius Gracchus, a recent discussion in A. E. Astin, Scipio Aemiliamis
(1967), 190ft'. The judgment of Plutarch (Ti. Gracch. 10, 2) reflects the out­
look of his own day on this kind ofmeasure as much as that of the Gracchan
age

CHAPTER II

7 See Nathan, CA, 29, on the definition of‘charity trustees’ for the purposes
of the i960 Act, and 25?, 47ft", on some subtle legal distinctions between
classes of charities
152 NOTES
8 For a brief summary of the historical background, see Nathan, G4, if;
for a fuller account, Jordan, PE, H3ff; AHR 1961, 404.; Owen, EP, 70.
On ‘associated philanthropy’, see Owen, EP, 3, nf, 71 f
9 Legal personality, B. Laum, Stiftungen in der griechischen und romischen
Antike (1914), 168; J. Walter Jones, The Lau> and Legal Theory ofthe Greeks
(1956), l62ff; P. W. Duff, Personality in Roman Law (193 8), i68ff; M. Kaser,
Das romische Privatrecht (1955) I, 26 f. There is much recent literature on
Greek and Roman foundations (Stiftungen): see, generally, R. Fccnstra,
‘L’histoire des fondations’, Tijdschrift 1956, 381-448; RIDA 1956, 245ff;
E. F. Bruck, ‘Les facteurs moteurs de 1’origine et du dcvcloppcmcnt des
donations grecques et romaines’, RIDA 1955, I59ff. More especially for
Rome (but against Greek background), E. F. Bruck, Der Stifling fur die
Toten in Recht, Religion und politischcn Denken der Romer (1954); G. LeBras,
‘Les fondations privees du haut empire’, Studi Riccobono III (1936), 23ff;
a sequence ofgifts, Bruck, STR, 73 ff; Le Bras, SR, 59; origin of foundations,
Laum, I57ff, i63ff, 243ff; E. F. Bruck, Totenteil und Seclgeriit (1926), I79ff;
STR, 48ff; EM, 163; Le Bras, SR, 28ff; protective devices, Laum, i8off;
Bruck, TS, I97ff; FM, 164; compare the reversionary clauses and ‘minute
and binding instructions charged with suspicion’ expressing distrust of the
church in its capacity as an administrator of perpetual endowments for
prayers for the dead in pre-Reformation England, see Jordan, PE, 51, 306.
Greek unreliability, Polybius VI, 56, 13; Epikteta, Laum, No. 43,11. 77ff;
Bruck, TS, 196; Laum, ipSfF, discusses the difficulties involved
10 Roman law, Bruck, STR, 79; J. Michel, Gratuite en droit remain (1962),
277; J. Crook, Law and Life of Rome (1967), I22ff. Bruck suggests that
documents were drawn up by scribes and notaries (tabelliones), not by
lawyers, to suit the inclinations of their clients rather than the requirements
of the law. Titus Flavius Praxias, IGRP IV, 660/1; W. M. Ramsay, REA
1901, 273; de Visscher, RIDA 1965, 247ff; for another feast on ‘happiness-
day’ D. 45. Flavius Syntrophus, CIL VI, 2, 10239; Bruns, 139; for similar
documents, compare Bruns 117 and 118; LeBras, SR,32-3; Bruck, STR,
88-9; Laum, 198, 244
11 De Visscher, RIDA 1965, 247ff. Gifts to city, Bruck. STR, 88-9; Le Bras,
SR, 32-3; Laum, 198, 244. Nerva, Ulpian, XXIV, 28, which le Bras, SR,
34, takes to mean that some towns had the right to receive legacies before
Nerva; cf. Bruck, STR, 75-7; Crook, LLR, 126, 152; A. N. Sherwin-
White, Letters of Pliny: A Historical and Social Commentary (1966), 663-4,
doubts whether this right was now extended to peregrine communities
12 Laum, 217, cites the Tcos inscription, No. 90 (D. 47), relating to a fund
intended to provide education for children, but its range was extended to
cover young men (epheboi)—possibly, however, with the donor’s consent
(as suggested by D. Magic, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, (1950), 1444, n. 43).
The courts, Laum, 219; J. H. Oliver, ‘The Ruling Power’, Tnuisnctions of
the American Philosophical Society 1953, 972ff
 NOTES 153
13 Vedius Pollio, K. M. T. Atkinson, RIDA 1962, 261-89; SEG IV, 516 A
and B, Vibius Salutaris and Antioch endowments, IBM, IH, 481 (Laum, no.
74), Malalas, 284 (Laum, 291): J. H. Oliver, The Ruling Power, 945 ft', 975ff.
Sanctions more impressive, but F. F. Abbott and A. C. Johnson, Municipal
Administration in the Roman Empire (1926), 388, believe that the reference to
the imperial authorities was introduced mainly for reasons of vanity on
the part of the donor, not in real hope of greater security for the gift.
Flavius Praxias’ phrase ‘during the unending rule of Rome’ may then
perhaps parallel an English donor’s threat of eternal punishment ‘so long as
the world endurcth’, cited by Owen, EP, 325. Both Laum and Le Bras arc
pessimistic about the chances of long survival for the average foundation,
though there were exceptions, sec E. Ziebarth, Hermes 1917, 425if. The
final enemies were inflation, Lc Bras, SR, 64, n. 268, and war, Laum, 25s
14 Laum, 255; cf. R. Duncan-Jones, PBSR 1965, 2o6f
15 Digest, 50, 8, 6, income from bequests not to be used for gladiatorial fights,
etc., even if designated for that purpose; Magic, RRAM, 656; note also
Digest 12, 13, 1, decree of Antoninus and Verus: condiciones donationibus
adpositas quae in rem publicum fiunt, ita demum ratas esse, si utilitatis publicae
interest: quod si damnosae sint, observari non debere’. The latter is one of the
principles on which in England the Charity Commission may think fit to
revise the purpose of an endowment; see Nathan, CA, 3,2of, 744ff, on the
growing relaxation of the principle of cy pres; and Owen, EP, 207!, on
the Charitable Trusts Act of 1S60 as providing a kind of‘poor charity’s
Chancery’ for trustees who wished to offer a new scheme but had not been
able to meet the expense of the procedure previously involved (Owen
quotes from The Dead Hand, 327). Flavius Syntrophus, LcBras SR, 58;
Bruck, STR, 87
16 Abbot and Johnson, MARE, 144, emphasize the ‘intolerable drain on the
public treasury when prosperity declined’ caused by repair of theatres,
colonnades, etc. See Jordan, PE, 46,276, for the extent to which ‘charitable
uses’ were relied upon for such repairs in Tudor-Stuart England; De Vis-
scher, RIDA 1955, 200, comments on ‘la mediocrite assez gen&ale des
objectifs poursuivis par les fondations romaines’. Not simply lack of
machinery, Le Bras, S&, 3if

CHAPTER III
17 An article by Marcel Mauss, originally in L' Arniee sociologique (2nd series) i,
1923-4, then, as The Gift by Ian Cunnison (1954). Mauss urges that we
should return to customs of this sort, too much generosity being harmfu
to man and society, 66. See also, with regard to these relationships, tha.
‘there is either complete trust or complete mistrust, 73
18 Mauss, The Gift, 3, 51,118, on the ‘agonistic’ attitude and on ‘dependence’
154 NOTES
for the loser; L. Gemet, ‘Droit et prcdroit en Grece ancicnne’ L’ Annee
sociologique 1948-9, 43-6; cf. Bolkestein, 443f
19 M. Fortes and E. E. Evans-Pritchard, African Political Systems (1940), 207;
J. K. Campbell, Honour, Family and Patronage (1946), 144
20 Mauss, The Gift, jiff; Gemet, 28fF; E. Benviste, Probleines de linguistique
generate (1966), 3i5ff. For the application to Rome, see J. Michel, GDR,
469?. On slavery for debt, see M. I. Finley, RHDFE 1965, I59ff. For the
significance of the term nexus, R. M. Ogilvie, Livy I-V (1965), 2g6ff
21 Homer, II., VI, 2irff; Od., IV, 6i3fF; I, 3O7ff; M. I. Finley, The World of
Odysseus (1956), 6ff, 68ff, io6ff, I34ff; RIDA 1955, i65ff; see also W. K.
Lacey, JHS 1966, 5sff, and The Family in Classical Greece (1968), 41; on
meanness leading to ill-repute, Homer, Od. XIX, 325!^ XVII, 457ff
22 Evans-Pritchard, preface to Mauss, The Gift, vii; Thue. II, 97, 3-4; Demo­
critus, fr. 96 (its authenticity is doubted by W. K. C. Guthrie, A History of
Greek Philosophy II (1965), 490); Lysias, 19, 59 (where the advocate
apologizes for mentioning his client’s good deeds); Dcmosth. de cor. 269;
Aristotle, E.N. 1162 B36-7; comedy—J. M. Edmonds, The Fragments of
Attic Comedy (1957-61), III, 749
23 Terence, Andria 43 (cf. M. Boas, Disticha Catonis (1952) 1,15); Cic. de amic.
20,71 and 9, 31; also defin. II, 35,117; Sen. de ben. 1,2,1; IV, 14,1, IV, 21,
3; Aristotle, E.N. 1120 B7; cf. Sen. de ben. 16, 1; I, 7, 1). Septuagint,
Proverbs, 22, 8; Eccles. 35, 9; Tobit 4, 7. Hellenistic literature, Bruck, STR,
io6ff; 2 Cor. 9, 7; Sen. de ben. H, 9
24 John Chrys. n, 126; Cic. de off. 1,15, 49; Sen. de ben. II, 35,1 (cf. 1,1,12);
1,1, 4; Cic. de off. 1,15, 48
25 Thue. II, 40, 4; Aristotle, E.N. 1167 B17-18; Menander, Edmonds, FAC,
IBB, 917 (cf. Tac. Ann. IV, 18: ‘beneficia laeta, dum videntur cxsolviposse’);
Dem. de cor. 269; Aristotle, ep. 3
26 Aristotle, E.N. 1178 A24ff(to have the will, but not the means (choregia) to
give, provides no proof even as to the will); 1120 B27 (giving and
receiving)
27 Friendships, Bolkestein, 84; Aristotle,E.N. 1155 A7; Cic. de amic. 51/from
Panaetius?; Fritz-Arthur Steinmetz, Das Fretmdschafislehre des Panaitjps
(1967), 196; see also Michel, GDR, 503 IF; J. Ferguson, Moral Values in the
Ancient World (1958), 53ff
28 Michel, GDR, 552, 191, F. de Robertis, Lavoro e Lavoratori nel inondo
romano (1963), 76-8. For the attitude of the lower class at Athens, see
A. H. M. Jones, Athenian Democracy (1957), 11; Quintilian, Inst. Orat. XII,
7, 12. Infamia, Michel, GDR, 589
29 Cic. pro Plane. 81; de amic. 55; Xen. Mem. n, 4, 1; Aristotle, E.N. 1120
B16; Rhet. 1361 A28; Martial, V, 42, 7-8; Sen. ad Lucil. 119, 12. On
Athenian society, see A. French, The Growth ofthe Athenian Economy (1964),
173; similarly, in a Roman context, R. Duncan-Jones, PBSR 1963, 161.
30 Aristotle, E.N. 1159 B12,1163 B 1
 NOTES 155
31 Philanthropia,]. Ferguson, Moral Values in the Ancient World (1958), loaff.
Its development is traced by C. Spicq, Agapb (Paris, 1958—9), 1,170, n. 3, to
the late fifth-century orator Antiphon. See also in STh XII (1958), 169-91.
Cf. B. Snell, The Discovery of Mind (1933) 249ff; J. Kabiersch, Untersnchun-
gen zuin Begriffder Philanthropia bei deni KaiserJulian (i960), 76ft'; Bolkestein,
noff, and literature there cited. (Besides the abstract noun philanthropia
(plural -ini), the adjective philanthropes (plural -oi), which is used in the
neuter (philanthropon, plural -a) as a noun, the adverb philanthropes, and
less commonly, the verb philanthropeuesthai recur in inscriptions, etc. In the
text the nominative form of the noun or adjective and the infinitive mood
of the verb will be quoted)
32 Club and state, Aristotle, E.N. 1160 A; E. Barker, Creek Political Theory,
1918, 235-6. Unpaid office, C. Hignett, History oj the Athenian Constitution
(1952), 220 (expresses some doubt about the office of strategos). Friendship
and the state, Aristotle, Pol. 1321 A; E.N. 1160 B32-5, 1155 A23-5;
Lucretius, V, I392ff
33 Material gain, Aristotle Pol. 1279 A. Definition of liturgy, E.N. 1163 A29.
On the number of liturgies at Athens in the mid-fourth century, see J. K.
Davies, JHS 1967, 33ff; on the attitude to them in fifth century Athens, V.
Ehrenberg, The People of Aristophanes (1943), 173, and, later, Jones, AD,
56-8. At Athens there was the curious right of the citizen who had been
assigned a liturgy to challenge another whom he believed to be wealthier
than himself either to accept it himself or to agree to an exchange of
properties (antidosis). See A. H. M.Jones, The Greek City (1940), 167, on the
‘tacit convention whereby the people elected rich men to magistracies and
they as magistrates contributed freely to the public service under their
charge’; so, too, in Asia Minor under the Romans, Magie, RRAM, 61.
-Sumina honoraria, taken as the equivalent of the Greek liturgy, Abbott and
Johnson, MARE, 144; particularly well attested in Roman Africa, R.
Duncan-Jones, PBSR 1962,64; Frank, ESARIV, 76-8; not so well in Italy
itself, Duncan-Jones, PBSR 1965, 226f; in the Greek world, Jones, GC,
237, n. 25; J. Day, An Economic History of Athens under Roman domination
• (1942), 97! Frank, ESAR IV, 802; HI, 149; V, 6sfF
34 Graded honours, Aristotle, Rhet. 1361; G. Klaffenbach, Griechische Epi-
graphik, 2nd edition (1966), 77ff; E. Ziebarth, Das griechische Vereinswesen
(1896), 164. Aionios, Laum, 46-53; Jones, GC, 175. Sale of citizenship,
L. Robert, Hellenica 1,1940, 39ff. The device forbidden to the Athenians by
Augustus (Dio Cassius LIV, 7), who thereupon accepted gifts on the same
basis, J. Day, EHA, 170
35 E. Skard, Euergetes-Concordia (1932), 6yff. On coins, B. V. Head, Historia
Numorum (1911), 77, fig. 38; Aristotle, E.N. 1167 A22S (homonoia as
politikephilid); 1155 A26-8 (philia and ‘justice’); 1159 B 31 (Xen. Mem. I,
4, 6; III, 11, 4); Pol, 1263 A31 (rejecting Plato, Rep. 462 C); see also A. W.
H. Adkins, Merit and Responsibility (i960), 211

L
156 NOTES
36 Voluntary basis, J. Walter Jones, Hie Law and Legal Theory of the Greeks
(1956), 155; Frank, ESAR IV 802 (cf. M. Rostovtzcff, Social and Economic
History of the Hellenistic World (1941) 621); Jones, AD, 58; Day, EHA, 12,
36, 90. Epidosis, A. Kuenzi, Epidosis (1923), relating to subscriptions for
military needs, public buildings, religious objects, com supplies, financial
needs; on the method, A. M. Andrcadcs, A History of Greek Public Finance,
revised by C. N. Brown (1933), 349
37 H. Francottc commented on the system: 'Personae nest fared de sonscrire,
mat's chacun comprend ce qtte cela vent dire’. The English situation, Jordan,
AHI?, i960, 404; Owen, EP, 70
38 See Lysias, 19, 56; 25,13; Isaeus I, 45; A. W. H. Adkins, MR, 201-4
39 Xen. Symp. IV, 29; Isoc. antidos. 159; Aristotle, Pol. 1320 A; Plut. Mor.
821 F; Dio Chrys. or. 47, 3
40 Liberality, Aristotle, Pol. 1163 Bio. Hellenistic monarchies, W. Schubert,
‘Das hellenistischc Kbnigsidcal nach Inschriften und Papyri’, Archivfiir Papy-
rusforschung XII (1936), iff, csp. 10, 20; E. R. Goodenough, Yale Classical
Studies I (1928), 55ff; C. Spicq, STh 1958, iSjff; Rostovtzcff, SEHHW,
268-9, 434, 1078, 1359, 1379-80; Egypt, M. Th. Lengler, ‘La notion de
bienfait royal et les ordonnances de rois Lagides’, Studi in honore di V.
Arangio-Ruiz I (1952-3), 483ff; sec also E. Skard, Euergetes-Concordia (1932),
56ff. To this context belongs the well-known dictum of the Emperor
Titus, twenty-four hours having passed by without his having done any­
body a favour, ‘I have lost a day’ (Suet. Tit. 8), which may originally have
been attributed to Alexander the Great, (Kabiersch, BPJ, 11, 90(f)
41 These two terms have adjectival and adverbial forms, also related verbs,
philotimeisthai and philodoxcin, which arc used in a way analogous to those
connected with philanthropia (see note 31); they will be quoted in the same
way. Plato, Rep., trans, by H. D. P. Lee (1955) 184-5. Bolkestein quoted
Anatole-France: ‘cet dgoisme qui inspire a I’liomme tons les actes degenerosite’.
Aristotle, E.N. 1159 Bzsff; Owen, EP, 165; Jordan, PE, 228-9
42 Aristotle E.N. 1167 Bi7ff; Pol. 1263 B; Sen. de ben. I, 6, 1; adLucil. 9, 8
(see Aristotle, E.N. 1159 A26-7); ad Lucil. 48, 2 (Menander, Edmonds,
FAC, IIIB, 755); de ben. II, 28, 2; Origen, c. Cels. 1, 4; 11, 5 (H. Chadwick,
Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition (1966), 164)
43 Pliny, ep. I, 8,10-13; Dio Chrys. Or. 47, 9. T. Claudius Atticus, J. S. Reid,
The Municipalities of the Roman Empire (1913), 497; cf. C. S. Walton’s
suggestion (JRS 1929, 55(F) as to the motive behind the lavish gifts of
Opramoas of Rhodiapolis (doubted by Magie, RRAM, 1395)
44 Arai Bouzygeiai, Bolkestein, 471; Michel, GDR, 585-6; Angelo Brelich,
Gli eroi Greci (1958), I74ff; Corpus Paroem. Graec., Appendix, 388; Sen.
de ben. IV, 29, 2; cf. Cic. de off. I, 16, 51. A passage in Aristotle’s Rhetoric
(1361 A27) implies that such acts did obtain their reward of‘honour’ often
enough, because of their situation and timing (cf. Mark, 9, 41, Matthew,
10, 42). 'Do ut des’ interpretation, Snell, DM, 168; Kabiersch, BPJ, 30,
 NOTES I57

emphasizes Seneca’s remark that no gauditun (joy) is associated with such

gifts
45 See Note 4. Elections, Tac. Ann. I, 15. Lack of sense of social obligation,
R. von Pbhlmann, Geschichte der sozialen Frage und des Socialismus in der
antiken Welt (1925) II, 266. Concordia, E. Skard, Concordia-Euergetes, 8iff.
Epigraphical evidence, A. Lussana, Epigraphica 1956, 86, and 1952,106; cf.
R. Duncan-Jones, PBSR 1963, 161
46 Le Bras, STR, 121-2; Polybius, XXXII, 12, 9 (Michel, GDR, 293, notes
the consequence in the sphere of law: ‘on pent adinettre que la notion jttridique
de donation anterieureinent a 204 an. J. C. etait coinpleteinent etrangbre aux
Romains’, the lex Cincia of that year admitting it only the better to exclude
it from the domain ofjuridical institutions); G. Higher, Juvenal the Satirist
(1962), 7

CHAPTER IV

47 Aristotle, E.N. 1123 B20-1; Theophrastus, ap. Stobaeus, IV, 72; Demosth.
XX, 10; Cic. de off. I, 14, 44; Pliny, ep. I, 8, 15
48 G. Klaffenbach, Griechische Epigraphik (1966), 77®—hence the possibility of
confident reconstructions of sections of quite fragmentary inscriptions.
Rutilius Viator, GIL XI, 1681
49 Hera, SEG I, 367 (A£DAI(A) 46, I4ff). Colony of Callatis, Dacia I (1924),
4-6. Kolophon, F. G. Maier, Griechische Mauerbauinschriften I (1959), 69 B,
II. 28fF; Oropus, F. G. Maier, ibid., 26A, //. raff, 23ff. Cibyra, IGRP III,
422 (see L. Robert, Etudes Anatoliennes, 378-80)
50 E. Ziebarth, Dasgriechische Vereinsu-esen (1896), 164; cf. Crook, LLR, 266.
Expenses of priesthoods, L. Robert, Hellenica XIII (1965), 224-5. Corn
distributions, Rostovtzeff, SEHHW, 393. 618-22, 951, 1124, 1248-51,
1314,1464,1520; SEHREH, 599#; H. Francotte, ‘Le Pain i bon marchcet
le pain gratuit dans les cites grecques, Melanges Nicoles 1905, 135-57;
Jones, GC, 217, 350 n. 15; Magie, RRAM, 645, nn. 1511—3; L. Robert,
HA, 3i9ff; Bolkestein, 255!?. Aediles, Cic. de off. II, 16, 58 (Bolkestein,
37iff)
51 Francotte, 143-4 (cf- D. 3,9,14,15, 29). Aphrodisias, MAMA VIII, 408, ll.
7- Stock adverbs, Robert, EA, 343. Lucania (Tegianum), Dessau 5054 (‘ad
honorem qtioqne dumnviratus ad cuiniilanda mnnera patriae suae libenter accedit’).
52 Jones, GC, 167, 237 n. 25, iSaff, 342 n. 55; Magie, REAM839 n. 54,1518
n. 50, 1519 n. 51. (The text of Pliny, Ep. X, 113, often cited as evidence of
unwillingness to hold the office of town-councillor in the early second
century ad, is dubious—see Sherwin-White, LP, on this letter.)
53 Cic. ad Alt. VI, 1, 26; Tac. Ann. I, 74
54 Seneca, de ben. IV, 11, 6. It is relevant to note that only two of Pliny the
Younger’s numerous public benefactions were clearly non-testamentary
(Sherwin-White, LP, 103), and to compare the doctrine of the Christian

I
158 NOTES
apologist, John Chrysostom, that testamentary giving was less deserving of
God’s reward—see Otto Plassman, Das Ahnosen bei Johannes Chrysostomus
(1961), 20. Italy—R. Duncan-Jones, PBSR 1963, 208-9. On the social
function of the legacy at Rome, see L. Boyer, RHDFE 1965, 333ff.
Honours for descendants, MDAJ (A) 1907, 259; Polybius VI, 54, 1; Cic.
de off. R, 18, 63
55 Tam and Griffith, HC, 49ff; E. Skard, Euergetes-Concordia, 28ff; J. P. V. D.
Balsdon, Historia 1952, 363ft, traced the tendency to ascribe ‘divinity’,
though not divine cult, to great men in recognition of their services, long
before Alexander the Great
56 Bolkestein, 393-400; cf. reviews ofR. Meiggs, CR 1940, 106-7; A. J.
Fcstugiere, REG 1940, 237-41. W. Schubart, Archiv.fiir Papyrusforschung
XU (1936), iff, shows that not even the Aristeas epistle, written by a Jew in
Alexandria, is without its dominant Greek element in thought and expres­
sion (cf. A. Pelletier, Lettre d’Aristee a Philocrate (1962), 76). Plato’s Politiais,
see edition ofJ. B. Skemp (1952), 57: ‘an absolutism based on the innate
superiority of the ruler as a creature of a higher order is unacceptable; but
it must have been a doctrine actually put forward at the time’. In general,
C. Habicht, Gotrmenschentum und griechische Stadte (1956), shows the direct
relationship between the incidence of cult for individual Hellenistic kings
and the actual benefactions of the latter to the cities, which established such
a cult as a legitimus honor. Menander, Dysk. 805-9; Alice. Gr. II, 131, II
(see L. Stembach, Wiener Studien 1887, 199(F); Sen. de ben. Ill, 15, 4;
Pliny, ep. Ill, 21, 6; Sen. adLucil. 115, 4 (cf. Cic. pro Lig. 38); Tertullian,
apol. 50, io-ii
57 Laum, 221; Bruck, TS, i68ff; STR, 48ff; FM, i6off. Zosimos, Inschr. von
Priene, 112, I. 15. Epicurus, Bruck, TS, 2O4f
58 Plutarch, Nikias, 5, 3 (Laum, No. 53)
59 Bruck, STR, 62-7-, Cic. Phil. XIII, 7
60 Bruck, FM, 170; de Visscher, RIDA 1965,253. Flavius Syntrophus, Bruns,
139 (see Le Bras, SI?, 58ff; Bruck, STR, 77ft). Funerary aspect, Le Bras,
SI?, 61; de Visscher, RIDA 1955, 200. Pliny, R. Duncan-Jones, PBSR
1965.187. Roman Africa, PBSR 1962, 50-1. Theveste, Inscriptions ofRoman
Tripolitania, 268 (ILAlg. 3017)
61 P. Guiraud, La main d’oeuvre industrielle dans I’ancienne Grice (1900), 206-7;
M. N. Tod, ABSA1906-7, 336, J. Crook, LLR, 263ff
62 Jordan’s characterization of an aspect of English philanthropy, Jordan, PE,
229; Basil, On Riches, 1,14, 37; L. Robert, Hellenica X-XI (1955) 573.
n. 4 for a list of titles in Hellenistic inscriptions. P. Domitius, SEG XX, 25
(L. Robert, Hellenica VIII (1950) 76-7). Gregory of Nyssa, Migne, PL III,
457 C. John Chrysostom, LXIX, 166, 380 (Plassman, AJC, 92); Bruck,
STR, nyff, re. John Chrys., in epist. II ad Cor. Hom. XIII. Bruck, STR,
134-6, points out a resulting contrast in Roman and Byzantine law: for the
latter the evidence of a ‘gift’ is the animus donandi (a subjective criterion),
 NOTES I59
for the former the undoubted transfer of an object without the payment of
a price (an objective criterion)

CHAPTER V
63 Bolkestein, i8iff, 325ff; cf. V.Ehrenberg, The People ofAristophanes (1951)
178; Aristophanes, Pint. 551-4; Dem. XXI, 102; Horace, Sat. I, 6, 71-8;
Martial, XI, 328; Juvenal, G. Highet, Juvenal the Satirist (1962), 68
64 F. de Robertis, Lavoro e lavoratori nel tnondo roinano (1963), Syff; von Pohl-
mann, GSFII, 457; Stobaeus IV, 72, collects a number of quotations ‘con­
cerning praise of poverty’
65 Bolkestein, 410; Menander, Dysk. 284-5, cf. 23-4; Plato, Rep. 552 D.
Example of language variation, Dem. VUI, 66; Homer, Od. XVIII, iff;
Plato, Laws, 936C
66 Ehrenberg, PA, 178; Bolkestein, 328, compare 52 (Israel); Cic. de dom. 33,
89; ad Att. I, 16, 11; de leg. agr. II, 26 70 (‘hoc enim verbo est usus, quasi de
aliqua sentina ac non de optiinorum civiumgenere loquerettir’); Lucan, VII, 404;
Juvenal, G. Highet, Juvenal the Satirist, 37, see also 51, 68 Mines, B.
Farrington, Diodoros Siculus, Universal Historian (1937), 16-19; H. Strass­
burger, JRS 1965, 48-9 (contra M. Laffranque, Poseidonios d’Apaine'e (1964),
490); Diodorus V, 35-8
67 Owen, EP, 242, records how ‘only with the greatest reluctance and then in
qualified terms would the Charity Organization [founded in the 1860s]
admit unemployment to be a fact’; cf. earlier statutes of the Tudor period
relating to the ‘professional poor’—vagabonds were to be ‘whipped until
bloody and then returned by a direct route to the parish of their birth or
legal residence’ (Jordan, PE, 9+f; see also 41, on the worthy poor whom
endowments were intended to benefit); de Romilly, REG, 1965, 575;
Homer, Od. XVIII, 1; Plut. Solon, 17 (Bolkestein, 283-6; cf. A. R. W.
Harrison, The Law ofAthens (196S), 79f, for the opposite emphasis); Plut.
Moral. 235 A; Plautus, Trin. 339
68 Plato, Laws 744 DE, 745 A (see A. A. Treves, A History of Greek Economic
Thought (1916), 60); E. F. Bruck, Kirchenvater und sozialen Erbrecht (1956).
49-51. Bruck’s thesis is that the Christian Fathers, through establishing a
portion of property which should be given away, indirectly established the
amount of property which a Christian might retain. Plassman, AJC, 53;
according to the doctrine ofJohn Chrysostom, the rich have to thank the
poor for the chance of alms-giving. J. Leipoldt, Der soziale Gedanke in der
altchristlichen Kirche (1952), i6gff
69 Aristotle, Pol. 1320 A6ff; Ruskin, Treves, GET, 46, 149
70 A. Passerini, Athenaeum 1930, 273ff, observes that these schemes, unlike so
many others for redistribution in the classical world, did not simply
involve giving to the ‘poor’ at the expense of proprietors or political
enemies. On Sparta, see A. Fuks, Athenaeum 1962,244ff, and T. W. Africa,
160 NOTES
Phylarchus and the Spartan Revolution (1961), i6ff. Africa doubts whether
Cercidas, to whom Tam attributed ‘the one expression of philanthropy in
literature’, voiced his support of the popular cause before that cause seemed
already won. For the events of and background to 133 bc at Rome, see
D. C. Earl, Tiberius Gracchus (Collection Latomus, LXVI, 1963), 3off,
Earl emphasizes the military motive behind Tiberius’ law; Bolkestein,
349—57. emphasizes also the financial assistance provided by Tiberius for
the re-established coloni, but this may have been intended (as Livy suggests)
for those for whom land could not bc found, and in airy case seems to have
been an afterthought. The Elizabethan period, Jordan, AHR 1961,404, PE,
149
71 Plato, Laws, 740 E; F. M. Heichclhcim, An Ancient Economic History, 2nd
edition (1964), 240; D. Asheri, Distribtizioni di terre nell’ antica Grecia (1966),
11-16, 65. Brea, Jones, AD, 168, against the implication of Bolkestein,
421-3. In Italy, G. Tibiletti, Relazioni II, Storia dell’ Antiquita (1955), 249fF;
T. Frank, Aspects of Social Behaviour in Ancient Rome, 97; A. Bernardi,
Ntiova Rivista Storica (1946), 285-8
72 Mercenaries, G. T. Griffith, Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World (1935). On
the motives of Roman proletarii, P. A. Brunt, JRS 1962, 79-83 (against
other recent views). Meagre pay, G. Fomi, Il reclutamento delle legioni da
Augusto a Diocleziano (1953), I2off
73 Plato, Rep. 372 B; K. Hopkins, CSSH 1965, 3ff. Athens, H. Bolkestein,
CP1922,222ff; A. Cameron, CR 1932,105-14; A. W. Gommc,Population
ofAthens (1933), 79-82; J. K. Lacey, The Family in Classical Greece (1968),
164-7, 307 n. 83; A. R. W. Harrison, The Law of Athens (1968), 70-1.
Hellenistic period, Tarn and Griffith, HC, 102; G. Humbert, Dictioimaire
Daremberg-Saglio III, s.v. expositio (930-9); Rostovtzeff, SEHHW, 623.
74 Aristotle, Pol. 1265 B, 1335 B (transl. E. Barker, The Politics of Aristotle
(1948)); Treves, GET, 74ft'; Victorian critic—quoted by Owen, EP, 167-8
75 Pliny, Ep. X, 6,2 (Sherwin-White, LP, 650-2, 654); Rostovtzeff, SEHRE,
476, 738, n. 15; U. Kahrstedt, Kulturgeschichte des rbmischen Kaiserzeit (1958),
$7, 316, emphasizes the continuance of the practice in the period of the
alimeuta; Lewis and Reinhold, RC II, 404-5; see also Crook, LLR, 58,
299 n. 101; J. Carcopino (transl. E. O. Lorimer), Daily Life in Ancient Rome
(1941), 77. Musonius Rufus, Cora E. Lutz, Yale Classical Studies, 1947, iff
collects the fragments and writes of a ‘new spirit which he breathed into
the old Stoic concept oEhumanitas’ (perhaps overstated): see esp. XV, 19-22,
96-99. Suicide, Sen. ad Lucil. 70, 15; cons, ad Marc. 20, 3 (‘caram te, vita,
beliefcio mortis habeo’); cf. Epictetus, 1245 D; Theod. Code, XI, 27,1
76 Ehrenberg, PA, 183; A. French, The Growth ofthe Athenian Economy (1964),
159. Slaves’ earnings, A. H. M. Jones (M. I. Finley ed.), Slavery in the
Ancient World (i960), 6f; cf. Xen. Mem, II, 8, 4-5; ps-Xen, A.P. I, 10;
fourth century, A. H. M. Jones, AD, 87; Treves, GET, 74; Aristode, Pol.
1295 A. Banquets and distributions, L. Robert, EA, 388 n. 2; W. L.
 NOTES l6l
Wcstcrmann, Slave Systems of Greek and Roman Antiquity (1955), 41,109,
120, 161
77 F. de Robcrtis, Lavoro e lavoratori nel mondo romano (1963), loSff, H2ff.
Africa, R. Duncan-Jones, PBSR 1963, i65ff. Asia Minor, W. M. Ramsay,
The Social Basis of Roman Power in Asia Minor (1941), 2-4. Panamara and
Lagina, Magic, RRAM, 587-8. Menodora, Laum, No. 150 (D. 41).
Opramoas, IGRP III, 739 (C. S. Walton, JRS, 1929, 55fF; Magie, RRAM,
536-7). The adoption of ‘democracy’ in some of the colonies of modem
western European nations may be regarded as similarly superficial
78 Polybius XXXVII, 9 (see A. W. Gomme, Population ofAthens, 81, for a
cautionary note; also D. Asheri, Distribiizioni di tern nell’ antica Grecia
(1966), 24, defining oliganthropia (invariably?). Sherwin-White, LP, 298
(re. Pliny, ep. IV, 21, 3) points to the apparent difficulty of ensuring the
continuance of noble Roman families, even where no limitation was
intended. Orphans, Bolkestein, 275-82; A. W. Gomme, Population of
Athens, 82 n. 1; Crook, LLR, 111-3. War-orphans, Thue. II, 46; Aristotle,
A.P. 24, etc. In England, Owen, EP, 157ft (including provision for
‘destitute children of middle-class parents’)
79 Theognis, 1161; Isoc. ad Demon. 29; Disticha Catonis(M. Boas, 1952), 24,
No. 39; Cic. de off. II, 15, 54; Sen. de vit. beat. 23-4; Aristotle, E.N. 1120
B3; cf. Plassman, AJC, 91
80 Cic. de off. 1,14, 45; Aristotle, E.N. 1098 A16,1123 B17 (Cic. de off. 1,17,
56); Sen. de vit. beat. 24,2 (cf. Cic. de off. Ill, 6,27); Pliny, ep. IX, 30J. N.
Sevenster, Paul and Seneca (1961), 215
81 John Chrysostom, Plassman, AJC, 2<)ff, 83, 97. See also J. Leipoldt, Der
soziale Gedanke in der altchristlichen Kirche (1952), 158f, with whom J.
Kabicrsch, BPJ, 43, disagrees as to the teaching of the Didache
82 Gifts out of income, Sherwin-White, LP, I49f (on Pliny, ep. II, 4, 3); R.
Duncan-Jones, PBSR 1965, 178. Debts, A. Passerini, Athenaeum 1930,
299
83 Cynics: Tam & Griffith, HC, in; Rostovtzeff, SEHHW, 1129; cf. Plass-
man, AJC 92-4; Leipoldt, 167,191. Autarkeia, 2 Cor. 9, 8 (cf. J. Moreau,
Epictetus (1964), 80: 'le detachement est, pour le stoicien la condition de I’aut-
arcie . . . ce nest pas le renoncement a soi-meme, par quoi le chretien est rendu
entiCement disponible pour le ddvoeument A autrui'.) Immortality through
identification, Kabiersch, BPJ, 30, 49ff, traces it back to Plato, Theaetetus
176 A

CHAPTER VI
84 Matthew <5,2. G. W. H. Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon, s.v. ’e\eqp.ocrvvr].
Misericordia, H. Petre, Revue des latudes Latines 1934, 376ff; used by Tertul-
lian of charity towards an infant exposed (Apol. 9,17), towards a beggar in
the street (Apol. 42, 8). Philotimia, Laum, 43
L
162 NOTES
85 Christian background, Bolkestein, ipff, 47fF, 423ff, 179!?. Homer, Bolke­
stein, 423; B. Snell, DM, 33; Xen. Mem. I, 3, 3
86 Pity in Greek drama, E. B. Stevens, AJPh 1944 iff; Philemon, ap. Stobacus,
TV, 30; Soph. Ajax, i2iff. Scipio, Polybius, XXXIX, 4, 2-3. Seneca, ad
Marc. 9,1; Philemon, l.c.
87 Demosthenes, in Meid. 184, cf. 99,101. On the various meanings of eranos,
see Bolkestein, 240. Thue. HI, 40, 3; Xen. Mem. n, 6, 22
88 Bolkestein, 141, 346, cf. 27-9; H. A. Thompson, Hesperia, 1952, 47ff.
Epidaurus, IG IV, 1282, and C. Spicq, STh 1958, 189 (the altar probably
belongs to the late second or early third century); Aristotle, Poetics,
1452 A, 1453 A (Pausanias, I, 17 1, describes the altar as ‘of the greatest
avail in face of changing circumstance’). Slaves, Bolkestein, 320-6; von
Pohlmann, GSF, 1,409; II, 305; J. Vogt, Sklaverei und Humanitat (1965), 34,
questioning the influence (and the implied dating) of lambulus’ Sun State
(see Tam and Griffith, HC, 122, 125, and E. Will, Histoire Politique du
Monde Helldnistique (1967) 355Q and taking Diodorus’ account, and still
more the parody in Lucian over a century later, as a reflection of romantic
rather than serious political ideals; von Pohlmann argues that the late fifth­
century comedies of Aristophanes were more in touch with political
reality. See also, Rostovtzeff, SEHHW, 808, 1132, 1523-4, n. 81
89 Anaximenes, Stobaeus, Concerning the reproach of poverty, 21; Plato, Rep.
6o4ff; Aristotle, Pol. 1341 B33ff; Poetics, 1449 B28-9; Cic. pro Mur. 39,
61
90 Cicero, Tttsc. IV, 26, 56; von Arnim, Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta (1921-4),
III, 109, 28, no, 7; Sen. de clem. 2, 5,1; Bolkestein, 143
91 C. N. Cochrane, Christianity and Classical Culture (1940), 5O7f. Self­
composure, sec Note 83 above
92 Posidonius, M. Laffranque, Poseidonius d’ Apamee (1954) 474ff; Seneca, ad
Lucil. 74, 30, and 82, 11. Personal emphasis, W. R. Halliday, The Pagan
Background ofEarly Christianity (1925), Ch. 4
93 Disdain, Bruck, STR, liyff; Plassman, AJC, 26; Bolkestein, 435ff, 471;
Sen. de ben. IV, 29, 2; adLucil. 95, 5; Philo, ap. Eusebius, 358D; Josephus,
contraApion.H,29,1;cf.Cic. proQuinctio,97, ‘obsecravit.. .sinon hominis,at
humanitatis rationem haberet'; Diogenes Laertius V, 1, 21, ‘it was not to the
man that I gave help but to humanity’ (the general philosophy implied is
not inappropriate to Hellenistic thought, even though the other version of
this tale in D.L. V, 1, 17, has the highly suspect eleemosune in place of
eranos); Gellius IX, 26, attributes a similar reply to Herodes Atticus in the
second century ad, and in the fourth century it re-appears in a letter of the
Emperor Julian (290 D); see Kabiersch, BP], yof. For the New Testament
comparison, see J. N. Scvenster, Paul and Seneca (1961), 171; C. Spicq,
Agape (1958-9) I, lyof: Jesus ‘choisit des exemples concrets oil la m&hancete du
prochain est si accusee qu une prescription de I’ aimer d’ amitie on htimainemeni
serait tin nonsens’. On war-captives, see Rostovtzeff, SEHHIV, 202-4,
 NOTES 163
‘charitable souls who saw respectable citizens’ (the key-word is ‘respect­
able’)
94 Appeals via children, etc., Aristophanes, Wasps, 568; Demosth. in Meili.
186-8; but Socrates refused to follow the fashion, Plato, Apol. 23. On the
defendant’s use of the term ‘pity’ as equivalent to ‘a decision in my favour’,
see Adkins, MR, 203, where it is pointed out that this appeal was not
necessarily a confession of guilt. Epitaphs, M. N. Tod, Annual of the British
School at Athens, 1951,186. John Chrysostom, Plassman, AJC, 81, re. LXII,
210, LVm 524, etc.
95 Bolkestein, 44, 133ft", 459; Democritus, Jr. 255. Rhodians, Strabo, 652 F;
cf. Aristotle, Pol. 1319 A8; Dittenberger, 814, /, 20
96 Bolkestein, 463ft; Aristotle, Pol. 1253 Bja'.E.N. 1161 B2-4; see also Plato,
Laws 777 D. On excessive care for slaves as property, and disregard of
friends, Xen. Mein II, 4,2-3. ‘Huiniles amici', sen. adLucil. 47,1
97 Gcllius, Xm, 17; Sen. de ben. IV, 3, 1; Bolkestein, 305-7. There is an im­
mense literature on the term: some recent work is discussed by H. Hafter,
Philologus, 1956, 287ft". Athenian background, Snell, DM, 250ft' (finds
already in the fourth century a recognition of the individual’s human
dignity, irrespective of education, on the part of a stratum of cultured
people, which was to find expression later in certain passages of Menander;
Snell attributes the ‘strong mixture of condescension’ attaching to philan-
thropia to its ‘admixture with the ancient view of the frailty of man’); sec
also, Kabiersch, BPJ, 76ft". On Cicero’s usage,J. Mayer, Humanitas bei Cicero
(Dissertation, Freiburg, 1951), emphasizing the seelisch-gefuhlsbetoiite aspect
of humanitas which he relates to Roman pietas. See A. E. Astin, Scipio
Aemilianus (1967), 302-6
98 Rome, H. C. Baldry, Fondation Hardt, VIII (1961), 190ft". Elegy, G. Luck,
The Latin Love Elegy (1959). Virgil, W. F. Jackson-Knight, Roman Virgil
(1966), 396ft"; Snell, DM, 288, 301. Reverentia, Cicero, de off. 1,99; Seneca,
ad Lucil. 95, 33 (but giving the term a new application, see Note 99).
Children, Juvenal XIV, 47-9; Lucretius, D. E. W. Wormell in Lucretius,
ed. D. R. Dudley (1965), 57. Law, F. Schulz, Classical Roman Law (1951)
103ft"; W. L. Westermann, The Slave Systems of Classical Antiquity (1955),
niff; Pliny, ep. viii 16
99 S. Dill, Roman Societyfrom Nero to Marais Aurelius 2nd edition (1905), 191.
Benignitas, RHDFE 1948,137ft". Hellenistic comedy, e.g. Philemon, fr. 22
(Kock ii 484 = Edmonds, FAC, IIIA, 15): ‘a slave or not, my lord, here is a
man, if we suppose him of humanity’. Note, too, the new system of
manumission developed under Delphic influence after c. 200 bc, described
by Westermann, The Slave Systems of Classical Antiquity (i95S)> 34# more
briefly, by Tam and Griffith, HC, 104E Roman brutality, M. Grant,
The World of Rome (i960), 119-25, and Gladiators (1967), 117, where he
notes that Seneca was the first to be shocked (ad Lucil. 95, 33), as distinct
from merely bored, by these shows; L. Robert, Les Gladiateurs dans
164 NOTES
I’Oriefit grec (1940), 244JF, 254ff; see also H. I. Matron, The History of
Education in Antiquity, trans. G. Lamb, (1956) 299-301; J. Delorme,
Gymnasium (i960), 434-5, Magie, RRAM, 534, 6$$f

CHAPTER VII

100 Bolkestein, 32iff; Rostovtzeff, SEHHW, 1123; Magie, RRAM, 59, notes
that in Asia Minor under Rome the original powers of the eponymous
official were reduced to sacrifices, often at his own expense
101 L. Robert, Hellenica XIII (1965), 224ff; Epaminondas, IG VII, 2712; L.
Robert, BCH1935, 438ff; for a similar kind of benefaction, see D. 23
102 Stratonicea, J. Hatzfeld, BCH 1927, 57ff, I23ff, emphasizes the apparently
wide reach of the god’s invitations, suggests Jewish influence and compares
Christian ‘love-feasts’; but the date of the documents is uncertain. See also
Magie, RRAM, 587C Frank, ESAR IV, 804-6
103 T. Claudius Atticus; it is fair to note that the bulk of the Athenian populace
never received their mina annually, for his son Herodcs Atticus (for all his
own generosity) largely invalidated the will by making a final cash pay­
ment of five minae instead—a mere ‘paper’ transaction, since he simply
deducted this amount from the sums owed to himself by many citizens.
They were probably bad debts, like those cancelled at Rome by Hadrian
(SHA Hadr. 7, 6; Dessau, 309). Sec P. Graindor, Un Milliadaire Antique
(1930) 71-9; Philostratus, KS. II, I, 3-4. Asia Minor, Magie, RRAM,
658,1523-5, n. 58; L. Robert, Etudes Anatoliennes (1937), 347-8. The West,
R. Duncan-Jones, ‘An Epigraphic Survey of Costs in Roman Italy’, PBSR
1965, iSgff. Africa, ‘Wealth and Munificence in Roman Africa’, PBSR
1963, 163. Property qualification, Jones, GC, 174; Magie, RRAM, 640,
1503, n. 26. Poll-taxes, R. Duncan-Jones, Historia 1964, 201; Jordan, PE,
46. Jordan notes the ‘very substantial endowments’ for a similar purpose in
Tudor-Stuart England, as well as others to defray the costs of the elaborate
dinners bestowed upon the municipal officers and their successors
104 See Duncan-Jones, PBSR 1965, 214-5, 220 n- 3
105 Pctelia, Dessau 6469 (the donor was M.’ Megonius Leo, D. 31). Apamea,
IGRP IV, 788 (Abbott and Johnson, AL4RE, No. 123). Athens, J. H.
Oliver, AJPh 1949, 299ff; IG II, 2064(J. H. Oliver, Hesperia 1951, 35°-4:
B. D. Meritt, Hesperia 1962, 26ff and Suppl. V 126)
106 Clodius, Cassius Dio XXXIX, 24; Dion. Hal. IV, 24; D. van Berchem,
Les distributions de bld et d’argent a la plebe romaine sous I’Empire (1939), J9
107 e.g., Francotte, MN, 151)
108 Samos inscription, Bolkestein, 259ff. Euphrosynus, W. Liebenam, Stadtever-
waltung im romischen Kaiserreiche (1900), 109
109 Anaia, Jones, GC, 350 n. 13
no P. M. Fraser and G. E. Bean, Samothraee II, i, 26ff
 NOTES 165
in Sitometria, A.. Wilhelm, Melanges Glotz, II (1932) 904. Aequitas, BMC Imp
II, 254, No. 152; II, Ixvii. Galatia, OGIS 533
112 Mcsscnc, IG V, i, 1379 (L. Robert, BCH 1928, 426S; Tam and Griffith,
HC, 108)
113 Athens, Plutarch, Per. 37, 4; Schol., Aristoph. Wasps, 718. C. Hignett,
History of the Athenian Constitution, 343ff rejects the view that Pericles’
citizenship law of 451 was only applied in 445/4, the date of this gift. G.
Nenci, Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica, 1964, I73ff, holds that
Aristophanes refers to a distribution of 424/3, not to that of 445/4, but that
each was preceded by a revision of the citizen roll, contra F. Jacoby, Die
Fragmcnte der griechischen Historiker 1IIB Suppl. II 573 n. 3; A. French,
The Growth oftheAthenian Economy (1964), 146. Athens, 329-4 bc, Demosth.
XXXIV, 37-9; XIII, 21, 31; Tam & Griffith, HC, 107; D. 2
114 Attitude to com-merchants at Athens, R. Seager, Historia 1966, I72ff;
at Rome, Bolkestein, 366-9. Under the Republic penalties for attempts
to comer the market (annonam comprimere, attentare, vexare) tended to be
less severe than in fourth-century Athens. Treves, GET, 47: ‘Greek theories
of distribution are, on the whole, not the outgrowth of human sympathy
for the poor and the common labourer. . . . The purpose seems to bc to
guard against dishonesty.’
115 Laurium, Aristotle, A.P. 22, 7; Herod. VII, 144
116 Theorikon, Libanius, Hypoth., Demosth. i Olynth., Ch. 4. In general, see J.
J. Buchanan, Theorika: A Study of Monetary Distributions to the Athenian
Citizenry during thefifth andfourth CenturiesB.C. (1962). In Periclean period?
—not mentioned by Aristotle, A.P. 27, 4; but perhaps implied in some
form by Plutarch, Per. 9, 3-4, n, 4; Thue. II, 38,1. See also, Jacoby on
Philochorus, fr. 33 (FGH I1IB Stippl. I, 563), placing theorikon probably in
‘first half of the 40s’; Buchanan, 2Sff; French, GAE, 152,197 n. 38. Parade
of tribute, B. D. Meritt, H. T. Wade-Gery, M. F. McGregor, The Athenian
Tribute Lists (1939-53) III, 16-7. Fourth century, G. L. Cawkwell, JHS
1963. CSP- 53ff; Jones, AD, 33ft'. Cement of democracy, Plutarch, N.Q.
1011 B, Aristotle, Pol. 1320 A8
117 Diobelia, Aristotle, A.P. 28, 3. Equiv. to theorikon, Aristotle, A.P. (J. E.
Sandys, 2nd edition (1912)), Il9ff; A. E. Haigh, Attic Theatre, 3rd edition
(1907), 33off; see also Aristotle, Pol. 1267 Biff; M. N. Tod, Greek Historical
Inscriptions (2nd edition) I, No. 83 (six talents spent on one festival alone in
410 bc). Equiv. to dikastikon?—K. J. Beloch, Rheinisches Museumfiir
Philologie (1884), 239-44; see also IG II (2nd edition) 1686B /. 59 (grain
doled out to jurors in lieu of money in 405 bc) ; but A.P. 28, shows that
diobelia was something new. Equiv. to dole for needy?—Buchanan, 4iff
(‘a strong array of epigraphical evidence’); W. S. Ferguson, CAH V, 344;
Ehrenberg, PA, 166 (maintenance of‘no pay’ principle, Aristotle, A.P. 33,
I; Thue. VIII 97 1). Literary references suggest that Kleophon’s rise and
fall was linked to the diobelia, with which Archedemos (Xen. Hell. I, 7, 2)
166 NOTES
and Kallikrates (A.P. 28, 3) were also associated; the latter, according to
Aristotle abolished it, after having been the first to promise that he would
add another obol to the two. Athenian tradition, Kurt von Fritz and Ernst
Kapp, Constitution of Athens (1950), lyzf. Help for the disabled, see Note
165
118 Like Bolkestein, 371-5, Berchem, DBA, 17, secs the lex Sempronia as the
almost inevitable outcome of the cura annonae (concern for the food supply)
‘qui, par line disposition universelle, a de tout temps incombb d I'let at’. See also,
H.Last, CAIL IX, 57-60; E. Gabba, AppianiBcllorum Civilium Liber I, 33?f;
L. Piso, Cic. Tusc. Ill, 20, 48. A drain on treasury, Cic. de off. B, 21, 72;
Oros. V, 12 (reflecting Livy); Plutarch, C. Gracch. 5; Appian, B.C. I, 21.
Outline of the whole history of corn distributions at Rome, M. Rostovtzcff,
RE, VIII, 172-82, s.v.frumcntum. E. Badian, Roman Imperialism (1967), 34,
4zf, 69, argues cogently that Cyrene and Cyprus were the sources of
revenue for the corn laws of 73 bc and 58 bc, just as Asia had been for that
of 123
119 Cic. pro Sest. 48, 103
120 Cassius Dio, XXXVIII, 13, I (Appian, B.C. I, 21, should perhaps bc inter­
preted as meaning that Caius Gracchus’ com law was his only measure of
consequence prior to his re-election to a second tribunate. The evidence on
which Rostovtzeffhcld that Clodius merely brought back a lawofLepidus
(consul 78 bc) introducing free com is very uncertain. Satuminus, auctor
ad Hereimium, I, 12, 21 (note the language: ‘Cum L. Satuminus legem . . .
laturus esset. . . Satuminus ferre coepit. . . Caepio . . . impedimenta est quo
setius feratur’). M. Octavius, Cic. Brut. 62, 222; de off. II, 21, 72 (sec H.
Last, CAH IX, 95, i65f; T. R. S. Broughton, MRR I, 578 n. 3; A. E.
Douglas, AJPh 1966, 304-6; also Douglas’ note on the Brutus passage in his
1966 edition, 163Q. Sulla and the following decade, Sallust, Hist. I, 55
11M; Gran. Licin. 43 B; lex Terentia-Cassia(73 bc); T. Rice-Holmes, The
Roman Republic, i, 363f; R.J. Rowland, A. Aut. Hung. 1965, 81-3, estimates
180,000 beneficiaries by reference to Cic. 2 in Verr. Ill, 163; libertas on
coinage, BMC, Imp. I, 225, no. 138 (pl. 42, no. 1), a sestertius of Nero’s
reign. The legend on Hadrian’s coinage, Note 130
121 Freeing of slaves, Appian, BC II, 120; Dion. Hal. IV, 24 (Berchem, 21,
supposes that this may have caused Pompey to draw up an initial list of
those entitled to a ration). Julius Caesar, Suet. D.J. 41, 3; Dio Cassius, XL1II
21, 4; Bolkestein, 357f
122 Mommsen, Rom. Gesch. (9th edition), III, 506; lex Tabulae Heracleensis,
F. E. Adcock, CAH IX, 699; M. C. Frederiksen, JRS 1965, i88ff. Land
law, Bolkestein, 364, 467-8, re. Suet. D.J. 20, etc. Domicile, Berchem,
DBA, 22-3; Bolkestein, 377. 320,000, Res Gestae divi Augusti, 15
123 2 bc, Cassius Dio LV, 10,1. Congiaria, Bolkestein, 337-9; Berchem, DBA,
H9ff; P. M. Brunt and J. M. Moore, Res Gestae Divi Augusti (1967), 57-8.
Philo, leg. ad Gaium 22. Van Berchem notes that from the first to the third
 NOTES 167
century each imperial congiarium, except for those of Domitian, is followed
by issue(s) of commemorative coinage. Lower age limit, Suet. D.A. 41,
Pliny, paneg. 26 (Berchem, DBA, 33-4). Manumission of slaves, Suet. D.H.
42
124 Exclusion of foreigners (doctors and teachers excepted), Suet. D.A. 42.
200,000 recipients, Res Gestae, 15; Cassius Dio LV, 10, 1. 150,000, Suet.
D.A. 41; Cassius Dio LVII, 14, 2; Tacitus, Ann. I, 8. Citizenship the
criterion, Schol., Persius V, 73 (Romae autem erat consuetude, ut onmes qui ex
inanuinissione cives Romani Jiebant in numero civium Romanortim frumentum
publicum acciperent); CIL VI, 10228, 10220, etc. (Berchem, DB.4, 4iff).
Large non-citizen population, Sen. ad Helu. 6, 2-3; Lucan, VII, 405; Juv.
Sat. Ill, 62ff. Relation of this clement to the plebs sordida, Tac. Hist. I,
4; plebs injima, Suet. Otho, 7; Z. Yavctz, Athenaeum 1965, 295ff. Estimates
of the total population of Rome (and, therefore, of sections of it) arc,
however, hazardous, J. E. Packer, JRS 1967, 8off. Little change till the
Severi, Carcopino, DLAR, 290 n. 30
125 Tesserae, Berchem, DBA, 7off. The epithet nummariae applied to them {Res
Gestae 18; cf. Suet. D.A. 41) is taken by van Berchem (DBH, 86ff) to refer
to their purchasingJimctieM, rather than to their physical shape or character;
thus they arc as represented on the coinage as oblong in shape and made of
wood, and not identifiable with Rostovtzeff’s Bleitesserae {Klio 1905, 3ff).
Four-monthly scheme, Suet. D.A. 40. Cura atmonae, Res Gestae 5, Suet.
D.A. 37. Claudius, G. E. F. Chilver, AJPh. 1949,7ff, minimises the changes,
while Berchem, DB.4, 73b holds that there is no firm evidence for the
eclipse of praefectifmmenti dandi. ad 6, Cassius Dio, LV, 26, 3 (Suet. D.A.
41); cf. Nero’s action (Cassius Dio LXII, 18, 5; Tac. Ann. XV, 39) causing,
on van Berchcm’s interpretation {DBA, 74-6), all the reserves to be put on
the market in the interests of the whole population, so that the citizens
temporarily ceased to receive their monthly free ration. Nerva, BMC,
Imp. Ill, pl. 6, No. 1 and xlviii; G. Vitucci, Arch. Class. 1958, 310-4,
contra Berchem, DBA, 77. Trajan, Pliny, Paneg. 28, 4, 26, 1-3 (M. Durry,
Panegyrique (1938), rejects the view that the reference is to the alimenta).
Severi, Berchem, DBA, 97ff, 178
126 Government scheme, R. Duncan-Jones, PBSR 1964, 123if, citing earlier
literature. Pliny, Sherwin-White, LP, 422. Representations on coinage, etc.,
M. Hammond, ‘A Statue of Trajan represented on the Anaglypha Traiani’,
Memoirs oj the American Academy in Rome XXI (1953), i27fF, where (as in
his work, The Antonine Monarchy (1959), 462 n. 10) the very tenuous
evidence for attributing the imperial scheme to Nerva is also noted
(Duncan-Jones, PBSR 1964, 128)
127 R. Duncan-Jones, PBSR 1964,128ff; A. Sinigo,LTtaliaAgrariasotto Traiano
(1958), 288f. Non-repayable loans, Frank, ESAR, IV, 367; Laum, 172-3.
Preliminary scheme, R. Duncan-Jones, PBSR 1964, 141-2; main-scheme,
129; curiales, ijoff
l68 NOTES
128 Pliny, ep. X, 54, 55. Duncan-Jones, PBSR 1964,128, notes the inadequacy
of the emperor’s estates
129 After Trajan, Duncan-Jones, PBSR 1964, I42ff. Hadrian’s coinage, M.
Hammond, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome (1953), 172; see H.
Mattingly, BMC, Imp. Ill, clxiv, for a possible pun on liber, liberi and
libertas; also pl. 77, nos. 11, 12. Wholly beneficial?—A. Sirago, L’ltalia
Agraria sotto Traiano, 300
130 Bolkestein, 4<5pfF; B. W. Henderson, Five Roman Emperors {Vespasian—
Trajan, ad 6g-117), 2i2ff; cf. M. Hammond, Memoirs of the American
Academy in Rome (1953), 172
131 Laum, 252; Pliny, Paneg. 26, 3-5, 28, 5; Livy, II, 9, 6 (exemption ofplebs
from portoria and tributuin). See also, J. Gage, Les Classes Socialcs dans L’
Empire Romain (1964), 126
132 B. W. Henderson, Five Roman Emperors, 220. Recruits in Italy, J. F.
Gilliam, AJPh 1961, 247 n. 46. Providentia and aeternitas, M. P. Charles-
worth, Harvard Theological Review 1936, 107-32, and The Virtues of a
Roman Emperor, Propaganda and the Creation of Belief (1937), isff. Q.
Metellus, note, in Gellius’ version of his speech (I, 6), ‘salnti perpetuae potins
qaam brevi voluptati consnlendum est’. Augustan legislation, H. Last, CAH X,
425ff; Pliny, ep. VII, 32, 1 (cf. Sirago, L’ltalia Agraria sotto Traiano,
304)
133 Population decline argued, A. E. R. Boak, Manpower shortage and the Fall of
the Roman Empire in the West (1955); criticized, M. I. Finley, JRS 1958
I46ff(see also, P. M. Brunt, l6yff, in same volume). England, Owen, EP, 3,
14-5. 38, 53; Sirago, L’ltalia Agraria sotto Traiano, 28of; J. Carcopino,
DLAR, 77. Duncan-Jones, PBSR 1964, I3off, argues, however, that the
round-figure total of 300 was deliberately fixed by the government
rather than dependent merely on the willingness of individuals to accept
loans; see his suggestion (Historia, 1964, 199-200) that under Pliny’s
scheme at Comum more boys than girls benefited, 100 as against 75,
calculated on the assumption that Pliny followed the emperor in allowing
a larger sum for boys than for girls. Aurelius Victor, epit. Cues. 12, ‘paellas
ptierosque natos parentibns egestosis’, but this is also the source of the doubtful
statement that Nerva initiated the government scheme. Duncan-Jones,
PBSR 1964,130, refers to ‘children of the poor’, while in Lewis and Rein­
hold, Roman Civilization, II (1955), 354, Dessau 2927 (D. 36), ‘pleb(is)
urban(ae)’ is translated as though specifying children ‘of the lower class’.
Childlessness, Owen, EP, 397, 475, refers to this as a factor in English
philanthropy
134 Oil, BCH1882, 209; L. Robert, BCH1935,448; AndesAnatoliennes(1937),
314. For use at home: it is perhaps doubtful whether Menas’ provisions for
‘use at home’ at Sestos (D. 55) included oil; the type of oil referred to in
inscriptions is not always easy to determine, eg. Pliny ep. X, 23 (sec
Sherwin-White, LP, 594)
 NOTES 16p

CHAPTER VIII

135 Jordan, PE, 279, calculates that almost one-third ofElizabethan benefactions
went to education. The ephebeia of his own day is described by Aristotle,
A.P. 42; its origin has been much disputed, but there is growing acceptance
of the view that it existed in some form prior to the Lycurgan reforms of
336/5. C. Pelekidis, Histoire de I’ ephe'bie attique des engines d 51 av. J.C.
(1962), takes the extreme view that it goes back at least to the early fifth
century and represents the outcome of a typical institution of the archaic
Greek state. O. W. Reinmuth, Transactions oj the American Philological
Association 1952, 34-50 (also, Gnomon 1966, 793ff) is more cautious, but
regards 336/$ as the date, not of the creation of the ephebeia, but of the
enlargement of its programme; similarly, F. W. Mitchell, Plesperia 1964,
344-5, n. 34, contra M. P. Nillson, Die hellenistiche Schnle (1955), 20. 40
talents subsidy, W. S. Ferguson, Hellenistic Athens, 10. Thctes included,
C. A. Forbes, Greek Physical Education (1929) 128 n. I
136 Sparta, W. Jaeger, transl. G. Higher, Paideia, III (1947), 171: ‘the postulate
that education should be the concern of the state is Sparta’s real contribu­
tion to the history of culture*. Deficiencies of Spartan education, II, 325;
also, H. Marrou, transl. G. Lamb, History oJ’Elucation in Antiquity (1956),
150. Development ofephebeia, Pelekidis, Histoire, 117; he puts the intellec­
tual side rather later than Reinmuth, in the early decades of the third
century bc, but the absence of any inscriptions earlier than this is not
decisive. The Sullan period, O. \V. Reinmuth, Hesperia 1965, 255ff, re.
IG II, (2nd edition), 1040, 1025
137 F. W. Mitchell, Hesperia 1964, 346, suggests that the withdrawal of subsidy
was linked with the limitation of franchise. Single year, and voluntary
course: some assign this change to a date before the end of the fourth
century (doubted by Pelekidis, Histoire, 170-2, whose view appears some­
what misrepresented by Reinmuth, Gnomon 1966, 796Q, but it will not in
any case have been more than two or three decades later. Drop in numbers,
Pelekidis, Histoire, 165ft', estimates drop from around 600-700 in the fourth
century to 20-40 during the century' beginning 267)6 (C. A. Forbes, Greek
Physical Education, 152; J. Delorme, Gymnasium (i960), 469-72; Marrou,
PIEA, 107-8). Private generosity, E. Ziebarth, Aus dem griechischen Schul-
wesen (1913). 5iff (not all instances connected with ephebeia)-, Delorme,
3l6ff, Marrou, 187ft-. Zosimos, Inschr. von Priene, 112, 11. 73ff. Preference
for gifts of oil, Delorme, 467; Marrou, 389 n. 30
138 Library contributions, Pelekidis, Histoire, 263 f; Delorme, Gymnasium, 3 31 f;
Marrou, HEA, 188. Religious duties, Pelekidis, Histoire, 211-56; O. W.
Reinmuth, Gnomon 1966, 799; Ziebarth, GS, 148ft-. Neoi at Mytilene,
SEG III, 710 (IG XII, Suppl., No. 116). Cibyra, Ziebarth, GS, 53; Nillson,
Die hellenistiche Schnle, 38 n. 2. Decrees in honour of ephebes, Reinmuth,
 170 NOTES
Hesperia 1965, 262L Delorme, Gymnasium, 4.72 speaks of military exercises
as becoming ‘tin souvenir archeologique'
139 Foreigners, O. W. Reinmuth, The Foreigners in the Athenian Ephebeia
(1929); Marrou, HEA, 107, 384 n. 7. Membership of the ephebeia was a
condition imposed at Athens on foreigners wishing to buy citizenship, but
Reinmuth, Gnomon 1966, 798, questions whether extant cphcbic lists can
be used to show that Augustus’ ban on the latter had any effect on entry
into the former. Generosity of kosmetes, etc., Jones, GC, 223; Forbes,
Greek Physical Education, i6zf (distinguishing the gymnasiarch of ephebes
from city gymnasiarch)
140 Early education, Marrou, HEA, 112-4. Literacy, F. D. Harvey, REG 1966,
58jff, discusses ‘Literacy in the Athenian Democracy’ (town and country,
619-20; women, 621—3 > Plato and Aristotle oppose the trend). Mycalcssus,
Thue. VII, 29, 5. Paidonomoi, RE XVIII, 2, 2387-9 (O. Schulthcss)
141 Generalization, Marrou, HEA, I42ff, qualified in Nillson, Die hellenistiche
Schtile, 60; Jones, GC, 285, 352 n. 24; Forbes, Greek Physical Education, 82;
Demosthenes, de cor. 257. Low fees, C. A. Forbes, Teachers Pay in Ancient
Greece (1942), 29, 33
142 Miletus and Teos inscriptions, Ziebarth, GS, loff, 46ff. Marrou, HEA, 113,
notes that almost half of Eudcmos’ fund is to be expended on sacrifices.
Cult in gymnasia, Delorme, Gymnasium, 34if; Ziebarth, GS, 49f. England,
Tudor-Stuart period (an an indirect attack on poverty), Jordan PE, 28iff;
later, Owen, EP, 23 ff (Charity Schools), I46ff (Ragged schools)
143 A possible instance of the donor’s intention being overridden in the
acceptance decree, sec Note 12
144 Advertisement value of these donations, Rostovtzeff, SEHHIV, 236; but
internationally, too, such benefactions tended to be for higher education.
■
For example, the lavish gift of 75 talents by Hieron and Gelon for the
Rhodian gymnasium, c. 225 Bc(Polybius V, 88), Rostovtzeff, SEHHIV, 64iff
145 Charondas, Diodorus XII, 12, 4 (Bolkestein, 27zf; Marrou, HEA, 388 n.
24; Harvey, REG 1966, 589 n. 10; Ziebarth, GS, 26)
146 Lack of public education, Plato, Laws 804 D, etc; Aristotle, Pol. 1337A (cf.
E.N. 1180 (A26). Narrow citizenship, Plato, Laws 741 E, 846 D; Aristotle,
Pol. 1278A. Upgrading?—Plato, Rep. 423
147 Plutarch, Them. 10 (Ziebarth, GS, 32-3). Solon, Aeschines, I, 19; Plato,
Crito 50 D (rejected by Harvey, REG 1966, 589 n. 10, contra F. A. G. Beck,
Greek Education, 92); A. R. W. Harrison, The Law ofAthens (1968), 78 n. 3,
takes die Crito passage as too free an interpretation of a law of Solon, Plut.
Sol. 22, whereby a father who did not teach his son a craft was not
entitled under the law to maintenance by the son later. Derkylos, Ziebarth,
GS, 34; Marrou, HEA, 382 n. 3; F. W. Mitchell, Hesperia 1964, 337?
(followed in text). Some have used ps-Xen. A.P. 2, 10, to indicate the
public provision of education (physical, at any rate) for boys at Athens;
but see Forbes, Greek Physical Education, 82ft'
 NOTES 171

148 Epikrates, Delorme, Gymnasium, 319, assumes he taught in the gymnasium.

M. Guarducci, Memorie, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, (classe di scienze
morali), 6, IIIX (1929), 629ff, supposes that others than the ephebes enjoyed
such lectures
149 Schools of philosophy, Marrou, HEA, 47, 67, 70, 369 n. 3; see also, Laum,
243, C. A. Forbes, Teachers Pay in Ancient Greece, 24ff, who observes that
Epicurus docs not appear to have opposed fees where the latter were a
token of gratitude, and that members of his school paid an annual contri­
bution of 120 drachmae; later history, Cic. ad fam. XIII, I, 3; Aristotle,
E.N. 1164 Baff
150 Polybius, ap. Cic. de Rep. IV, 3. Generalization, Marrou, HEA, 266-8, cf.
296. Pliny, sec Sherwin-White, LP, 288, for references suggesting that
such schools were common in larger municipia, for grammar if not for
rhetoric. Municipal pride, expressed, for instance, under the Roman
Empire in a bitter struggle between towns for honorary titles, Magic,
RRAM, 635-8, 654; T. Frank, ESAR IV, 809; In England, Jordan, PE,
154; Owen, EP, 395 (or reflect on the dimensions of the ‘wool churches’
in neighbouring towns of East Anglia)
151 Collegia ittvenum, Marrou, HEA, 299-301, 439 n. 1; Maria Jacyznowska,
Collegia luvemim (1964), resume in French, 84fF, argues that the invents
were parallel to the neoi rather than the ephebes, and closer to the profes­
sional or religious collegia connected with early cults at Lanuvium, Tuscu­
lum and elsewhere; she notes the access granted to slaves and freedmen,
86f, from the first century ad, but a high proportion were seviri Augiistales
152 Vespasian, AE1936,128 (Magie, RRAM572 and 1430-1, n. 15; Lewis and
Reinhold, RC II, 295). Libraries, an account, -with the Greek background
(libraries in association with gymnasia), is given by C. Calmer, Acta
Instituti Romani Regni Stieciae X 1944, I54ff. Comum, R. Duncan-Jones,
PBSR 1965, 185. Ephesus, Dessau, 8971 (C. Calmer, I7of; Magie, RRAM,
584)
153 Nillson, Die hellenistiche Schule, 73; cf. G. M. Trevelyan, English Social
History (1944), 363, Owen, EP, 247
154 Plato, Rep. 401 ; his advocacy of a strict censorship ofpoetry and drama is the
outcome of his belief in the power of this ‘unconscious education’. Pericles,
Thue. II, 41, 1: ‘our city is a liberal education to Greece*. The provision of
music and drama: at Athens, A. W. Pickard-Cambridge, The Dramatic
Festivals of Athens (1953), 55ff (the opening sections of Lysias, 21, give a
picture of how much might be spent by the wealthy on these occasions):
elsewhere, Jones, GC, 280, 356 n. 46; Dio of Prusa wanted his city to be
‘more open to the air, with wider spaces, with shade in summer, sun and
shelter in winter . . . lofty buildings, etc.’ (Or. XLVII, 15; H. von Arnim,
Dio von Prusa (1898), 34off)
172 NOTES

CHAPTER IX
155 Hippocrates, Parangeliai IV, VI. For the date and character of the Maxims,
see W. H. S. Jones, Loeb edition of Hippocrates, I, 308-11. Empiric School,
L. Cohn-Haft, The public Physicians ofAncient Greece (1956), 39 n. 33
156 Asklepios, Cohn-Haft, PPAG, 27-30; E. J. and L. Edelstein, Asclepios
(1945) II, 175: ‘it was one of his claims to fame and admiration that he took
care of the poor, and he had done so from the very beginning of his career’,
also testimonia from Asclepios I; Aristophanes, Plutns, 726ff; Julian, Ep. 78,
419 B (T. 421 and 320, Edelstein). Christian hostility, August, c. Dei III, 17;
Justin, Apol. 54, 10; Lactantius, Div. Instil. IV, 27, 12 (T. 363, 332, 333,
Edelstein). Kabicrsch, BPJ, 74, rightly finds no evidence in Julian, Misop.
363 B, of the provision for poor in pagan temples, contra Bolkestein, 477.
Hostels, Edelstein, 176; T. 719,499; cf. Jordan, PE, 257-9, 55ff, and Owen,
EP, 37I, both of whom cite R. M. Clay, The Mediaeval Hospitals ofEngland
(1909), xvii-xviii
157 A. G. Woodhead, Cambridge Historical Journal 1952, 235ff; cf. Bolkestein,
274ff
158 Aristophanes, Acharniaus, 1030 with Scholiast (cf. Suda, s.v. Srpioaievcov,
reading larpol Kai... rather than larpol cos Colin-Haft,
PPAG, 59. On the date of the Aristophanic scholia, Cohn-Haft, PPAG,
33. J. Bousquet, BCH1966, 666, quotes a new instance of a doctor classed
as a 8ap.oaiepyos in a second-century bc convention between Myania
and Hypnia
159 Diodorus XII, 13, 4, rejected as evidence by Cohn-Haft, PPAG, 10 n. 29,
and doubted by Woodhead, CHJ 1952, 238
160 Cohn-Haft, PPAG, 35 and n. 11
161 Phanodemus, Dittcnbergcr, 495, of 343/2 bc; or cf., more generally,
decrees in honour of presiding members of the Council, SEG XXI, 366,
3<S9, 372, 37<S, 377. etc.
162 Foreign status, Cohn-Haft, PPAG, 52C cf. 55 (a matter of availability).
Men of culture, Plato, Laws 720 A-E refers to slaves as doctors, but not
apparently as independent practitioners, nor as attending to free men
normally (Cohn-Haft, PPAG, 14, 23ff)
163 Cos, Colin-Haft, PPAG, 61-5 questions Herzog’s view of doctors assigned
by a ‘board of health’ to service in local demes of Cos and overseas posses­
sions; D. 63 relates almost certainly to a Coan doctor working at Cos.
Athens, Cohn-Haft, PPAG, 49, 56ff. Plato, Gorgias 455 A (see edition of
E. R. Dodds (1959) with note), 456 B6, 514 DE, passages which do not
prove regular elections of public doctors at Athens. Public endorsement: it
is doubtful whether Cohn-Haft’s translation of the Achamians passage, ‘I
am not qualified to act the physician’ would have the same degree of point,
comically, as the usual version, ‘But I am under no contractual obligations
 NOTES 173
to serve you as a doctor’. Demokedes, whose name means ‘he who cares for
the people’, earned two talents, a huge sum, at Samos (Herod, III, 131).
Colin-Haft, PPAG, 20, cites other wealthy doctors. From the Roman
Empire period we have a decree of Domitian in which he fulminates
against doctors who took money for training slaves rather than free men
(Lewis and Reinhold, RC II, 295)
164 Gifts, R. Pohl, De Graecorum Medicis Publicis (Berlin, 1905), 7lf; similarly
Jones, GC 219 (cf. Cohn-Haft, PPAG, 39 n. 31)
163 Provision for the disabled, Bolkestein, 273f. Solon, Plutarch, Sol. 31, 3
(which refers only to one specific case); schol., Aeschines, I, 103, Hesych.
s.v. adnnatoi; Aristotle, A.P. 49, 4; Lysias, 24, 22. J. J. Buchanan, Theorika
(1962), 1, accepts attribution to Solon, which was rejected by F. Jacoby,
FGH, IIIB Suppl. I, 562-4, commenting on Philochoros, F. 197, who also
doubted the limitation to the war-injured. A. Boeckh, transl. G. Lewis,
The Public Economy ofAthens (1842), 242, was, bearing in mind the limited
evidence, too categorical in his assertion that such a scheme ‘belonged
exclusively to Athens, as charity was rarely met with among the Greeks’.
166 Plato, Rep. 4o6ff, in all except details the translation of A. D. Lindsay
167 latrikon, O. Nanctti, Aegyptus (1944), H9ff, who leaves obscure the con­
nection, if any, with this tax of Diodorus’ statement (I, 82) that ‘in the
course of military expeditions or service away from home in the chord, all
receive treatment without paying any fee privately; for the doctors
receive their keep ck tov koivov.' Are we to translate these words as ‘from
the community’? This does not square with our documents. As ‘from the
state’? Why then were only soldiers or travellers exempted from fees?
See also C. Preaux, Economic royale des Lagides (1939), 132; Wilcken and
Reinach, Dictionnaire Daremberg-Saglio III, 2, 1694
168 Demosioi iatroi, Cohn-Haft, PPAG, 6Sff; O. Nanetti, Aegyptus (1941), 30iff;
E. Boswinkel, Eos 1956, 181ft, relates title to situation arising from
Antoninus’ decree (Digest, XXVII I 6 2-4, 10), and emphasizes the secon­
dary importance of the doctor in some documents. Compare the elaborate
picture drawn by Rostovtzeff, SEHHll', i092f, offset by the conclusion
that ‘as regards the laoi I am afraid that it was left to the gods and the
priests to help them to die in peace’
169 The first doctor ever to practise in Rome was the Peloponnesian Archaga-
thos, who arrived in 219 bc, established a taberna at public expense, and was
granted citizenship (Pliny, N.H. 29, 6). See, in general, H. Gummerus,
Der Arztestand im romischen Reiche nach den Inschriften (1932), jff. Medicine
taken up late by Romans, Pliny, N.H. XXIX, 17. Edict of Vespasian, a
copy at Pergamum, AE. 1936, 128; Magie, RRAM, 572, I43of n. 15;
K. H. Below, Der Arzt im romischen Recht (1953), 23. Hadrian, Digest,
XXVII, 1, 6, 8 (exemption from gymnasiarchy, billeting of troops, com
and oil purchasing magistracies); Gummerus, 9; Below, 24. Antoninus
Pius, Below, 34, follows Pohl, De Graecorum medicis publicis, 23S, 43, in
174 NOTES
suggesting that it was after Antoninus’ edict that the privileged doctors
took the name of archiatroi, a title once held by court doctors of hcllcnized
kings in Asia Minor and attested for the physician of the Emperor Claudius
(Dittenbergcr, 804). See also, M. Wellmann, RE II, 1, 464-6; Magic,
RRAM, 634, I494f, n. 13. Free treatment for poor?—Below, 3?f; Frank,
ESAR, IV, 807 (who notes that demosioi iatroi had spread to the West, via
the Greek colony of Massilia, by Augustus’ reign: Strabo, IV, 1, 5, 181;
Frank, ESAR, III, 417). Libanius, ep. ad Celsum, 635. Valcntinian, Cod. Th.
XIH, 3, 8, 368
170 Valetudinaria, K. Schneider, RE VIII A, 1,262-4; Sen. de ben. 1,1,16; de ira,
I, 16, 4. Slaves and freedmen, Cic. adfain. XVI, includes a whole scries of
letters in which the health of his freedman, Tiro, is his main concern; cf.
Pliny, ep. VIII, 24, 5; V, 19, 1-4; VIII, 16, 1-2
171 Cohn-Haft, PPAG, 40 n. 37, quotes from Gospel of Wealth (1933), 16. On
the essential function of the city gynmasiarch Marrou, HEA, H4f; Zic-
barth, GS, Nillson, Die hellenistiche Schule, s6f; L. Robert, Hellenica
VI, I27ff. Cf. use of the term gymnasium in inscriptions from Roman
North Africa to mean distributions of oil (S. Lancel, Libyca, VI (1958),
143-52); D. 73. Attains, REG 1906, 246 (Ziebarth, GS, 61). Vcranius
Philagrus, IGRP, 915 (Ziebarth, GS, 53)
172 Oil reservoirs, Delorme, Gymnasium, 304. Dioskuridcs, Inschr. von Priene,
123, 11. jff. Zosimos, ibid., 112, 11. 56ff, 98-100. Dorylaeum, OGIS, 479
(a share in oil distribution, Nillson, 60); [Aristotle], Oecon. 1344 A23.
Slaves at school, Marrou, HEA, 381 n. 1
173 Baths at gymnasia, C. A. Forbes, Greek Physical Education, 92, 238. Vaccius
Leo, IGRP, 1302, ll. 38ff (Ziebarth, GS 76). M. Agrippa, Cassius Dio,
XXXXIX, 43. Novaria, CIL, V, 6522. Timgad, P. Grimal, Les villes
romaines (1954), 88. Italy has attested more priced gifts of baths than
Africa, R. Duncan-Jones, PBSR 1965,195. See also, A. Lussana, Epigraphica
1956, 87f. Rome, Carcopino, DLAR, 254. Victorian England, Owen, EP,
175. ‘High living’, Dittenbergcr, 716, ll. 106-7. Destercoratio, AE 1961,
97 {Emerita i960, 146-9). M. Agrippa, Pliny, N.H. XXXVI, 104-8
174 Verona, Dessau, 557. ‘Frivolous gifts’, the judgment of Duncan-Jones on
those attested for Italy, PBSR 1965, 233
 DOCUMENTS
The following translations from original sources arc arranged in three groups:
the first (D. 1-46) offers evidence of charity or generosity mainly through the
provision of cash or commodities; the second (D. 47-60) through the provision
of educational facilities; and the third (D. 61-81) through the provision of
medical or health facilities. Within each group the order of presentation is
chronological (as far as can be determined), except where it would seem
advantageous to juxtapose documents for comparison.
Besides references to the standard corpora of inscriptions, there are included
references to recent publications and smaller collections of recent date where
these are likely to be more readily accessible to the reader. Translations of
fourteen of the Latin inscriptions will be found in Lewis and Reinhold, RC, II:
all have been referred to with profit and, in the case of D. 35, 44, 74, closely
followed. The translation of D. 22 derives from Frank, ESAR, II, 252; and that
of D. 45 from an article by W. H. Buckler inJHS 1937. The French translations
in Pouilloux, Choix, have also proved most helpful.

D. 1 Mid-fourth century bc; Tarentum (Italy) and other cities; Aristotle, Pol.
1320 Bio

The example of the citizens of Tarentum may also be commended for imitation:
the well-to-do share the use of their property with the poor and thereby secure
die goodwill of the masses, [cf. Pol. 1263 A3 5]: Even now there are some states
in which... each citizen has his own property, but when it comes to the use of
this property, each makes a part of it available to his friends, and each devotes
still another part to die common enjoyment of all his fellow-citizens.

D. 2 330-325 bc; Athens; Dittenberger, 304

[/. 6]: Demosthenes, son of Demosthenes of the deme Lamptrai, made the
following proposal: since Herakleides of [Cyprian] Salamis continues in his
service of the Athenian people with his heart set upon honour [philotimeisthai]
and in doing all that he can that is good, and since previously he contributed at a
time ofcom shortage 3,000 medimnoi of corn at five drachmae a medimnos, being
the first of the merchants who entered port, and again when a subscription-fund
[epidosis] was established he contributed 3,000 drachmae to the corn-purchase
fund, and for the rest, continues in his good will and energetic service towards
the people: therefore, let it be resolved by the people . . . that he be made
r

176 DOCUMENTS
proxenos and benefactor [euergetes] of Athens, himself and his descendants, and
that he have the right to own land and property according to the law, and that
they serve militarily and pay property-tax along with die Athenians.

D. 3 Mid-third century bc; Samos (eastern Aegean); MDAI (X) 1919, 25

(SEG I, 366; Pouilloux, Choix, No. 3)
[//. 23-5]: He was elected controller ofthe gymnasium by die people owing to the
default of the person who was to serve, and maintained a high standard of
discipline among the ephebes and neoi, acting with a sense of fairness and equity.
[/. 36]: And when the state was troubled by a com-shortage and the citizens,
owing to the pressing nature of the need, appointed three corn-supply commis­
sions, in all of dicse he displayed unfailing energy and enthusiasm [philotiiuia];
indeed, in the case of the first he advanced all the money for the deposit in
accordance with the vote of the people, for the second he promised an amount
equal to that of those who contributed the most, while for the third he not only
contributed all the moneys for the deposit from his own private resources, but
when the com had been brought into the city and the commissioners for com
had borrowed money for this, he came before the assembly and promised that,
since there were no funds available for reimbursement, he himself would repay
the loan on behalf of the city and also the interest and all the remaining expenses;
and this he did with all speed, repaying the lender without cither making a
contract with the city as regards these moneys or demanding that he be offered
guarantors; rather, he made the common interest his main concern and the
continuance of an ample food-supply for the people. As to the rest, he continues
to display goodwill and enthusiasm for the people, both collectively and
individually, by giving the best advice and arbitrating between disputants and
assisting many of diosc in financial difficulty with contributions from his private
resources. Therefore, so that we may show that we honour good men, and thus
encourage in many of the citizens a like mind and purpose, it is resolved by the
people to commend Boulagoras, son of Alexis, for Iris generosity [rtretf] and
goodwill towards die citizens and to crown him with a golden crown on the
occasion of the performance of tragedies at die Dionysia, and that the President
of the games sec to die proclamation and that the examiners [e.vetrtstni] have diis
decree inscribed on a stone monument which is to be erected in the temple of
Hera; and the expense is to be met by the treasurer of sacred funds from the
money at his disposal deriving from fines.

D. 4 c. 230 bc; Olbia (Black Sea); Dittenberger, 495

[/. 59]: And again in the priesthood of Pleistarchos, when there was a grave
shortage of corn and when com was being sold at I j tneditnnoi to the aureus and
it was obvious that it would rise still further in price, and when, in as much as
the price per tncditnnos became if aurei at that moment, the people was in dire
distress and thought it necessary to buy com through state action and that the
 DOCUMENTS 177
well-to-do should provide loans for that purpose, on the meeting together of
the assembly he was the first to promise 1000 aurei for the purchase of coni
which he brought and handed over on the spot; of this 300 aurei were to be
without interest for a year, and while he made his gift wholly in gold, he took
back copper in the case of 400; and he was the first to promise 3,500 inedimnoi of
wheat, of which he gave 500 at 4$ inedimnoi to the aureus and the remaining
2,000 at 2 73 inedimnoi to the aureus; and, while the rest who promised in this
emergency took their payment immediately from the funds provided, he met
the cost himself for a year without exacting interest, and so through the ready
service of Protogcncs a very large amount of money and not a little com was
provided for the people ...[/. 119]: Therefore the people in assembly, in great
distress, brought before the eyes of all the dangers and perils which threatened,
calling upon all men of means to come to the rescue and not to allow the father-
land, which had been kept secure over many years, to become subject to the
enemy; and when no one offered himself either wholly or in part to meet the
popular call, he himself freely promised to furnish the walls and to meet their
whole cost.

D. 5 Second century bc; Aigiale, Amorgos (Aegean); IG, XII, 7515 (Laum,
No. 50)
InOnt^ °^Apatourion, Architeles, son of Parmenion, Kratesilochos, son
0 egias, and Leonteus, son of Hegias, were chosen by the people according to
e resolution to bring in a law for arranging the loaning out of die money
w Kritolaos, son of Alkimedon, bestowed, and for the public feast and
at etic contest, and to carry through all the other provisions; and they have
introduced a law for the enrolment of Aleximachos, son of Kritolaos, as a hero,
in accordance with the vote of the people and with the purpose of Kritolaos’
gi t of 2,000 drachmae, in the following terms: [/. 8]: The money is to be
ent out in the month of Apatourion by the archon and the presiding com­
mittee of the Council and the officers in charge of rents and Kritolaos, son of
Alkimedon. It is to be lent out at 10 per cent and the borrowers are to give as
security landed estates to the value of not less than 2,000 drachmae, and the loan
is not to exceed 200 drachmae. [/. 19]: And the principal is to be secured to the
borrowers on the basis of the securities on which each borrowed the money, in
the same way as with the tribal dues, in perpetuity; and the lenders are not to
exact payment of it, and the borrowers are not permitted to pay down the
money borrowed, but they are to continue with the loan on the securities on
which they borrow in perpetuity. [/. 39]: And in order that the public feast may
be carried out... two commissioners are to be chosen from the whole people of
Aigiale, not less than thirty years of age, and those so chosen are at once to
receive the money falling due and to buy a bullock of not less than two years
and to sacrifice it. [/. 46]: And let the presiding committee and the gymnasiarch
and the ephebes attend in procession upon the bullock from the town hall, and
M
178 DOCUMENTS
let all the younger men follow in procession. [/. 55]: And let them provide the
dinner for all the citizens who are resident at Aigiale and the alien residents
[pcroifeoi] and the foreigners and those of the Romans and dicir wivesf?] who
are present. [/. 58]: And let them supply sweet honey mixed widi milk and
provide the whole service for the dinner, making available wood and water and
oil. And let the feast be a compulsory feast in the gymnasium, and let the
commissioners set beside those in the dining-room a dinner, regardless of
expense, and flowers, and let them set before them all the rest of what is
sacrificed; but the hides let them sell straightway and expend the proceeds on
the spot; and let the officers in charge give to each of the cphebes pork to the
weight of a niiiia, and all that is set before them may bc carried away from the
dining room. [/. 70]: Let them issue rations of com, having bought corn-wheat
with the money, giving it on the first day to the citizens who are resident and
the paroikoi and strangers staying with us, to each a man a choittix and to each
child half a choinix. [/. 79]: And on the second day let them carry through the
athletic festival, with the gymnasiarch employing for the prizes the whole of
the ram and the half of the food provided, and die other half is to be for the
presiding committee and the commissioners, and let them establish all the
prizes for boys and men according to the gymnasiarch’s law. [/. 82]: But let
them not set up prizes for the paukration, but let Aleximachos son of Kritolaos
be hailed as victor.

D. 6 2nd century bc (?); Sanios (eastern Aegean); Dittenberger, 976 (Pouilloux,

Choix, No. 34)
... among the most wealthy; and let them make the nomination in the month
of Kronion in the second of die assemblies; and let the prcsiding-committee
gather the assembly in the theatre and instruct the members to sit in their tribal
sub-divisions [c/ii/i<istnes], having marked off and defined their limits; and let
anyone who refuses and docs not sit in his own tribal sub-division [c/n7i<isZys] be
fined a stater in the currency of die city; and if he declares that he has been
wrongfully fined, let him enter a special plea and let the decision be made in the
city court within twenty days. And let the presentation and election be carried
out by the members of the tribal sub-divisions themselves. And in this assembly
let the tribal-subdivisions examine the deposits and the guarantors, and what­
ever deposits they approve and whomsoever they approve as guarantors, let
the presiding committee register them on die public records; and in like maimer
let diem enter those who have been designated as meledonoi on the public
records; and when the election is about to take place let the city herald utter a
prayer that it may bc for die best interest of those who by their vote elect the
men whom they think will best manage the moneys, and let those declared
elected exact the interest from die borrowers and make a written transfer to the
elected members of the com commission; and let these buy com, that deriving
from die 5 per cent dues provided by the district of Anaia, giving to the goddess
 DOCUMENTS I79
a price not less than that which the people laid down... five [drariinme] and two
obols; and the money still remaining, if the people decides not to buy com, let
them keep themselves until others are elected to the office of the com commis­
sioners and then let them make a written transfer to the latter; but if they do
decide to buy com, let them make an immediate supplementary transfer to the
already appointed com-purchaser [sifonw] and let him buy the corn from the
territory of Anaia in whatever way he thinks will be most profitable for the
people, unless it appear more advantageous to the people to buy com from
elsewhere; otherwise let the procedure be as the people decides. And let the
presiding committee bring forward this matter each year, those who hold
office in the month of Artemision, having given public notice of it in advance;
and let the people designate in each year in the first of the assemblies for the
election of magistrates, after the elective magistracies have been determined,
two men, one from each tribe, to be in charge of the com supply, being pos­
sessed of property to the value of not less than three talents each, and let these on
receiving the interest from the meledonoi pay the price of the com and whatever
other expense arises, and let them measure out the com. And let the people
designate in the same assembly a com-purchaser, his property being not less
than two talents, and let the money from the interest be lent out, if anyone
wishes to make a prior proposal, giving adequate securities and providing
guarantors, and to provide the com at a more advantageous rate; but those
appointed to the management of the com supply admit the securities at their
own risk. And let them measure out all the com that has been bought to the
citizens in residence individually by their tribal sub-divisions, measuring out to
each two measures a month free. And let them begin the distribution in the
month of Pehision and let them distribute in each successive month as long as
the supply lasts; and let them not issue an allowance to one person on behalf of
another unless someone is ill; and let them make the distribution from the first
day to the tenth day of the month, but up to the thirtieth of the month in the
case of those travelling. And each month let them give a statement in writing of
those who have received a measure to the examiners [exeMstoi], by tribal sub­
division, adding thereto the names of the recipients. And the members of the
tribal sub-divisions shall have the right to appoint the same man as meledonos up
to five years running. And ifone of the borrowers does not pay back the money,
whether in whole or in part, the tribal sub-division is to sell the security and, if
there is a surplus, to return it to him who supplied it, but if there is a deficit, let
it be recovered from die guarantor; and let the tribal sub-division give the
interest accruing to those elected to control the com supply; and if it fails to pay,
let the members not receive the share in die distribution which is due to them
until they honour dieir debt; and if any of the meledonoi, having received the
money which he ought to lend, does not lend it, but keeps it himself wrong­
fully, let him be Hable to a fine of 10,000 drachmae', and likewise, if he does not
pay the interest to those elected to control the com supply, let him be liable to
the same fine and let the examiners register his property as forfeit to the tribal
l80 DOCUMENTS
sub-division up to the amount which it was appropriate for him to repay, and
with a view to a penalty, let them register him as deprived of his rights and let
him remain so until he pays down the money; and let the members of the tribal
sub-division also not receive the com which is due, that is, those who designated
the meledonos who has not paid his debt; but if the members of the tribal sub­
division are ready to pay down the money, whether all or some of them acting
jointly, which the meledonos has not repaid to the city, they shall have the right
to do so, and whenever they have made payment let them receive the com
from the time of that payment. And let no one have the right to use this money
for anything else, nor the revenue deriving from it, except for the provision of
free com; and if any presiding committee member brings forward a proposal or
a public speaker proposes or a presiding officer puts to the vote a proposal that it
should be used or converted to some other purpose, let each pay a fine of 10,000
drachmae, and likewise, also, if a treasurer or a meledonos or a member of the
commission in control of the com supply or a com-purchaser give it or advance
it for any other purpose and not for the free distribution of com.

D. 7 c. 150 bc; lasos (Asia Minor); JHS 1918, 100

[These men of their own will] desiring [further to advance] the democracy
[made a contribution] of silver [from their own resources for the com-supply,
so that] the people might [ever live] happily, assured of a plentiful supply of
com, there being established the principle of equal rations [sifonietrin] for all the
citizens [from tire public fund in accordance with the law].

D. 8 Early or mid-second century bc; Samotlirace (northern Aegean);

Samothrace, B, i (i960), No. 5
And the price of the [surplus?] com is to be paid to the com supply officers
[sitofJie/rti] within the time laid down. And in order that money may be invariably
available for the purchase of corn, the annual presiding committee of each
Council, on the 21st of Maimakterion, is to arrange all [—] after payments
made in advance to the sacred funds, [—] buying corn from whomsoever
it may be necessary to buy. And the sitothetai, if there should be any lack
of funds, are to announce it to the people, and the argurologoi are to give to the
sitothetai immediately whatever they decide from the general revenue, when­
ever it has been collected ...

D. 9 Before 100 bc; Istropolis (Bucharest); Dittenbergcr, 708 (F. G. Maier,

Griechische Matierbauinschriften (1959), No. 80)
[/. 3]: Since Aristagoras, son of Apatourios, being bom of a good father and of
ancestors who were all benefactors and priests of all the gods, wishing himself
also to follow in their footsteps, on his return to his fatherland after the critical
period through which the city had been passing, when the city was unwalled
 DOCUMENTS l8l
and the citizens were again in danger, together with their wives and children,
showed the greatest energy and sincerity of purpose, on his appointment as
officer for the repair of the city walls, in his attention to the work, and did not
fail cither in physical effort in anything which related to the building; and when
the fatherland had been fortified and the citizens were coining back in groups
from barbarian territory to the city, -with some of the barbarians who were in
control of the land he dealt shrewdly, while for certain of the citizens he
advanced ransom-money, showing himself in every encounter with those who
were thus being saved generous in his dealings, and in effecting very many
settlements with citizens and foreigners in no case did he act in a mercenary
spirit; moreover, as he advanced in years and grew in his reverence for the gods,
as became him, first of all he honoured the gods, assuming the crown of Zeus
and exercising his office as priest commendably, and he was praised by all the
citizens, and then, coming forward of his own volition, he also took upon him­
self the official crown established by the city for Apollo; he honoured the city
and the gods with festal gatherings to which all were invited and by sacred
processions and by donations [epidoseis] to the tribes, wishing to make this
clear, that there is gratitude alike from gods and from men who receive
benefits for those who conduct themselves in the life of the city with reverence
and with noble purpose; again, three years later, when the people, on account
of the joint action of the barbarians who were in control of the land, were
seeking a priest of Apollo, the Healer, men’s private resources being under
severe pressure, he made offer of himself [epididotwi] and coming forward before
the assembly he assumed the same crown, so obtaining double gratitude for
himself both from the gods and from those he benefited. [/. 39]: And on his
election as market controller [rt^oraHUMios] for a year he carried out his office as
became a man of worth and honour, selling com and wine at less than market
price and bringing down the price of the remaining purchaseable goods to
the greatest advantage of the citizens, and on receiving a panegyric in respect of
this he rebuilt and set up an office for the a^araiiomos at his own expense; for
this the people, welcoming his worthy and honourable action, appointed him
rtjoni/WHies for a further two years, during which he gained equal distinction.

D. 10 c. 60 bc; Pegae (Greek mainland); IG, VII, 190 (JOAI 1907, ryff;
Laum, No. 22)
[/. 18]: And since often, on account of the straitened circumstances of the city,
the ceremonial war-dance could not be held, he promised of his own volition
1,225 Alexandrian drachmae, so that from the interest on this capital the dance
might be introduced each year.
[/. 22]: And in addition to all this, when we were wanting to give honour to
Soteles and to set up his statue, appearing in the council and observing that the
public funds were under pressure, he undertook to meet the expense of the
statue and of its erection out of his own pocket, desiring thoroughly to please
182 DOCUMENTS
the citizens. And in order that the city might incur no expense on his account,
when he set up the statue he sacrificed to all the gods and gave a dinner to all the
citizens and residents [pnroil’oi] and to the Romans residing with us and to the
slaves of all these and their sons and die slaves’ children. In order dicn that others
also may emulate such deeds for the advantage of the city, it was resolved... to
commend Soteles, son of Kallinikos, for his goodwill and generous spirit,
which he has shown unfailingly from liis earliest youth, and to set up his statue
wherever he wishes, in the most prominent place in die market, and to inscribe
it thus: ‘The people ofPegae [honours] Soteles, son of Kallinikos [its benefactor]
for his goodwill and reverent spirit towards the gods, so that [all may know that
the men of Pegai know how to honour diose showing a generous spirit
towards diem]. And let the herald of the council summon him to a place of
precedence, and liis descendants.. .

D. ii End of first century bc; Rhodes; Strabo, XIV, 2, 5, (652)

The Rhodians are concerned for the people in general; although their rule is not
democratic, yet they want to look to die interests of the lower classes [‘the
poor’]. Thus the people are supplied widi provisions and the well-to-do support
those who arc not well-off, and there are certain public services [provided by
die wealthy] concerned with the provision of rations; in this way, whilst the
lower classes are provided for, die city docs not lack what it needs, especially
for naval expeditions.

D. 12 c. ad 42; Akraephia, Boeotia (Greek mainland); SEG, X.V, 330 (BCH

1935. 438ff)
[//. 9-14]: The generosity of Demetrios and Empcdon when no money was
available for the recently revived festival of Apollo and the Emperor.] [/. 48]:
Empcdon, the son of Empedon, and Demetrios, die son of Leonidas, and
Pamphilos, the son of Soterichos, undertook on demand the office ofpoleinarch,
and, observing the straits to which the city was reduced, they accepted in
addition, of their own free will, the office of agoranomos and that for the supply
of oil; and to the traders and butchers and bakers who were accustomed to be
irregular hi their service of the city dicy supplied out of their own resources, as
a gift, com for the bakers and for the rest money as an interest-free loan for a
year, through which we enjoy unfailing cheap supplies; and they provided oil
with outstanding generosity, giving oil, boiled and very rich with perfume,
and also making available white oil for unrestricted use; on account of all this
[it is proposed] that there be voted by the archons and councillors and the
people, that they be given places in the gymnasium and in whatever other place
of prominence they desire and that statues bc set up hi gilt armour, with an
inscription engraved: ‘The city of Akraephia to Empedon ... for their gener­
osity and benefactions to her’; and that there be engraved on a pillar both the
 DOCUMENTS 183
decrees and the inscription and that it be placed in the gymnasium in whatso­
ever place they wish.

D. 13 End of first century ad; Mantinea, Antigonea (Greek mainland);

IG, V, 2, 268 (BCH, XX, 126, Laum, No. 5)
[/. 6]: Resolution of the Antigoneans: since Euphrosynus, son of Titus, our
citizen, inheriting the goodwill displayed by his fathers towards the fatherland,
so far from detracting anything from his family’s worth, has enhanced it,
always and every day contriving to provide some advantage for the city, being
a man who, although possessed from birth of excellent moral qualities, has
surpassed these in developing a character excelling his natural disposition, a man
lavish in his gifts... He directed by statute that the income from the land should
be used for the support of the corn purchase fund, providing for the unfailing
supply of food in perpetuity.
[/. 32] [the decree goes on to praise Euphrosynus’ wife, Epigone]: For they were
linked together in a union of body and mind in their lives and they shared a
common and undivided concern in always seeking to go beyond the other in
devoting themselves to the performance of good deeds; thus, they rebuilt the
temples which had been in utter ruins and they added dining-rooms to those
existing and they provided the [religious] societies with treasuries, extending
their piety not only to the gods but to the places themselves. Epigone, indeed,
a woman of saintly dignity and devoted to her husband, imitated his example
herself by taking up the priesthood ordained for ever}' goddess, worshipping
the gods reverently at sacrificial expense, in providing all men alike with a
festive banquet.

D. 14 Early first cenniry ad; Oenoanda (Lycia and Pamphylia); ICBPIII, 493
He [C. Licinius Marcius Thoantianus Fronto] was town clerk, serving his native
town with his heart set on honour [phifotinios], and he was a Roman and a
citizen of Oenoanda who served as clerk of the Lycian confederacy, gymnasi-
arch and officer in charge of the com ration providing com at [?] denarii, and he
held the office of priest of the Augusti with his most distinguished wife, Licinia
Flavilla, with all reverence and magnanimity, and he was in charge of the com
ration a second time, distributing [epididonai] to the citizens both from the
public supply and also from his own supply in a most difficult time; and he
contributed to a public subscription for a distribution of money, ten denarii to
each citizen, so that all who dwell in the city share this benevolence, and in
every office he showed his concern for honour [philotiineistliai].

D. 15 First century ad; Epidaurus (Greek mainland); IG, IV2, 65

In marketing com on numerous occasions, whenever there was need, he
harmed his private livelihood for the sake of the good of all; and he provided
184 documents

certain buildings for the city, and some of the public places lie repaired, spending
on these things lavishly and beyond what was normal, and in the magistracies
he acted in a fair and just way towards all, and so too in his public obligations he
met expenses with magnificent generosity; and in the rest of the needs which
the city experienced he maintained the trust which the city placed in him, and
in doing all this he harmed still further his private livelihood.

D. 16 Second half of first century ad; Atina (southern Italy); Dessau, 977
(Lewis and Reinhold, RC, II, 348Q
To Titus Helvius Basila, son of Titus, aedile, praetor, proconsul, legate of
Caesar Augustus, who bequeathed to the people of Atina 400,000 sesterces, so
that from the interest therefrom there might be supplied com for their children
until they came of age and that afterwards 1,000 sesterces per head should be
given. Procula, his daughter set up [this monument].

D. 17 Late first century ad; Comum (northern Italy); Pliny, cp. VII, 18
(Bruns, 146)
Greetings from Pliny to his friend Carinus. You raise the question as to how the
money which you have offered to our townsmen for a feast is to be safeguarded
after your death. Suppose you pay over the money to the state—there is the fear
that it will be mis-directed; suppose you hand over land—then once it has
become public it will be neglected. For my own part I find nothing more
expedient than what I myself have done. For, instead of the 500,000 sesterces
which I had promised for the maintenance of free-born boys and girls, I made
over to the administrator of public lands a piece of land from my estate which
was worth considerably more, and then I took it back again burdened with a
ground rent by which I was to pay 30,000 sesterces annually. In this way the
amount due to the state is secure and the financial return is not subject to varia­
tion, while the land itself, because of the very fact that its yield greatly exceeds
the rent, will always find an owner to work it.

D. 18 ad 101; near Beneventum (Italy); Dessau, 6509 (Bruns, 145b; Small­

wood, 435; Lewis and Reinhold, RC, II, 346)
In the consulship of the Emperor Caesar Ncrva Trajan Augustus Germanicus
for the fourth time and Quintus Articuleius Paetus, those whose names are
written below offered as security properties in accordance with the instruction
of the best and greatest emperor, so that as a result of the contract the Ligures
Baebiani may receive interest monthly as written below, and in accordance
with his kindly purpose their boys and girls may receive maintenance allow­
ances. [The terms of 66 mortgages follow, for example]: By Crispia Restituta,
the Pomponian farms in the territory' belong to Beneventum, the Aequan district
in the Ligurian area, adjoining Nasidius Vitalis, valued at 50,000 sesterces, for
[a loan of] 3,250 sesterces. Half-yearly interest, 88 sesterces.
 DOCUMENTS 185
D. 19 c. ad 102 and 114; Veleia (northern Italy); Dessau, 6675 (Bruns, 145a;
Smallwood, 436; Lewis and Reinhold, RC, B, 345)
Mortgages on properties to the amount of 1,044,000 sesterces, so that in
accordance with the kindly purpose of the best and greatest Emperor, Caesar
Ncrva Trajan Augustus Germanicus Dacicus, boys and girls may receive
maintenance allowances as follows: legitimate boys, 245 in number at 16
sesterces each [per month], making a total of 47,040 sesterces; legitimate girls,
34 in number at 12 sesterces [per month], making a total of 4,896 sesterces;
illegitimate boy, 1,144 sesterces [per year]; illegitimate girl, 1,120 sesterces [per
year]. Total, 52,200 sesterces, which equals 5 per cent interest on the afore­
mentioned principal. [The terms of 46 mortgages follow, for example, No. 1]:
Gaius Volumnius Mentor and Volumnia Alee through Volumnius Diadu-
menus, their freedman, registered the Quintiac Aurelian farm and Muletas hill
with the woods which is in the Vcleian district, in the Ambitrebian area,
bounded by M. Mommeius Persicus, Satrius Severus and public property,
worth 108,000 sesterces; they are to receive 8,692 sesterces and to offer the
aforementioned farm as security. [Then follows an earlier group of mortgages,
dated before AD 102]: Likewise the mortgages taken on properties by Cornelius
Gallicanus to the amount of 72,000 sesterces, so that in accordance with the
kindly purpose of the best and greatest princeps, the Emperor Caesar Nerva
Trajan Augustus Germanicus, boys and girls may receive support as follows:
legitimate boys, 18 in number, at 16 sesterces [per month], a total of 3,456
sesterces; legitimate girl, 12 sesterces [per month]; total of the two sums, 3,600
sesterces, which equals 5 per cent interest on the aforementioned amount.

D. 20 ad 169-80; Sicca (North Africa); Dessau, 6818 (CIL, VIII, 1,641, Bruns,
150; Lewis and Reinhold, RC II, 352-3)
To my fellow townsmen of Cirta, to my beloved Siccenses, I [P. Licinius
Papirianus] wish to give 1,300,000 sesterces. I entrust this sum to you, dearest
townsmen, that from the interest of five per cent there may be maintained each
year 300 boys and 300 girls, the boys from the age of three to fifteen, each boy
receiving 2I denarii per month, the girls from the age of three to thirteen, each
girl receiving 2 denarii. Townsmen and residents likewise should be chosen,
provided that the residents shall be dwelling widiin the buildings which bound
our colony, and these, if it shall seem good to you, it will be best for the dtioviri
of each year to choose; but care should be taken that an immediate replacement
is found for any child reaching adult age or dying, so that the full number may
always be maintained.

D. 21 Second century ad; Tarracina, Latium (Italy); Dessau, 6278 (CIL, X,

6328, Lewis and Reinhold, RC, II, 352)
Caelia Macrina, daughter of Gaius, left 300,000 sesterces in her will for the
186 DOCUMENTS
construction of this monument and... thousand for its decoration and upkeep.
She also left in memory of her son, Macer, to the people of Tarracina 1,000,000
sesterces, so that the interest therefrom might be given to one hundred boys
[and one hundred girls] on account of maintenance allowances, to each boy of
the colony 5 denarii per month, and to each girl four denarii per month, for the
boys to the age of 16, for the girls to the age of 14, so that, by means of constant
replacement, 100 boys and 100 girls are always in receipt of it.

D. 22 Mid-second century ad; Antinoopolis (Egypt); Aegyptus 1933, 518

(Greek Papyri in the British Museum, Inv. No. 1905; Frank, ESAR, II, 252)
To [—] nomarch ofAntinoopolis, fromLysimaclios, also called Didymus, son of
Heraclides, of the Matidian tribe and Callitecnian deme, living in his own house
in the first quarter, seventh block. Pctronius Mamcrtinus, former prefect, made
known to us the benefits granted to us by the deified Hadrian, the founder of
our city, by which he directed that the children of Antinoitcs who are returned
by us, their parents, within thirty days of their birth, should be maintained from
die proceeds of funds granted for this purpose and from other revenues. I
therefore return the son born to me, Heraclides, also called Valerius, twenty
days old, by my wife Ninnarous, daughter of Orsenouphis, Antinoite, the fee
for whose birth certificate I paid through the most excellent senate, furnishing
three guarantors of the marriage and parentage .. .

D. 23 Not earlier than ad 50; Aigiale, Amorgos (Aegean); IG, XII, 389
Since Kritolaos and Parmenion, the sons of Alkimcdon, on becoming choregoi,
provided all that was needed for the staging of die plays and carried through
their office with an enthusiasm which called for honour [philodoxos], being
unfailing in their devotion and ambitious spirit of service [philotimia], and in
addition supplied a ration of com for the people and for all those dwelling in
Aigiale and for the foreigners lodging in the city, and, sacrificing oxen to
Apollo and Hera, they provided meat and a feast for the people on two days,
providing all that was beneficial for the sacred gathering, with no thought for
expense and in a spirit of ambitious service [pliilotiniin]; so diat our city may be
seen to honour men of ambitious spirit [philotimoi] and honest worth, etc. [/. 30:
Honours arc awarded for arete, eunoia and philotimia towards the city, and for
eusebeia (reverence) towards the gods].

D. 24 After ad 180; Corfinium (central Italy); Epigraphica 1958, 15-17

[Q. Avelius Priscus] for a public office gave five gladiatorial shows, and for the
public office of qiiattuorvir gave dramatic shows, and for the office of aedile gave
games in honour of the goddess Vetidina, and to help the com supply he
donated 50,000 sesterces to the state of Corfinium, and for the Avelian bath for
women 30,000 sesterces and many feasts and distributions of money to the
 DOCUMENTS 187
whole body of citizens from his own funds, and frequently he gave financial
assistance to meet heavy obligations of the state. The people of Corfinium
[dedicated] publicly [this monument] to mark his outstanding goodwill towards
the city: Avclius Priscus accepted the honour but himself bore the cost.

D. 25 ad 145; Ephesus (Asia Minor); Dittenberger, 850; Lewis and Reinhold,

RC, II, 349
[Letter of Antoninus Pius to the Ephesians]: The generous service [philotiinia]
which Vedius Antoninus is providing for you in his eagerness for honour
[philotiineistliai] I have learnt from his letters rather than from yours; for since
he wants to obtain help for the embellishment of the public works which he has
promised you, he has revealed the great amount of building he is adding to the
city, but you have not given it a proper welcome. I have agreed to his requests
and welcomed the fact that he has not chosen the usual way of those engaged in
political life, who for the sake of immediate prestige lavish their expenditure on
shows and distributions and prizes for the games, but prefers a way by which he
hopes to make the city more imposing in the future. '

D. 26 Late second century ad; Camerinum (central Italy); Dessau, 6640

This man’s father often met the burden of the corn supply when corn was dear
and frequently he gave a feast. The people of Camerinum [dedicated this] in
view of die very many and great benefits conferred on themselves by his
father and himself. He accepted the honour, but he gave back the amount
which they had collected. At the dedication he gave a feast.

D. 27 After ad 180; Ager Sorrinensium Novensium (central Italy); Dessau,

<5595
To Marcus Aurelius Marcellus, son of Elainus, priest with right ofjurisdiction of
the Sorrinenses Novenses, quaestor of the public funds, patron of the associations
of smiths and quiltmakers. To this man, first of all, the distinguished council,
from the gifts which they had received, voted that a statue should be set up on
account of his services. For the dedication of this statue he gave to the councillors
bread and wine and forty sesterces, and moreover on account of the honour
conferred upon him he gave 5,000 sesterces to the people for the com supply in
perpetuity.

D. 28 ad 136; Lanuvium, Latium (Italy); Dessau, 7212 (Bruns, 175; Lewis and
Reinhold, RC, II, 273-5)
[Clauses from the charter of a funeral society. Preface]: At Lanuvium in the
temple of Antinous, in which Lucius Caesennius Rufus, patron of the munici­
pality had instructed that a meeting be called, through the agency of L. Pom-
peius ... quinquemialis, of the worshippers of Diana and Antinous, he promised
l88 DOCUMENTS
that he would out of his generosity give to them the interest on 16,000 sesterces,
namely 400 sesterces, on the birthday of Diana, August 13 th, and 400 sesterces
on the birthday of Antinous, November 27th . . . [Laws of the society]:
It is unanimously resolved that whoever wishes to become a member of this
society shall give as a personal entrance fee 100 sesterces and an amphora of good
wine, also he shall pay a monthly subscription of 5 asses. It is likewise resolved
that whoever fails to pay his subscription for six months in succession, and the
common lot of mankind befalls him, his funeral shall not be covered, even if he
has provided for payment in his will. It is likewise resolved that whoever
departs this life as a paid-up member of this body, shall duly receive from the
treasury 300 sesterces, from which sum there shall be deducted a funeral fee of
50 sesterces, which shall be distributed at the pyre; the funeral procession shall
go on foot... It is likewise resolved that if any slave belonging to this associa­
tion is given Iris freedom, he shall be under obligation to give an amphora of
good wine . . . List of dinners: March 8th, the birthday of Caesennius . . .
father [of Caesennius Rufus, the patron]; November 27th, the birthday of
Antinous; August 13th, tire birthday ofDiana and of the society; August 20th,
the birthday of Caesennius Silvanus, brother [of Caesennius Rufus]; 4th [or 6th]
of [—] the birthday of Cornelia Procula, his mother; December 14th, birthday
of Caesennius Rufus, patron of the municipality ... Likewise it is resolved that
whoever is appointed quinquennalis in this society, the same should be exempt
from presenting pottery miniatures during the period of his office; and in every
distribution a double share shall be given to him; likewise to the secretary and
to the summoner of meetings, being exempt from presenting pottery minia­
tures, there shall be given a share and a half in every distribution. Likewise it is
resolved that whoever holds the office of qiihiqiieimalis honestly, to him by way
of honour there shall be given a share and a half in everything, so that others
also may hope for the same by the proper performance of their duty ... Like­
wise it is resolved that the quinquemialis shall sacrifice on the holidays of his
period of office with incense and wine, and shall perform the rest of his duties,
clothed in white, and on the birthdays ofDiana and Antinous he shall provide
oil for the society in tire public baths, before their banquet.

D. 29 ad 100-150 (?); luvavum (Salzburg); JOAI, XLIII (1956-8), 52ff

To Marcus Hatcrius Summits, son of Lucius, town-councillor of the munici­
pality of luvavum, dtiovir with power of jurisdiction, the people [dedicated
this] to an excellent citizen for his relief of the corn supply.

D. 30 First half of second century ad ; Nacolia, Phrygia (Asia Minor); Dessau,

7196 (TAM, V, 95 f; Laum, No. 121, Lewis and Reinhold, RC, II, 340)
Chapter of the will of Publius Aelius Oncsimus, imperial freedmen: To my
dearly loved fatherland of Nacolia, although I owe it very7 much, yet in keeping
with the limited size of my estate I desire to be given 200,000 sesterces on the
 DOCUMENTS 189
following condition, that according to the ruling of Cornelius... and Cornelius
[Hcs]ycius, the money be lent out and that from the interest accruing during the
next three years they may make a contribution to the com fluid, so that what­
ever amount of com is possible may be obtained each year. And at the end of
tills thrcc-ycar period I wish the interest on all the money to be divided out to
my fellow citizens each year, following upon a registration of them on the most
blessed birthday of our lord Trajanus Hadrianus. However, I wish half of the
interest to be allotted for individual gifts [sportiiMe], in such a way that halfofit
is given out on the holiday called ...

D. 31 ad 138-61; Pctclia (southern Italy); Dessau, 6468 (Duncan-Jones,

Historia 1964, 199Q
To Manius Mcgonius Leo, son ofManius, grandson of Manins and great grand­
son of Manius, aedile, quattuorvir under the Cornelian law, quaestor of the public
funds, patron of the township, qiiattuovir, quinquennalis; the town-councillors,
Auqustales and people gave this monument from money subscribed on account
of his services. Chapter from his will: To the state of my fellow townsmen, if a
pedestrian statue has been set up in the upper forum, widt a stone foundation
and a marble pedestal, on the model of that which the Aut’ustales set up near to
that erected to me by the townsmen, I wish to be given the 100,000 sesterces
above mentioned, so that from the interest of six per cent on this money, every
year on my birthday, which is March 23rd, there may be a distribution to the
decurions at a feast, of 300 denarii, allowing for deduction from this sum for the
service, the rest to be divided among those who shall be present at that time.
Also to the Augiistales on the same condition I wish 150 denarii to be given, and
to the townsfolk of Petelia of either sex, in accordance with local custom, one
denarius in every year, and also at the feast of the Parentalia fifty denarii and in
addition the cost of the sacrificial victim, in accordance with the terms of the
public contract. From you, best of townsfolk, I earnestly seek, in the name of
tlie most sacred Emperor Antoninus Augustus Pius and his children, that you
hold in perpetuity to my purpose and dispositions, and that you inscribe this
whole chapter of my will on the pedestal of my pedestrian statue, which I
besought you above to set up for me, that it may be the better known also to
our descendants or, again, that it may act as a reminder to those who may be
munificent towards their native city.

D. 32 After ad ioo; Pisaurum (central Italy); CIL, XI, 6377

To Titius Valentinus, son of Gaius, of the Camilian tribe, quaestor, duouir, who
by his will gave to the colonists of the colony of lulia Felix at Pisaurum one
million sesterces, so that each year from the interest on 400,000 a feast should be
given to the people on the birthday of Titus Maximus, his son, and that from
the interest on 600,000 gladiatorial games should be given every fifth year.
Erected by the people of the city.
190 DOCUMENTS
D. 33 Late first or second century ad (?); Stratonicea (Asia Minor); (BCH
1891, i84f, No. 29; cf. BCH 1927, 57ff)
[Voluntary priests for two years]: Theophilus son of Theophilus of Hicrakomc
and priestess Tryphera . . . opening the sacred refectory of the god to every
class and age and to the out-of-town visitors with the most ready goodwill and
lavish generosity, entertained also the body of elders in the city with food to be
carried away.

D. 34 Date uncertain; Spolctium (central Italy); CIL, XI, 4789

This man, military tribune of the legions XV Apollinaris and V Macedonia
bequeathed by will to his fellow townsmen 1,500,000 sesterces, so that from the
income deriving from this sum each year on the sixth of November, his birth­
day, there might be given to his fellow townsmen a feast and pastry and mead.

D. 35 After ad 100; Spolctium (central Italy); Dessau, 6638 (CIL, X, 4815;

Lewis and Reinhold, RC, II, 356)
Gaius Torasius Severus, son of Gaius of the Horatian tribe, quattuorvir with
power ofjurisdiction, augur, built this [probably public baths] in his own name
and in the name of his son, Publius Mcclonius Proculus Torasianus, pontiff, on
his own land and at his own expense. He likewise gave to die community to
celebrate the birdiday of his son 250,000 sesterces, out of the income from which
on August 30th, annually, die decurions are to hold a public banquet and die
townspeople who are present are to receive eight sesterces apiece. Likewise he
gave to the board of six priests of Augustus and the priests of the Lares of
Augustus and to the officers of the city-wards 120,000 sesterces, so that out of
the income from diis sum they might have a public repast on the same day.
Because of his services to the municipality the council of decurions adopted him
as patron of the municipality.

D. 36 Early second century ad; Comum (northern Italy); Dessau, 2927 (CIL,
V, 5262; Lewis and Reinhold, 2?C, II, 353Q
Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus, son of Lucius of the Oufentine tribe, consul,
augur legatus propraetore in the province of Pontus and Bithynia, sent to that
province with the rank of praetor in accordance with a decree of the senate by
the Emperor Caesar Nerva Trajan Augustus Germanicus Dacicus ... He left
[?] sesterces in his will for the construction of baths, with an additional 300,000
[plus?] sesterces for decoration and in addition 200,000 sesterces for upkeep;
and for the support of his freedmen, a hundred persons, he likewise bequeathed
to the municipality 1,866,666 sesterces, the income from which he desired to be
spent afterwards on an annual banquet for the people. In his lifetime he also
gave 500,000 sesterces for the support of the boys and girls of the populace of
 DOCUMENTS Ipl
town [plebs urbana], and also a library and 100,000 sesterces for the upkeep of
the library.

D. 37 First or second century ad; Tenos (Aegean); IG, XII, 3 1119 (Laum,
No. 60)
The council and people [honours] Satyros, son of Philinos, who has filled every
office and liturgy and has on four occasions held the architheoria [leadership of a
sacred embassy] and bestowed upon the city baths and: (1) 5,000 denarii, so that
from the interest therefrom the baths may be heated; (2) for the gods in Eriston
5,000 denarii, so that from the interest on the festival of the Boutluisia each year
there may be given a denarius per head to those free Tenians who shall join in the
feast in the temple; (3) in addition, for the same gods, 10,000 denarii, so that
from the interest therefrom each year there may be apportioned in the temple,
on die day of garlands and on the eighteenth day, to every free Tenian a certain
sum, the amount to be according to the number of those who gather togedier;
(4) and again 6,000 denarii, so that from the interest therefrom each year there
may be apportioned to Andrian men and women, on the day fixed for the
ceremony at his grave, the sum appropriate to the number of those who gather
together; (5) and again 18,500 denarii, so that from the interest therefrom the
amount of the poll-tax may be given on behalf of the free men and women and
children.

D. 38 First or second century ad; Ebusus, Ibiza (western Mediterranean); X”'

Dessau 6960 (CIL, II, 3664)
This man bequeathed to the state of Ebusus [ninety] thousand sesterces, widi the
intention that from this sum each year the tribute to the Romans might be paid
and that the citizens should not be compelled to pay tribute at a difficult time.
The remaining [six] thousand are to be lent out and from the interest games
are to be held each year, together with provision of five illuminated vessels
on his birthday.

D. 39 Late second century; Termessus, Pisidia (Asia Minor); TAM, III, 4

In the month of Soterios, the thirteenth day in the regular assembly, it was
resolved by the people, on the proposal of the presiding committee; since
Atalanta, daughter of Preterabis, daughter of Pillakoas, daughter of Kinnunis,
a widow, adorned bodi with nobility and with a sense of what is right, and
who reveals to the full the quality of a woman emulating by her exertions the
accomplishments of her forefathers in their ambitious services [p/iilotinieist/iai]
towards the city, both in expenditure of no mean kind and in advancing moneys
and in public subscriptions and gifts and priesthoods, has promised in time of
great com shortage to provide an ample supply for the commons, and in fulfil­
ment of her generous promise [plii/otimia] she provides com unstintingly from
192 DOCUMENTS
the month Idalianos of the present year... [bronze and golden crowns are voted
in her honour, a statue in a prominent place, close to the Attalus arcade].

D. 40 After ad 180; Corfinium (central Italy); Dessau, 6530

[To a man who had held most of the local offices of Corfinium, including those
of sacerdos and pontifex]: On account of the outstanding forebearance and high
moral sense [verectnidia] of this man, the distinguished council with agreement
of the people voted that the bronze plaques of patrons should be conferred upon
him and his sons. P. Mammius Aufidius Priscinus, having received the honour,
straightaway held a glad celebration for the distinguished members of die
council and dicir wives and children, and also for the people in a public feast,
amid much jubilation. And for these services the council and people of Cor­
finium voted that a statue be set up to him, so diat die love which he displayed
to his fellow-citizens, both individually and collectively, should be requited,
and for his children, boys belonging to the rank of knights, at public expense.
For their inauguration he offered to the councillors and the whole people
50,000 sesterces, which are to be called the Mammian fund, from the interest
on which they may receive a distribution on his birthday, 7th February. Now
if on the day fixed this condition shall not be adhered to, then the distribution
of that day shall belong to the town of Sulmo. Also he gave to the town­
councillors attending the feasts and to their children 30 sesterces, to the board
of six Angtistales at the meal 20 sesterces, and to the whole people, to each
attending the feast, 8 sesterces.

D. 41 Second century ad; Sillyon, Pisidia (Asia Minor); ICRP, III, 801
(BCH1889, 486(f)
The council and the people honoured the priestess of all the gods and hierophant
for life and one of the ten chief citizens, Mcnodora, daughter of Megacles,
deiniourgos and gymnasiarch for the provision of oil, who gave on behalf of
Megacles, her son, 300,000 silver denarii for the maintenance of children and
further gave both in her own gymnasiarchy and in the office of her son, as
deniionrgos, and in the gymnasiarchy of her daughter, to each councillor 85
denarii, to each member of the body of elders 80 denarii, to each member of
the assembly 77 denarii and to the wives of each of these 3 denarii, and to each
citizen 9 denarii, and to the freedmen freed per vindictam and to the [other]
freedmen and non-citizens [poroifeoi] 3 denarii per head.

D. 42 c. ad 120-48; Mons Fereter (central Italy); CIL, XI, 6481

[In addition to various buildings including baths] he left 200,000 sesterces for a
distribution for a funeral feast; 100,000 for a foundation providing for a division
of a sufficient amount of pastry and mead and bequests for those not named in
his will; for the dccurions 400 sesterces; for the board of six and Auanstales 300
 DOCUMENTS 193
sesterces; for the common people 200 sesterces. The city folk on the thirty-third
day after his decease, mindful of his benefits, from money contributed, amount­
ing to 43,000 sesterces, set up [this monument] in the consulship of Bellicius
Torquatus and Salvius Julianus.

D. 43 After 120 ad; Ager Sorrinensium Novensium (central Italy); CIL, XI,
3013
[For a man who had held local magistracies and the military rank of pracfectus
fabrtun, eqties eqtio publico]: When for his outstanding unselfish conduct the
town-councillors, with the support of the Aitgustales and common people,
offered to him statues to be paid for by subscription, he remitted the expense of
the collection and himselfinstructed them to be erected, and for their dedication
his heirs, in accordance with his bequests, gave to the town-councillors 16
sesterces, to the Augustales 12 sesterces, to the common people resident within
the city wall 8 sesterces and to the children of all of these half the amount.

D. 44 ad 200; Oxyrhynchus (Egypt); B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt, Oxyrhyn-

chus Papyri No. 705 (Laum, No. 216; Lewis and Reinhold, RC, II, 447Q
[//. 54]: The Emperor Caesar Lucius Septimius Severus Pius Pertinax Augustus
Arabicus Adiabenicus Parthicus Maximus and the Emperor Caesar Marcus
Aurelius Antoninus Pius Augustus, to Aurelius Horion, greeting. We commend
you also for this endowment which you see fit to bestow upon the villages of
the Oxyrhynchite district by presenting the resources for acquisition of pro­
perty. The established rule shall be observed in this case also, so that your grant
shall be expended as you desired and not be diverted to any other purpose. The
request is as follows: ‘To the most gracious emperors, Severus and Antoninus,
the saviours and benefactors of all mankind, Aurelius Horion, former strategus
and former chief judge of the most illustrious city of Alexandria, greeting.
Certain villages of the Oxyrhynchite district, most benevolent of emperors, in
which I and my sons possess lands, have been utterly exhausted by the burdens
of the annual liturgies of the Jisais [imperial treasury] and of policing their
districts, and there is danger that they will be ruined as far as the fisais is con­
cerned and that your land will be left uncultivated. Accordingly, in an endeavour
to be both philanthropic and useful, I desire in the interest of their recovery to
make each village some small endowment for the purchase of land, the revenue
from which shall be earmarked for the maintenance and expenses of those who
perform the annual liturgies for the ... [the rest is lost].

D. 45 ad 237; Orcistus, Phrygia (Asia Minor); JHS 1937,6f(AL4AL4, V, 202)

[A. Deed of Gift]: In the year of the consulship of Marius Perpetuus and
Mummius Comelianus, the sixth before the Kalends of June at Orcistus, I,
Varius Aurelius Marcus, son of Theobulus, townsman of Orcistus, deposit
N
194 DOCUMENTS
among the records as a mark ofmy gratitude the deed ofgift hereinafter written:
dosis encharistike [gift of kindly favour]. Deeming it fitting as well as just to
requite the native town that bred and loves me, I consider her by right entitled
to a greater return, yet having regard to my own resources I give and bestow
upon my native town, Orcistus, in money of account, 2,500 Attic drachmae, so
that through this fund on Happincss-day in every year my fellow-townsmen
may all share in a festival. They must conform to tire express rule, which I
desire shall above all be guarded and preserved, that for tire future this money
shall in every way perpetually remain undiminished and undiverted to other
uses. One thousand drachmae are to be set apart, to be named ‘Corn-purchase
Fund’ and to be lent out at interest forthwith; and from the revenue there shall
be distributed annually to each of our fellow-townsmen one pound of bread or
however much the town clerk shall serve out from purchases made as prescribed.
In like manner the other one thousand five hundred drachmae arc also to be set
apart and lent out at interest, and out of the revenue there shall be held on
Happiness-day in our town-gymnasium a feast for all the people [seven lines
illegible] No sort of alteration in or diversion of this fund shall be allowed, for I
desire that anyone altering it or diverting it to some other endowment shall pay
[eight lines illegible].
[B. Decree]: For good luck. At a general assembly of the whole people, the
elders also present on the front benches, on a motion put by the town-clerk,
Aurelius Bassion, son of Alexander, it was resolved by the People of die
Orcistenes: Whereas Aurelius Marcus, son of Theobulus, is a man by family
tradition munificent [philotimos] to the people and a benefactor to each and all,
who on no occasion ever fails widi public spirit nobly and amply to relieve the
needs pressing upon his native town, where moreover he discharges with due
diligence the highest offices and public duties, and hence, often, prior to tliis, at
our assemblies and public meetings, acknowledgement has been made to him
corresponding to the kindnesses that he has done; and now with unstinting
generosity more than requiting the people for their praises of him, he has
further given for public distributions and festivities a com-purchase fund, so
that through the munificence [philotimia] of this great gift the festival of
Happiness-day will year by year make a braver show; therefore the people,
mindful of these and of his other acts of kindness, have by general and popular
vote decreed die erection in liis honour, on the most conspicuous spot, of a
statue with suitable inscription, so diat liis children and descendants may jointly
and severally enjoy this honour in perpetuity by contemplating the gratitude of
his native town enduring and worthily expressed ...

D. 46 c. ad 250; Guelma (Libya); Libyca, VI, 1958, I43f£

To Q. Flavius Lappianus, son of C. Flavius Lappianus, of the tribe Papiria,
flamen in perpetuity of the municipality of Calama, the distinguished knight, for
his exceptional and unparallclled generosity and munificence towards the
 DOCUMENTS 195
citizens, by which, among the rest, he took on his own shoulders every burden
of responsibility, in this going beyond the generous gifts of his forefathers, the
people of Thabarbus offered a statue costing 6661 sesterces; this offer was
gladly and gratefully accepted by Lappianus but he returned all the money,
being content with the honour alone; and providing a feast and gymnasium,
with still further generosity, he dedicated it, together with the citizens.

D. 47 Mid-third century bc; Teas (Asia Minor coast); Dittenberger, 578

(Laum, No. 90; H. W. Picket, Epigraphica, I (1964), No. 34)
[The extant part of the inscription begins]: and let the paidonomos [Controller of
Youth] be appointed after the choice of the gymnasiarch, being not less than
forty years old. And in order that all the free-born boys may be educated as
Polythrous, son of Onesimus, in his concern for the people promised to them,
thereby establishing a fair memorial of his own longing for glory [philodoxia],
giving [epiWido/wi] to that end 34,000 drachmae, there are to be chosen each year
at election time, after the election of the clerks, three elementary teachers, to
teach both boys and girls [details of graduated salaries follow]... and let there
be appointed also two wrestling masters [details of salaries follow] ... and let
there be appointed a flute-player, one who plucks the strings or plays with die
plektron [again, salary details]... an arms drill master and a master of archery and
javelin-throwing are to be hired by the paidonomos and the gymnasiarch, re­
ferring the matter to the people.
[/. 16]: And he [the music teacher] shall teach those boys whom it is appropriate
to select for the leading class and those who are a year younger than these both
music and die playing of the lute, whether by plucking the strings or with the
plektron, and he shall teach music to the ephebes and regarding the age of the
boys the paidonomos shall decide. [/. 24]: Let these [the arms-drill master and the
master of archery] teach the ephebes and the boys who are registered to be
taught music. [/. 28]: And the paidonomos and the gymnasiarch are to see to it
that the boys and ephebes are properly exercised in their studies as each is
instructed according to the laws; and if the elementary masters dispute among
themselves about the number of the boys, the paidonomos is to decide and they
are to accept his ruling; and the examinations which are to take place are to be
held by the elementary masters in the gymnasium and by the music teacher in
the council-house. [/. 3sfF: Provisions against misdirection of the fund and
penalties (halfof any fine going to a successful accuser); /. 6off: Oath to be sworn
by magistrates.]

D. 48 200/199 bc; Miletus (Asia Minor) Dittenberger, 577

[The resolution of the people, following upon the proposal of the committee of
councillors]: since Eudemos, the son of Thallion, choosing to benefit the people
and to leave a memorial forever of his love of glory [philodoxia] has promised to
give for the education of the free children ten talents of silver on behalf of
196 DOCUMENTS
himself and of his brothers, Menandros and Dion, the Milesians have resolved
that Eudemos be commended for his concern for these high purposes and that it
receive the careful attention of the council and the people. And in order that the
arrangements relating to this endowment shall be carried through as is proper,
Eudemos should pay the above-mentioned sum to the treasurers for routine
expenses within the time stated in his promise, and the treasurers are to hand it
over forthwith to the managers of the state bank, and these are to establish a
state bank account for ‘Eudemos’ endowment-fund for the education of free
children’, and enter into the account the money donated and keep watch over it,
and hand it over to the bankers who shall succeed them, until the people has
decided regarding the income deriving from it. [//. 17-25: Detailed arrange­
ments relating to the 300 staters annual income and sanctions protecting it.] And
those who wish to be gymnastic masters or to give elementary teaching arc to
register with the Controllers of Youth [paidoiiomoi] appointed for the coming
year, and the registration is to take place each year from the fifteenth to die
twentieth of Artemision, and the paidonomoi are to exhibit their names in the
hall of Antiochos, and on the twenty-eighth day of the same month, on the
gadicring of the assembly, to set up in the orchestra a tripod and incense-burner;
and the priests, those of Hermes, President of the games, in the boy’s palaestra,
and of the Muses, and the Sacred Herald and the paidonomoi-elect, who are
about to enter upon office, and Eudemos, during his life, and afterwards die
eldest of Eudemos’ descendants, are to offer incense to Hermes and the Muses
and to Apollo, leader of the Muses. And the Sacred Herald is to utter a prayer
for die members of the assembly, diat whoever elects gynmastic masters and
elementary teachers whom he thinks will best look after the children and does
not allow himself to be swayed by any influence contrary to what is just, that
this man may be blessed, but that he may fare ill if he does otherwise. And after
this let the paidonomoi hand over to the clerk of the Council the name of those
registered, and let him introduce them one by one. [//. 43-64: Oaths of gym­
nastic masters and teachers, four of each to be chosen; provisions for pay.] And
the money paid out for this purpose, in accordance with the financial disposition,
is not to be diverted to any other object in any way, and if anybody speaks or
puts a motion or puts to the vote or misapplies or allots less than the sum laid
down, let him be liable to pay a penalty of 500 staters to die priests of Hermes
and the Muses. And the surplus of die sum set aside for this purpose after the
payment of the salaries, let the paidonomoi take, and let them send to Apollo of
Didyma the finest ox possible, every fifth year on the occasion of the Festival
of Didyma, and in the other years of die Boegia; and they themselves are to take
part in the procession and the boys chosen by them and their appointed over­
seers and, during his lifetime, Eudemos and afterwards the eldest of Eudemos’
descendants. And let the paidonomoi sacrifice the offering sent and assign a share
to all the boys and to the others who it is written are to accompany the pro­
cession. And the children are to be free from lessons on the fifth day in each
month and the paidonomoi are to register this among the festival days as is laid
 DOCUMENTS 197
down in the Code of the paidonomoi. And in order that the decision of the
people and the love of glory [philodoxia] of Eudemos in respect of these things
may be manifest to all, the wall-commissioners and the architect arc to see to it
that this decree is written on two stone pillars [steMi], the one to be set up in the
boys’ wrestling school, the other in the temple of Apollo Delphinios, in the hall
consecrated by Eudemos, son of Thallion. And in order that Eudemos may be
worthily honoured in respect of his enthusiastic purpose in these matters, let
the people take counsel at the appropriate time. The people resolved to inscribe
the decree on a notice-board.

D. 49 162 bc; Rhodes; Polybius, XXXI, 25 (Laura, No. 40)

The Rhodians had received 280,000 medimni ofcom from Eumenes [Eumencs II
of Pergamum], so that its value might be invested and the interest devoted to
the payment of the fees of tutors and teachers of the boys. One might accept
this from friends in case of financial embarrassment as one might in private life
rather than allow children to remain uneducated for lack of means...

D. 50 160-159 »c; Delphi (Greek mainland) Dittenberger, 672 (Laum, No. 28;
Pouilloux, Choix, No. 13)
[/. 6]: In eager response to our requests he [Attains II of Pergamum] sent to the
city for the education of the children 18,000 Alexandrian silver drachmae and for
honours and sacrifices 3,000 drachmae... In order that the gift may stand for all
time and that the teachers’ salaries and the ouday for the honours and sacrifices
may be secured by the interest from loaning out the money [provisions against
misdirection of the fund, for the lending out of the money and for the arrange­
ments of the festival of the Attaleia follow].

D. 51 Early second century ad; Comum (north Italy); Pliny, ep. IV, 13
(Lewis and Reinhold RC, II, 354Q
Recently, when I was in my home-town, there came to greet me the young son
of a fellow citizen. ‘Are you at school?’ I said to him, and he replied that he was.
‘Where?’ I asked. ‘At Milan,’ he replied. ‘Why not here?’ I asked; whereupon
his father, who was with him and had in fact himself brought the boy, answered,
‘Because we have no teachers here.’ ‘Why have you no teachers?’ I asked. It
would be much to the interest of those of you who are fathers... that your
children should go to school here rather than anywhere else. For where could
they find a place more pleasant to attend than in their own town? Or where
could they be better disciplined than under the eyes of their parents or at less
expense than at home? Very little trouble is involved in collecting subscriptions
and hiring teachers and meeting their fees with the money which you now
spend on accommodation, on travelling-expenses and on those things which are
198 DOCUMENTS
bought outside the city (that is, everything); and, indeed, I who have no chil­
dren as yet, am ready on behalf of our city, as for a daughter or a parent, to give
one third of whatever you decide to contribute. I would even promise to donate
the whole sum, were.it not for a fear that this free service [wi«ii«] might sooner
or later be rendered ineffective through personal influence. This defect can be
met by one remedy only; that is, if the parents alone arc left with the right of
giving employment, so that the same people exercise the duty of correct choice
and the obligation to pay a subscription. For those who are irresponsible
perhaps in handling other people’s money will at any rate be careful about their
own, and they will take trouble to see to it that no unworthy candidate receives
money from me, if he is going to receive it from them as well. Come to a
common mind about this, then, and combine together in response to the spirit
of my offer; for I am anxious that the amount which I am obliged to contribute
should be as large as possible.

D. 52 (—); Eleusis (Attica); Dittcnbcrger, 956 (IG, II, 1187; Hesperia 1964,337ff)
[Philip’s proposal]: since Derkylos, the general, has his heart set on honour
[philotimeisthai] with regard to the deme of Elcusis, both generally and especially
with regard to the education of the boys in the deme, it is resolved by the Elcusin-
ians to commend Derkylos, son of Autoldcs, of Hagnous, and crown him with
a golden crown to the value of 500 drachmae and to announce in the theatre at
the tragic contest at Eleusis that ‘the people crowns Derkylos... for his noble
qualities [crefe] and love of honour [philotiinia] with regard to the deme of
Eleusis’. Let him be given freedom from public burdens and a seat of privilege
among the people of Eleusis and let the magistrate of the deme, whoever is in
office, assign to him a share from the sacrifices equally with the Eleusinians; and
the resolution is to be inscribed on a stone pillar and placed beside the gateway
ofDemeter and Kore; and the fathers of the boys are to attend to the inscription
together with the magistrate of the deme. [Perhaps ‘boys’ = ephebes: see article
in Hesperia 1964.]

D. 53 c. 200 bc; Samos (Eastern Aegean); MDAI (A) 1919, 29 (SEG I, 368)
[/. 13]: Since Epikratcs, son of Demetrios of Heraclca, a Peripatetic, has stayed a
considerable time in our city and through his instruction has greatly benefited
the young men, wishing to do us a kindness, both privately giving his time to
those pursuing their studies such as he met with, and publicly being ungrudging
towards the people, hi that he admitted all those who wished to have a share in
his instruction, and for those of the common people who were unable to pay his
normal fee he gave his lectures at no charge; now therefore, so that we too may
be seen [to honour] good and worthy men and such as are able to benefit those
of the younger men who are eager for knowledge . . . [His reward includes
Samian citizenship.]
 DOCUMENTS 199
D. 54 Second century bc; Pergamum (Asia Minor); MDAl(zl) 1907, 278
[/. 10]: Straton, gymnasiarch of Pergamum, [continued] to secure the publicly
maintained teachers by the appropriate rewards [p/iilanthropiai] and in addition to
these two he brought in [another two?], meeting the expense out of his own
pocket, so that nothing of the instruction which was necessary should be lacking;
and thus for himself there is secured everlasting praise from those whom he has
benefited, and for them there is established to good effect the most valuable
renewal of those things which are advantageous to life; and throughout the
whole year he established an unlimited supply of oil at his own expense; and on
his entry into office he sacrificed a steer given by himself, praying to all the
gods for the safety of the people and for their unity of heart [/iohiwiom] and he
carried out a distribution of pure oil and a distribution of the flesh of the
sacrifice.

D. 55 130-100 bc; Sestos (Dardanelles); OGIS 339, [IBM, IV, 2 1000)

[/. 7]: Menas wished by his own endeavour always to provide something of
service to the people, and for himself and for his descendants to secure a glory
which would never bc forgotten, arising from the gratitude of the citizen body
for his kindness and favour. [//. loff: Embassies undertaken for the city.] [1. 31]:
Having been chosen gymnasiarch he attended to the discipline of the ephebes
and the neoi and secured that all else in the gymnasium was well conducted in an
excellent manner in his passion for honour [philotimds]; and he provided the
bathroom and the attached building and dedicated also a statue of white stone
and provided in addition all that was needful and necessary; and on the birth­
days of the king in each month he offered a sacrifice for the people and estab­
lished races for the ephebes and the young men, and he held javelin and archcry
contests and provided also oil for anointing because of his longing for glory
[p/iilodoxia]. [/. 61]: And he excelled himself in his expenditure and in the rest of
his conduct reflecting his love of glory' [p/iiMo-via]; for, entering upon his office
on the day of the new moon, he carried through sacrifices to Hermes and
Heracles, the gods whose altars are established in the gymnasium, for the
welfare of the people and the young men, and he instituted races and javelin
and archery' contests, and on the following day, having sacrificed for favourable
omens, he called to partake in the sacrificial rites not only those who partake in
the activities of the gymnasium but all others as well, granting a share in the
sacrificial rites also to foreigners; and in each month he carried through the
appropriate sacrifices on behalf of the young men, acting with good and gener­
ous spirit in his provision for the gods who preside over the gymnasium and
instituting archery contests and javelin-throwing and holding races, giving to
the young men a share in the sacrificial rites carried out by him and through his
love ofglory [philodoxia] encouraging the young men to engage in hard exercise,
as a result of which the younger men, being involved in a contest directed
towards manliness, receive excellent training of character; and he gave to those
200 DOCUMENTS

who are active in the gymnasium for use at home a share in the sacred offerings
associated with the contests of the gymnasium, extending his kindly act
[philantliropia] also to non-citizens who take part in the gymnastic activities, and
he conducted himself in the same kindly spirit also towards all those who gave
lectures, wishing in the case of these too to secure for his fatherland glory
through men of education...[/. 92ff: Menas is awarded a public encomium and
is to be crowned annually with a golden crown at festivals; a bronze statue in
the gymnasium is voted—which he undertakes to pay for himself—together
one of the chief seats at all games, both for himself and for his descendants.]

D. 56 Towards 100 bc; Erctria, Euboea (western Aegean); Dittcnbcrgcr, 714

(AJA 1896,173(f)
The standing committee of the council proposed; in as much as Elpinikos, son
Nikomachos, having been elected gymnasiarch by the people, conducted
himself with honour in all the rest of the matters relating to his office, and, on
the gathering together of a considerable number of boys and young men and of
the rest who came under his direction as a result of his devoted service [philo-
took drought for their discipline, remaining in attendance at the gym­
nasium throughout the year, and provided from his own funds a teacher of
rhetoric and an arms drill master who gave instruction in the gymnasium to the
boys and the young men and to anybody else who wished to receive benefit
from such training; and in as much as he gave attention to the oil supply, that it
might be of the purest quality, meeting die expense of this out of his own
funds; and since he also carried through arrangements for many long distance
races and at each performed a sacrifice to Hermes; and the prize offered by the
people for the winner in die race from the temple of Heracles he provided
himself out of his own resources, repaying the money offered by the people:
and he carried through the games in honour of Heracles, meeting the cost of the
prizes from his own funds, making the whole lavish outlay [philotimia] because
of his good will for die people; and at the sacred gathering of the Artemisia
he met die expense of the unguents out of his own pocket; accepting this ex­
pense not only for the citizens but for die rest of diose who attended the
gathering and shared the common privileges, and, in undertaking the sacrifice to
Hermes, he invited by public proclamation both the citizens and those Romans
who were resident, and on the fourth day he banqueted those who shared the
common privileges, and on the fifth others of the citizens and many of the
strangers...[/. 3 8ff: Award of an olive crown and monuments in stone bearing
inscription, to be placed in the most prominent place in the gymnasium.]

D. 57 Towards 100 bc; Eretria, Euboeoa (western Aegean); IG XII, 9 235

(AJA 1896,188)
The standing committee of the Council proposed: since Mantidoros, son of
Kallikrates, on being chosen gymnasiarch by the people, conducted himself in
 DOCUMENTS 201

all the matters relating to his office honourably and in a way worthy both of
himself and his forefathers and of the trust placed in him by the people; and, on
the gathering together of a considerable number of boys and ephebes and of the
rest who came under his direction as a result of his devoted service [philotiinia],
took thought for their discipline in the place during the whole period of his
office, attending in the gymnasium throughout the year; and since he made
available an adequate supply of oil and unguents of the purest quality and,
wishing to benefit the young men, readily provided out of his own funds a
Homeric scholar, Dionysios, son of Philotas, an Athenian, who gave a course in
the gymnasium for the young men and the boys and for all the rest who were
suitably disposed for education; and since he performed each month the
sacrifice to Hermes and Heracles for the boys and the young men and all the
rest [the inscription breaks off].

D. 58 Latter part of first century bc Chaicis, Euboea (western Aegean); IG,

XII, 9,916
[Resolution of the Boeotian synod]: /. 5: In the gymnasiarchy of Aulus Salarius,
son of Manius: L. Cusonius Agatho gave to the synod three thousand denarii and
the following were chosen gymnasiarchs for a month [sixteen names follow];
and while Aulus Salarius, son ofManius, promised to act as gymnasiarch through­
out the year and held the office at his own expense, each of these gave 120 denarii
for the gymnasiarchy to the synod, on account ofwhich they were registered as
gymnasiarchs. And the following were so registered on completing their
course as ephebes [names follow] and the following were enrolled on receiving
inheritances, etc.

D. 59 270 bc; Athens; Diogenes Laertius, X, 16-18

[The will of Epicurus]: On the following conditions I give all my property to
Amynomachos, son of Philokrates, of Bate, and to Timokrates, son of Deme­
trios, of Potamos, to each severally according to the registration of the gift in
in the Metroon, namely that they make available the garden and its appurten­
ances to Hermarchos, son of Agemortos of Mytilene, and to his fellow-philos­
ophers and to whomsoever Hermachos leaves it as his successors in philosophy,
to live and pursue philosophy therein. And I entrust the school in the garden in
perpetuity to those who are its members, so that they may preserve it, together
with Amynomachos and Timokrates, to the best of their ability, and to their
successors, so that they too may maintain the garden in the way which is most
secure, just as it is maintained by those to whom the members of my philo­
sophic school bequeath it. And the house in Melite let Amynomachos and
Timokrates provide for Hermarchos and those who pursue philosophy with
him as long as Hermarchos is alive. And from the income deriving torn the
gifts made over by me to Amynomachos and Timokrates, let them to the best
of their ability, in consultation with Hermarchos, allot funds for the funeral
202 DOCUMENTS

offerings to my father and mother and brothers, and for the customary cele­
bration of my birthday on the tenth day of Gamelion each year, and also for the
monthly gathering of the members of my school on the twentieth in remem­
brance of me and Metrodoros. Let them also join in celebrating the day in
Poseideon in memory of my brothers and also the day in Mctageitnion in
memory of Polyainos, as we also have done.

D. 60 c. 288 bc; Athens; Diogenes Laertius, V, 52, 3

[The will of Theophrastus]: The garden and the covered walk and all the
dwellings which adjoin the garden I give to those of my friends here written who
are willing to devote their time to the common pursuit ofphilosophy in them—in
as much as it is not possible for all men to dwell in them permanently—on
condition that no one is deprived of liis place nor treats it as his own, but that
they hold it as a sanctuary open to all, acting as a family and in the spirit of
friendship, as is right and proper ... and they are to bury me in whatever spot
in the garden seems most appropriate, without undue attention either to the
burial itself or to the memorial.

D. 61 Mid-fourth century; Athens; Aristotle A.P. 49, 4

There is a law which lays down that those who possess less than three mitiae [300
drachmae] and who are physically maimed so as to be incapable of work arc to be
examined by the council and to be given two obols a day for maintenance at
public expense.

D. 62 304-3 bc; Athens; Dittenbergcr, 335

And he [sc. Pheidias of Rhodes] continues to do that which is to the advantage
of the Athenian people and to treat those of the Athenians who seek his help
with praiseworthy devotion [philotiinos] and now he has offered himself
[epididouai] as a public doctor freely, displaying tire goodwill which he holds
towards the city. [Colin-Haft, PPAG, 59, offers as an alternative translation:
‘now he has offered himself as providing free of charge an authorised medical
practice’.]

D. 63 Third century bc; Cos (eastern Aegean); Dittenbcrger, 943

[Praximenes proposed]: Since Xenotimos, son of Timoxenos, in previous
times took care of the citizens according to his medical skill, showing himself
eager to save the sick and now, in face of the onset of many virulent diseases and
the illness of the public doctors in the city resulting from the ill effects of their
attendance upon their patients, he of his own volition has been unfailing in his
provision of help for those in need, taking it upon himself to provide a remedy
for every illness, and allowing to no one undue favour but saving men’s lives by
his ready service of all equally: it is resolved by the people to commend
 DOCUMENTS 203
Xcnotimos, son of Timoxenos, and to crown him with a golden crown, etc.

D.64 218 bc; Gortyn (Crete); I. Cret. IV, 168 (Pouilloux, Choix, No. 15)
The kosmoi of Gortyn and the city send greetings to the council and people of
Cos. Since Hcrmias, son of Emmenidas, having been elected by you and sent to
us as a doctor, has made his stay among us worthy both of you who sent him
and of himself, and also of ourselves who gave you the responsibility of the
choice of the doctor; and since he has been irreproachable in all his dealings with
us and has completed his stay of five years, looking after the citizens and the
rest of those dwelling at Gortyn, and has by the enthusiastic and earnest appli­
cation of his skill and his other care saved many from great dangers, never
failing in Iris energy; and since, when many allies were with us at the time when
we were at war, he displayed the same care for them and saved them from
great dangers, wishing to show his gratitude to our city, and now he has come
to the assembly and has asked of us his return to his own home, we have agreed
and have sent to accompany him Soarchos and Kydas of our own citizens,
wishing to express our gratitude to him; and since it has seemed good to us to
commend Hennias for his merits and goodwill towards the city and also to
commend the Coans in that they sent to us a good doctor and a worthy man; in
order that all may know that we understand how to show our gratitude, it was
resolved by us to give citizenship to him and his descendants...

D. 65 201-197 bc; Samos (Eastern Aegean); AfDAI (A) 1957, 233, No. 64
(Pouilloux, Choix, No. 24)
[/. 3]:... [that Diodoros, son of Dioskurides], who has served as a public doctor
[over many years among us] and has provided his service in accordance with his
skill irreproachably, and who, in the rebuilding of the city and in the siege of the
high points, when many were wounded, provided his services, be praised and
honoured in the way that seems good to the council and people. And the
council has framed a draft-resolution to introduce the matter at the time of the
electoral assemblies: since Diodoros, son ofDioskurides, having received among
us the office of public doctor, firstly, over many years in the previous period,
restored to health by his careful and experienced treatment many of the citizens
and of the others in the city who had fallen into a grave condition and was
responsible for their recovery, as has often been borne witness to by many in
the assembly at the time of the making of contracts; and, again, since on the
occasion of the earthquakes among us, when many were laid low by grievous
blows of every kind owing to the unexpected nature of the disaster, and when
his care was needed with all speed, he came to the aid, giving his attention to all
equally; and since, when the judges who had been sent for were arrived among
us and some had fallen ill, on instruction from the people that he should look
after them, too, he displayed his uncomplaining readiness to help all alike, and
at the time of the return of the city into the Ptolemaic Empire, when many were
204 DOCUMENTS
injured in the sieges of the heights in the daily engagements, he disregarded
personal distress and expense in his concern for the public good and for those
who were repeatedly in need of his help, from his own resources [here the in­
scription breaks oS].

D. 66 Early 2nd century bc; Tenos and islands (Aegean); Dittcnbcrgcr, 620
May it be widi heaven’s blessing: in the archonship of Agathion, in the month
Bouphonion, the fifteenth day, it was resolved by the council and people, on
the motion of die presiding committee: in as much as Apollonius, son of
Hierokles of Miletus, being a doctor, previously gave many demonstrations
and by his skill and, in general, his spirit of goodwill showed himself worthy of
the generous rewards[philanthropa] voted to him by die people; and in as much
as, in going abroad and entering public service [demosi'ciion] in other islands, he
displayed an equal devotion and enthusiasm, in terms of his skill and spirit of
goodwill towards all he met with; and in as much as he came to the city when
many fell ill and appeared before the assembly and, first, he promised that he
would serve [literally, take upon himself a ‘liturgy’ for] the people freely during
the six month period of office; and in as much as he did diis widi his heart set
upon honour [philotinids] and with all enthusiasm and saved many from serious
illnesses and ... now, taking up public service at a time when a new epidemic
has broken out and threatens dangers to all the islanders, he has not thought fit
to abandon the people, but continues in his public service conscientiously and
makes himself available to all without excuse and remains faithful to his original
choice: therefore, in order that it may be manifest that our people honours men
who have shown their wortli, etc., [honours previously voted are confirmed;
he is awarded an encomium to encourage further service, also an olive wreath
for arete and emioia; the decree is to be inscribed on a stone which is to be
placed in the temple of Poseidon and Amphitrite. A separate decree of the
islanders follows].

D. 67 not before 200 bc; Brycous, Carpathos (eastern Aegean); IG, XII, 1032
Since Menokritos, son of Mctrodoros, the Samian, has acted as public doctor for
over twenty years and has continued in his energetic service in his love of hon­
our [philotinids] and through his skill, experience and general conduct has shown
himself beyond all reproach, and when epidemic conditions developed and
many, not of the people only but also of the residents, fell into the most
critical danger, he displayed all energy and tireless service and thus was respons­
ible for saving their lives and since, previously, serving as a paid doctor, while
staying in Rhodes he saved many of the townsfolk when these were in a critical
condition, accepting no fee, and continued to display a proper sense of devotion
in his attendance upon each of the non-citizen class in the suburbs of the city;
now, therefore, so that the people of Brycous may appear grateful and ready to
honour doctors of real worth, etc.
 DOCUMENTS 205
D. 68 c. 86 bc; Gytheion (Greek mainland); IG, V, 1145 (IBM, II, 143)
[/. 9]: Since Damiadas ... a Spartan doctor, on letters being sent to him, as had
been voted ... came to practise in our city, showing himself second to none in
his skill, as befitted his reputation, and the best of [public] doctors, so laying
claim to the highest regard of the magistrates and of our city, and since he
became a [public] doctor among us and, having practised as such, was oppor­
tunely called upon by the people, and during a stay of two years among us
provided the due treatment, skillfully serving those in need, showing unlimited
energy and devotion [philotiinia] in serving fairly all alike, whether poor or rich,
slaves or free or foreigners ...[/. 24]: He maintained a blameless reputation in
all respects, providing proper attendance, which was open to all, as befits a man
of culture and moral sense. And in the magistracy of Biadas and the month
Laphrios, seeing the city in severe difficulties in respect of the property taxes, he
promised to serve as a doctor in our city freely, going beyond all limits in the
nobility of Iris spirit towards us [by his propriety of conduct] and in everything
offering the greatest proof of his goodwill and devoted care for our city; for
this reason the people made him proxenos and euergetes of our city and granted
him enjoyment of the right to own land and a dwelling-place and all the other
signs of favour [philanthropa] and honour.

D. 69 c. 100 bc; Eretria, Euboeoa (western Aegean); IG, XII, 9, 236

The committee of the council proposed: in as much as Theopompos, son of
Archcdemos, maintaining the good relations with the people inherited from
his ancestors, and seeking further to increase his right-dealing with gods and
men, having zealously pursued the life of virtue and honour from his earliest
youth, wishes to establish clearly his devotion towards that which redounds to
the advantage of the common interest and his eager desire to serve the people;
and in as much as he shows himself faithful towards the whole people in his
service and has conducted himself irreproachably in the offices which he has
held, displaying his generosity; and in as much as, in his wish to leave an im­
perishable memorial for all time of his noble spirit and goodwill for the people,
he has bestowed out of his own resources for the people, for the purpose of oil
for anointing, forty-thousand drachmae, so that the aforementioned sum, being
lent out on adequate securities, may provide revenue annually for the purchase
of oil for the gymnasium, the distribution of which shall be carried out by the
officers who are placed in charge of these matters, and that the people may be
relieved from this expense ...[//. 33 ff: Award of a gold crown and two bronze
statues with honorary inscription; the decree itself to be inscribed on two stone
monuments; public proclamation of these honours at festivals of Dionysos and
of Artemis; inscriptions also to be added to the statues of sons and daughter
set up by Theopompos.]
206 documents

D. 70 First century ad; Comum (northern Italy); Dessau, 6728 (CIL, V, 5279)
L. Caecilius Cilo, son of Lucius,... who in his will bequeathed to the townsfolk
of Comum 40,000 sesterces, the interest on which each year was to provide oil
during the Neptunalia on the campus and in the baths and all bathing establish­
ments which belong to the people of Comum.

D. 71 ad 161-169; Gytheion (Greek mainland); IG V, I, 1208 (A. Wilhelm,

Griechische Inschriften rechtHchen Inhalts (1951), 9off; Laum No. 9)
I have left the aforementioned money so that those who are holding magistracies
from year to year, when they also relax the rest of the public burdens, may loan
it out, from die year of the generalship of Aristopolis, according to the resolu­
tions of the councillors of the city and of the people...[/. 12]: And this money
is to be lent out and those who borrow the money are to give adequate security
in land, so that from the interest oil may be supplied for ever to the citizens of
Gytheion and the non-citizens, and the magistrates and councillors are to display
all energy and good faith each year, so that my beneficent act [philanthropia] may
remain eternally for the gymnasium and for the city. [/. 31]: Let die fourth part
of the 8,000 denarii belong to the accuser, if he prove the default of the mag­
istrates, and the [remaining] 6,000 denarii are to belong to the city ofthe Spartans.
And if the Spartans, too, neglect my gift, let the 6,000 denarii be dedicated to the
divine Augusta; it is open to anyone who wishes, to prove the neglect of the
Spartans and [make over] the money to the Emperor’s house ... I wish also the
slaves to share in the gift [philanthropia] of oil for six days each year, three days
during the festival of the Augusti and three of the goddess; and no archon or
gymnasiarch is to hinder them using die oil... And I wish my gift and favour
bestowed upon die gymnasium on the stated conditions to be published on
three marble pillars; of these, one should be set up ... in the market before my
house, and one should be erected in the Caesareuin, set close by the gates of the
temple, and one in the gymnasium, so dial both to die citizens of Gytheion, and
to the non-citizens, my philanthropic and kindly act may be clear and well-
known to all. [/. 48]: And I entrust to die city and the council also my house­
slaves and freedmen, all of them, both male and female; and I beseech you, by
all the gods and by the Fortune of the Angusti, even when I live, that, whenever
I suffer the common lot of men, you may take the utmost thought, both
individually and collectively, for the carrying out ofmy wish and for the house­
slaves whom I honour and have honoured. [/. 51]: My idea is to achieve
immortality in making such a just and kindly disposal [of my property] and,
in entrusting it to the city, I shall surely not fail in my aim.

D. 72 ad 214; Theveste (North Africa); ILAlg. 3040

By his will C. Cornelius Egrilianus, prefect of the legion XTV gemina, in
which ... besides other things he gave 250,000 sesterces to the state, so that on
certain days oil [^yoinasM] should be provided for the people in the baths.
 DOCUMENTS 207
D. 73 Second century ad (?); Gor (North Africa); CIL, VHI, 12422
To Marius Marinus, son of Felix,jiainen, pater patriae, because of his outstanding
liberality towards his fatherland and his fellow citizens, who in his will gave to
the state of Gor 12,000 sesterces, from the interest on which on his birthday, the
Ides of September, each year the town councillors should receive presents
[sportn/ae], and oil [^ywiHusiimi] should be given to all the citizens. After die
town council had voted to him a statue on account of his liberality, Maria
Victoria, his daughter and heir, content with the distinction and the site, set up
the statue at her own expense and together with Ophelius, the first sufetes [?],
flanten and pater patriae, her husband, gave a feast to the council.

D. 74 Second century ad ; Barcino (Barcelona, Spain); Dessau 6957 (Lewis and

Reinhold, RC, n, 348Q
Lucius Caccilius Optatus, son of Lucius, of the Papirian tribe, centurion of
Legion VII Gemina Felix and centurion of Legion XV Apollinaris, honourably
discharged by the Emperors Marcus Aurelius Antoninus [Augustus] and [Lucius]
Aurelius Verus Augustus, included by the town of Barcino among those
exempted from public obligations, attained the offices of aedile, dnovir three
times, Jiainen of Rome and the deified Emperors. He left a legacy to the munici­
pality of Barcino as follows: I give, bequeath and desire to have given 7,500
denarii, with six per cent interest whereby I desire a boxing contest to be held
each year on June 10th at a cost of up to 250 denarii, and on the same day 200
denarii worth of oil to be supplied to the public in the public baths. I desire these
bequests to be carried out on condition that my freedmen and also the freedmen
of my freedmen and freedwomen, who attain the honour of the board of six
(Angnstales) bc excused from all the obligations of the office. But if any of them
is assigned such burdens, then I order the said 7,500 denarii to bc transferred to
the municipality of Tarraco, with the same programme of shows as afore­
mentioned to be held at Tarraco.

D. 75 Late first century bc; Praeneste, Latium (central Italy); CIL, XIV, 2979
(Laum, No. 17B)
C. Aurunceius Cotta, son of Gaius, gave to die colonists, the dwellers in the
town, the foreigners, and the visitors and to their slaves free bathing at his own
expense in perpetuity.

D. 76 First century ad; Bononia (Bologna, northern Italy); Dessau, 5674

(CIL, XI, 720)
[At baths originally built by Augustus and restored under Caligula] Titus
Aviasius Servandus provided by legacy that from the income deriving from this
sum men and young people of either sex should bathe free of charge for ever.
208 DOCUMENTS
D. 77 Second century ad; Altinum (northern Italy); Not. Scav. 1928, 283
This man gave to the state of Altinum, 1,600,000 sesterces so that the Sergian
and Putinian baths might be repaired from the expenditure of 800,000 and be
enjoyed by the townsfolk, another 400,000, that from the income therefrom
the baths might be heated, and 200,000 in perpetuity for their upkeep, and also
200,000, so that from the interest thereon, on his own birthday, die 7th [or 9th]
of [?], and on the same day of that month, the birthday of Pctronia Magna, his
mother, and on the 16th of December, the birthday of L. Fabius Amminianus
his father, the decurions, Augustales and board of six [seviri] might receive
presents.

D. 78 Late second century ad; Murgis (Baetica, soudiem Spain); CILII, 5489
L. Aemilius Daphnus, sevir, gave to his fellow citizens, the Murgitani, these
baths, meeting all the expense; and on die day of their dedication he gave a
denarius apiece to the citizens and residents by way of a feast; as long as he lived
he promised diat on die same day he would give to the same a denarius apiece
and 150 denarii for the upkeep of the baths, as long as he lived.

D. 79 Not before second century ad ; Comana, Pisidia (Asia Minor); Anatolian

Studies, X, i960, 51/2, No. 100 (SEG XIX, 830)
He has filled all the offices appropriate to his rank and all the liturgies with great
distinction, and in addition he has given 30,000 silver denarii as capital for a
perpetual distribution for his fatherland and again 4,000 denarii for the repair
and revetting of the baths at Cretopolis ...

D. 80 Mid-second century ad; Athens; Philostratus, Lives of the Sophists, II,

548 (Lewis and Reinhold, II, 35of)
There was also a great spirit of generosity in this Atticus [Tiberius Claudius
Atticus, father of Herodcs Atticus]. When for instance Herodes was in control
of the free cities of Asia, seeing Troy poorly supplied with baths and the
inhabitants drawing muddy water from wells and digging cisterns to catch
rain water, he sent word to die emperor asking him not to allow an ancient
city and a city close to the sea to perish for lack of water, but to give them three
million drachmae for a water supply, seeing that he had already given even to
villages many times that amount. The emperor approved of the suggestion, as
being in accordance with his way of thinking, and he placed Herodes himself in
charge of the project. But when the expenditure had reached seven million
drachmae and the officials in charge of Asia kept writing that it was shocking to
spend the tax from five hundred cities on a source of water for a single city, the
emperor reproved Atticus regarding this; whereupon Atticus replied in the
language of the most lavish of benefactors: ‘Do not, my Emperor, be annoyed
about trifles; for the amount spent over and above the three million sesterces I
 DOCUMENTS 209
myself am giving to my son and my son is giving it to the city.’ Again, his will, in
which he left to the Athenian people a mina [one hundred drachmae] for each
citizen annually, proclaims the magnanimity of the man, to which he gave
expression in other ways also, in sacrificing one hundred oxen to the goddess
on a single day on many occasions and in providing a sacrificial feast for the
whole people of Athens in their tribes and families; again, whenever the Dionysia
came round and the statue of Dionysus was brought down to the Academia, he
would provide drink in the Ceramicus both for citizens and strangers as they
lay on beds of ivy leaves.

D. 81 Second century ad; Aspendos, Pamphylia (Asia Minor); IGRP, III,

804 (BCH1886, 160)
Tiberius Claudius Erymncus, of the tribe Quirina, one of the ten chief men,
gymnasiarch providing oil available on demand, son of Tiberius Claudius
Italicus, one of the ten chief men, high-priest, demiourgos, gymnasiarch and
president of the great five-yearly games, the Caesarea, who gave for the supply
of water eight million sesterces and undertook three embassies to the emperors
freely.

o
 INDEX
INDEX OF NAMES

Academy, 127, 129 85C 99f, 124,127, 143

Aemilianus, P. Cornelius Scipio, Artemis, 22
79 Asia Minor, 39
Aeneas, 112 Asklepios, 132,138
Aeschines, 121 Athena, 28, 93
Africa, 37, 48, 59, 72 Athenian empire, 68, 98
Agis IV of Sparta, 67 Athens, 37, 39f, 69, 71, 79C 93,
Agrippa, M., I43f 97f, n6f, lipf, 122, I24f, 127,
Aithales, 20, 59 129,130, 134,135,136, I37f
Ajax, 79 Attains of Aphrodisias, 142
Akmonia,- 20 Attains II of Pergamum, 123
Alexandria, 30, 84 Attica, 34, 64, 86
Aleximachos, 58 Atticus, Herodes, 144, n. 93,
Altinum, 143 n. 103
Amynomachos of Bate, 127 Atticus, T. Claudius, 46, 9of,
Anaia, 95 144
Anaximenes, 81 Augustus, 22, 54f, i04ff, in,
Antinoopolis, 114 naff, n. 139
Antinous, 52 Aurelian, in
Antioch, 23 Aurelius, Marcus, no, 112,129
Antoninus, Vedius, 25, 45
Apamea, 93 Basil, 60
Aphrodisias, 53 Basila, T. Helvius, 108
Apollo, 90 Bolkestein, H., n, 13,47C 56,64,
Appian, 101, loaf 78, 84, in, 132
Aristonicus, 81 Boulagoras of Samos, D. 3
Aristophanes, 62, 64, 69,132,134 Brea, 68
Aristotle, 29f, 32ff, 37, 38C 4if, Brycous, I32f
43f, 66, 70, 72, 74, 8of, 84, Butler, S., 43
212 INDEX OF NAMES

Caesar, Gaius, 105 Demokedes of Croton, 137

Caesar, Julius, iO3ff, 112 Demosthenes, 29, 32, 49, 62, 80,
Callatis, n. 49 121
Campbell, J. K., 27 Derkylos, 125
Carnegie, 141 Diana, 52
Carpathus, 132 Dikaiopolis, 134
Carthage, 79 Dill, S., 88
Cato, the Elder, 68, 74 Dio Cassius, 94, 104
Celsus, 45 Diodoros (Samos), 133, D. 65
Cercidas, n. 70 Diodorus (historian), 64, 124, 134
Charondas, 124, 134 Diogenes Laertius, 84
Chrysippus, 31 Diomedes, 28
Chrysostom, John, 61, 75, 83f, Dionysia, 90
n. 54, n. 68 Dioskurides of Priene, 142
Chrysostom, Dio, 41, 45, 121, Diotimos of Cibyra, 51
n. 154 Dittenberger.W., 85
Cibyra, 119 Domitian (Emperor), n. 123, n.
Cicero, 3of, 33C 47,49, 54, 58, 64, 163
74, 82, 86f, 102,127, 141 Domitius, P., of Bithynia, 60
Cilicia, 54 Dorylaeum, 142
Claudius (Emperor), 107, n. 169 Duncan-Jones, 91, 114
Cleomenes III of Sparta, 67
Cleophon, 99 Edelstein, E. J., 132
Clodius, P., 94, i02f, 105 Egypt, 11, 42, 77, 80, 85, 96, 139
Cochrane, C. N., 83 Egrilianus, C. Cornelius, D. 72
Cohn-Haft, L., I34ff Ehrenberg, V., 64, 71
Commodus (Emperor), 23, in Eleusis, 125
Comum, 88,109,114,128,143 Elizabeth I, of England, 67
Constantine, 71 Elpinikos of Eretria, 117, D. 56
Cos, 136, 139 England, 39f 67, 121, 130
Cotta, C. Aurunceius, 143 Epaminondas, of Akraephia, 89,
Cyme (Asia Minor), 143 91
Cyrus, 35 Ephesus, 22, 25
Epictetus, n. 83
Damiadas of Sparta, 137, D. 68 Epicurus, 57f, 127, n. 149
Daphnus, L. Aemilius, 59,143 Epikrates of Heraclea, 126, D. 53
Delos, 139 Epikteta of Thera, 19
Delphi, 123 Epiteleia of Thera, 19
Demetrios of Akraephia, 54, 91 Erymneus, T. Claudius, 144C
Democritus, 29, 85 D. 81
 INDEX OF NAMES 213

Ethiopia, 64 Homer, 28, 63, 65, 78f, 118

Eubiotos of Athens, 93 Horace, 62, 63
Eudemos of Miletus, 55, 121,128
Eumcncs II of Pcrgamum, 122 lambulus, n. 88
Eubulus, 98f lasos, 96
Euphrosynus of Mantinea, 95 Ibiza (Ebusus), 92
Euripides, 120 Irus, 63, 78
Evans-Pritchard, E. E., 29 Isacus, 40
Isocrates, 35, 41, 74
Fabatus, 113 Israel, II, 77, 85
Faustina, no Italy, 9iff, 103,107, no, 112
Felix, L. Aemilius, of Theveste, 59
Finley, M. L, 2Sf Jacoby, F., 138
Francotte, H., 96 Jews, at Alexandria, 84
Frank, T., 13, 68 Jordan,W. K.» 12, 40, 44, n. 62
Fraser, P. M., 96 Josephus, 84
Julian (Emperor), 132
Galatia, 97 Juvenal, 48, 62, 64, 87, 94
Gallicanus, 109
Gellius, Aulus, 86 Kolophon, 51
Gelon of Syracuse, n. 144 Kritolaos of Amorgos, 58, 130,
Glaukos, 28 D. 5, D. 123
Gomme, A. W., 6g£ 74
Gortyn, 133, i36f Lappianus, Q. Flavius, 50
Gracchus, C., loif Laum, B., 18, 22, 23, in
Gracchus, T., 16, 6yf Laurium, 98
Gregory of Nyssa, 60 Leo Manius of Petelia, 50, n. 105,
Gytheion, 50, 133,142 D. 31
Leo, L. Vaccius, 143
Hadrian (Emperor), 21, no, 140 Lepidus, Aemilius, n. 120
Henderson, B. W., 112 Libanius, 98,140
Hera, 51 Livy, 112
Heracleides of Salamis, D. 2 London, 40,144
Hermarchus of Mytilene, 127 Lucania, 53
Hermias of Cos, 133 Lucretius, 37, 87
Herondas, 123 Lycurgus, 116
Hieron of Syracuse, n. 144 Lysias, 29
Highet, Gilbert, 48, 62, 64
Hippocrates, 131,133 Macer, C. Licinius, 103, no
Hobhouse, Arthur, 24 Macnaghten, Lord, 12,14,89,116
214 INDEX OF NAMES

Mantidoros of Eretria, 118, D. 57 Peisistratus, 138

Marinus, Marius of Gor, 144, Pergamum, 81, 118
D- 73 Pericles, 130, 138
Martial, 34f 48, 62 Persia, 68
Matthew, St., 77 Persicus, P. Fabius, 22
Mauss, M., 26 Persius, 106
Meidias, 79 Petelia, 93
Menander, 32, 45, 56, 63, n. 97 Phainia Aromation, 58, 142
Menas of Sestos, 118, D. 55 Phanodcmus of Athens, 135.
Menelaus, 28 n. 161
Menodora of Sillyon, 73, D. 41 Philagrus, Q. Vcranius, 142
Menokritos of Samos, I32f, D. 67 Philemon, 79f
Mentes, 28 Philip II of Macedon, 35
Messene, 97 Philo, 84, 105
Metapontum, 39 Philotas, 118
Metellus, Q. 113 Piso, L., 101
Metrodorus, 57 Pius, Antoninus (Emperor), 25,
Mithridatianus, T. Piso, 93 no, 140, 145
Mitylene, 119 Plato, 42f, 56, 63f, 65f, 6yf, 69,
Mommsen, T., 103 81, 124, 127, I29f, 136
Mycalessus, 120 Plautus, 65
Pliny, the Elder, 56, n. 169
Nero 85, 108, n. 125 Pliny, the Younger, 45^ 48f, 56,
Nerva, 21, 46, 107 59> 70, 75, 76, 86, 94, royf, 109,
Nicias, 57 H2f, 114, 128, 129, 141, 143
Novaria, 143 Plutarch, 16, 41, 65, 76, 101, 123,
125
Octavius, M., 102 Polemaeanus, T. Julius, 129
Odysseus, 78f Pollio, Vedius, 22
Olbia, 51 Polybius, 48, 73, 122, 127
Opramoas, 73, n. 43 Polythrous of Teos, 121, 128,
Origen, 45 134
Oropus, 51 Posidonius, 64, 83
Owen, D. E., 13, 44, 130 Praxias, T. Flavius, 2of
Oxyrhynchus, 93 Priscus, Q. Avelius, 54, 108
Prometheus, 35
Panaetius, 33 Psammetichus, 97
Parmenion of Amorgos, 130, Ptolemies, 42, 139
D. 23
Paul, St., 30, 39, 76, 83 Quintilian, 34, 87
 INDEX OF NAMES 215
Ramsay, W. M., 73 Strabo, 85
Res Gestae (divi Augusti), 107 Straton of Pergamum, 118,137
Rhodes, 85,I22f, I32f Stratonicea, 91
Robert, L., 60, 89 Suetonius, 104,106,107
de Robcrtis, F., 72 Sulla, L. Cornelius, 102
Rome, 41, 47f, 64, 6y£, 7of, 72f, Summus, Haterius Claudius, 108
79f, 84, 8yf, 94, 100, 103, 106, Syntrophus, T. Flavius, 20,24,59
in, 113, 127, I39f, 141, 144,
n. 97 Tacitus, 54
de Romilly, Mme. J., 65 Tarentum, 39, D. 1
Rostovtzcff, M., 38, 76, 89 Tam, W. W„ nff, 69, 76
Rufus, L. Caesennius, 60, D. 28 Tarsus, 38
Rufus, Musonius, 71, 73 Telemachus, 28
Ruskin, John, 66 Tenos, 92
Teos, 121,139
Sallust, 103 Terence, 30
Salutaris, C. Vibius, 22 Tertullian, j6f
Samos, 51, 95, 101, 126, I32f Thasos, 38
Samothrace, 96 Themistodes, 98
Saturninus, L. Appuleius, 102 Theodosius I, 71
Satyros of Tenos, 58, 143 Theognis, 74
Seneca, L. Annaeus, 3of, 35, 446 Theophrastus, 49,127
46f, 55. 5<5, 74f. 79. 8if, 83, 84, Theopompos ofErctria, 142, D.69
87 Theramenes, 100
Septuagint, 30 Thetes, 116
Servandus, T. Aviasius, 143, D. 76 Thomson, H., 80
Severan dynasty, 107 Thucydides, 29,31,80,120
Severus, Alexander (Emperor), Thurii, 123
no Tiberius (Emperor), 47,55
Severus, G. Torasius, 143, D. 35 Timgad, 143
Sicily, 65, 81 Timokrates of Potamos, 127
Sirago, A., 113 Trajan, 70, i07f, lopf, 112
Sitalkes, 29 Troezen, 125
Socrates, 78, 126, 138 Troy, 79.144
Solon, 65, 125, 138
Sophocles, 79 Ulpian, 129
Soteles of Pegae, 90, D. 10
Spain, 64 Valentinian I, 140
Sparta, 67, n6f, 124 Valentinus, C. Titius of Pisaurum,
Stobaeus, 70, 82 59. D. 32
216 INDEX OF NAMES

Van Berchem, D, 123,104 Xenophon, 34, 35, 41, 69, 78, 80

Veleia, 109C H3f Xenotimos, 133
Xerxes, 98
Verona, 145
Vespasian, 129, 140
Viator, Rutilius, of Beneventum,
51
Zeus, 90
Zeus Xenios, 78
c
Victor, Aurelius, 114 Ziebarth, E., 52
Virgil, 87, 112 Zosimos'of Priene, 57, 118, 142
)

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

Academy, Plato’s 127, 129 gymnasia, 143, D. 55; oil for, "
actor publicus, 109 143; up-kccp and heating, 143 s
adoxia, 34 beggars, 64, 6sf, 68f, ySf, 85,103
aediles, 53, 101, 105, 144 benefactorlbeneficia, 36, 80,105
\ aequitas, 97 benignitas, 88
aeternitas, 113 bequests, 55, 66
rtjjqje (Spartan), 116 birthdays, distributions on, 58,59, •'
agoranoinoi, agoranomia, 53 D. 32, D. 34, D. 35, D. 40,
aionios, 38 D. 59, D. 73, D. 77
aliinenta, see family allowances, birth-control, 6yf
children building-repairs, gifts for, n. 16,
alms, 77 43, 51, D. 4, D. 9
- amenities, public, 24, 141
amicus, amicitia, 33,35ft', 75, 86,87,
141; see friendship censorship, 130
antidosis, at Athens, n. 33 charis, 35
apanthropia, 131 Charitable Uses, Elizabethan Act
arai Botizygeiai, 47^ 84, 85 of, nf; re-defined, 12, 14, 90,
archiatroi, 139, 141 116; and legal personality, 17;
arete, 32, 138 and cy pres, 18; as propaganda
assembly, gifts to members of, 92 document, 40
athletic contests, commemorative, Charity Commission, 24
\ 58 childlessness, 115
Angnstales, recipients at distribu­ children: ‘belong to state’, 125;
tions, 9i,93,D. 3i,D.35,D.4O, deformed, 70, 138; at distribu­
D. 42, D. 43 tions, 87, 9off, 93, 105, D.40,
autarkeia, 76, 81 D. 43; excluded, 96, 101;
special distributions (alimenta),
baths, free entry to, 141, 143^ in io8ff,D. 16-22, D. 41; exposure
218 1INDEX OF SUBJECTS
children—cont. Cynics, 76
of, 6gff, 73, 114; see family
allowances, education Xdecurions, 9iff
chora (Egyptian), 139 demosioi iatroi, 139
choregia, 74 ^dignitas, 32; see worth
Christianity, and charity, 13, 45, diobelia, 99
66; and immortality, 56, 60; ‘disdain’, to be avoided by donor,
and ‘worth’ of recipient, 75ft 83
77; and Stoicism, 83, 84ft 88; disabled, provision for, 100, 138
and philosophic schools, 127; distributions (corn, oil, money,
and Asklepios, 132; ‘love-feasts’ etc., frumentationes), private,
n. 102 89ff; public, 94fF; Samos, 95ft
cities (or component parts), as Samothrace, 96; lasos, 96;
recipients of gifts, 15, 2of; un­ Messene, 97; Athens, 98ft";
reliability of, 2if; honour with­ Rome, loiff; ‘multiple’, 92; for
in 36ff; homonoia, 38f; gifts as children, io8ff; motive for,
revenue, 39f; administer private "\inff; in association with magi­
gifts, 134 stracies, 89,93,105, D. 4, D. 14;
citizenship, as honos, 37; extended on birthdays, D. 32, D. 34>
by Rome, 87, 107; narrowly D. 35, D. 40, D. 59, D. 73.
confined (Sparta), 124; in ‘ideal’ D. 77; frivolous in nature, 145
states, I24f; as a reward, 126 doctors, IX, D. 62-8
cliens, 33, xoof, 102 dramatic festivals, 130
clubs, 36, 52,79; funeral clubs, 60,
72 education, elementary, 114, I2of,
coins (types, legends), 97, 103, 128; rare state-aid, I24f; higher
107,109, no and ‘university’, n6ff, 125ft
collegia, iuvenum, 128; teiiuiorum, I27ff; philosophic schools, 126;
60, 72, n. 151; see clubs informal, 130; prizes, 117; at
colonies, 68f, 76,104,124 Sparta, n6f; of slaves, 143; see
concordia, 38ft paideia, humanitas
congiaria, iO4f, iO7f elaiotioi, 53
com-supply, documents relating eleemosune: sec pity
to, D. 2-4. D. 6-8, D. n-12, elegy, emotional feeling in, 87
D. 23-4, D. 26-7, D. 29-30, eleutheriotes, 32, 74
D. 39, D. 45 emperor-cult, 55, 90
craftsmen, 124 endowment: see foundation
cura annonae, 107 entail, Roman law and, 20, 22
curatores, aquarum et Minuciae, 107; ephebes, private support for, 118,
viarum, alimentorum, in 119ft; originally military, 116;
 INDEX OF SUBJECTS 2ip

ephebes—cotit. friendship, ‘for advantage’, 32f;

public support, 116; dwindling value of, 3 3ff; basis of state, 37;
numbers, 117, H9f; decrees for, ‘of unequals’, 35, 55; and
119; non-citizens as, 119; ex­ liturgies, 37; and sharing, 26,
penses of, 118; strategoi and, 125 32, 3Sf, 123; with slaves: see
epidosis, 39f; variety of object­ slaves; with freedmen, 75, 141
ives, 43; no Roman equivalent, fruinentttmptibliaitnjhimetitationes:
47, 52; of personal service, 52, see distributions
D. 9, D. 62; background to per­
manent schemes, 95, 96 gifts, with obligation, i8ff;
eranos, n. 87 non-reciprocal: see arai Bouzy-
euergetes, 36, 51, 56, 60, 133 geiai; reciprocal, 26ff; in Ho­
exposure: see children mer, 28; criticism of, 28ff;
limited nature of criticism,
3off, 3sf; city revenue from,
family allowances, and state-com 39ff; city-administered, 15, 20,
ration, 96, 101, 105, 107; 123,135; andphilotimia, 43, 77;
aliineiita (government), io8ff; and donor’s pleasure, 44; of
extent of, 11 of; discrimination social value, 45; frivolous, 145;
against girls, U3f; means test(?), in connection with office, 15, —Z
114; motives for, niff, D. 16- 37f, 43, 47f, 55ff, 75, D. 14;
22, D. 41 pressure to secure, 52; magi­
farmers, loans to, 109 sterial service as gift, 52; confer
feasts, commemorative, 59; cost immortality, 55,127; to doctors
recorded, 59; slaves and freed­ (?), 137; commodities, VII;
men at, 88 educational, VIII
Flavian period, 112 gladiators, 43, 59, 88, 129, D.32.
foundations, in English law,'l8; ‘goodness’ of recipients; see worth
in Greek and Roman law, 18; gratia, 35
sanctions to protect, 19ft', D. 6, gravitas, 82
42, 52, 68; secure donor’s gymnasiarchs, H9f, 142; provide
memory, 24, 55ft'; Roman, 59; oil, 55#, 75, 142, D. 41
- for private distributions, 89; gymnasium, 122, 129; academic
background to Gracchan education in, 118,126; founders
scheme, 101; investment in of, 121; baths in, 143, D. 55;
land, io8f and public health, 141
freedmen, gifts to, 59, 74f; at graveside, distributions at, 58
distributions 94; in collegia
iuvenum, I28f; as doctors, 140; hedna, 29
medical care for, 141 Hellenistic age, 11, 84, 86, 88, 94,
220 . INDEX OF SUBJECTS
Hellenistic age—cont. labourers, landless, 63, 64
123, I34> 139 law-courts, pressure on wealthy,
Hellenistic comedy, 88 4of, 48; ‘pity’ within, 80, 84
Hellenistic kings, 42, 56 legal personality, in relation to
homonoia, 3 8fF, D. 54 charities, I7ff
honorary decrees, formula for, lex, Terentia-Cassiafai Bc),n. 120;
50; for public doctors, 135; for Tabulae Heracleensis, 103; Cin-
ephebes, n8f, 135 ' cia, n. 46; Julia agraria, 104
honos: see honour liberalitas, 32, 48
honour, in club and state, 36f, 49; libertas, 103
graded, 38, 5of; and ‘im- library, of gymnasia, 118; muni­
mortality’, 55fF; for descend- cipal, 129
ants, 55; titles, 60; qualification literacy, in Greek cities, 120
in distributions, 91; through liturgy, 37, 39, 109, 119; gifts in
trivial acts, n. 44 aid of, 93; antidosis, n. 33
hospes, 35 loans, interest free, 54, 85, D. 3,
hospitals, 132, 141 D. 4, D. 12, D. 39; non-
humanitas, 84, 86ff, 103; and law, repayable, lopf
87; and paideia, 86f; and Greek Lyceum, Aristotle’s, 127
distribution theories, n. 114
magistracies: see offices
iatrikon, 139 marriage-gifts, 28f
iatrosdetnosietion, 133ff; free medi- medical ethics, i3if
cal attention(?), I32ff, 137,169; medicine, forensic, 139
forgo salary, 135; commonly mercenaries, 68f
non-citizen, 136; salary equals middle-class, in classical cities, 71 f
retainer(?), 136; at Cos and miners, 65
<
Athens, 136; men of culture, tnisericordia: see pity
136, 137; fiscal immunity, 140; ,:
tv. T/O! municipal nriHe.
*mnnicinnl pride, 128
immunity limited, 140 Muses, altar of, 126
ideal state, 65^ 81
immortality, through giving, neoi, 118, 128, 129
55ff; founding o£gymnasia, 121; New Testament, 35, 71, 84
of philosophic schools, 127 non-citizens, receive benefits, 9of;
itifatnia, 34, 41, 52 exclusion, 97; as merchants, 98;
investment, small scope for, 35 in ephebeia, 119; at oil-distribu­
tions, 142; at baths, 143; see
jurymen’s pay, 100 D. 5, D. 10, D. 23, D. 33, D. 55,
D. 56, D. 64, D. 65, D. 67,
kosmetes, of ephebes, 119 D. 68, D. 71, D. 75
 INDEX OF SUBJECTS 221

offices (public), acceptance of as 9of; contend with slaves, 94,

a gift, 52, D. 9; calling for in public distributions, 9sff;
expenditure, 89, 93, 105, D. 4; in diobelia, 100; how advan­
inducement to hold, 93 taged, 98f; produce children,
\oil, uses of, 115, 118; reservoirs, not tax, 112; and aliinenta, 114;
142; foundations for, 142; in education, VIII; medical treat­
baths, 143; for clubs, 52ff ment, IX; benefit from gym­
Old Testament, 77 nasia, baths, I4iff
oliganthropia, 73, ii3f Poor Law, Elizabethan, 6y(
Olympian gods, 132 praefecti alitnentorum, in
orphans, 7jf praefecti frumenti dandi, 107
ostracism, 120 priesthoods, lavish expenditure,
52ft 89f
paideia, and hntnanitas, 86 property, private, necessary for -K
paidonotnoi, 120,122ft D. 47, D. 48 gifts, 42ft in colonies, 68
paroikoi: sec non-citizens providentia, imperial, 113
philanthropes,philanthropia, 35, 38, proxenos, 51, 133
42, 60, 80, 118, 122, 137; and ptochos: see beggars
htnnanitas, 87 piiellae Faiistinianae, no
philodoxia, 43, 77ft
philos, philia, 33, 36, 37; see
recruitment, legionary, Ii2ff
friendship
religion, Greek and Roman, 89ft
philotitnia, 43, 77ft 125
pietas, 87, 92, in, 112 ‘oriental’, 8of, 9of, m; see
Christianity
pity, as a motive for charity, 12,
reverentia for fellow-men, 87
61, 77ft; in Greek tragedy, 78ft
rites at grave, $6f
81; altars of, 80; in law-courts,
Roman character, meanness, 48;
80; and justice, 81, 85; and fear,
greed, 94; cruelty, 88, 129;
81; reference to onepitaphs, 84;
pietas, 87, 92, in, n. 97; see
in democratic cities, 85
hntnanitas
poll-taxes, charities for, 92
‘the poor’, the term in classical
usage, 62; in ‘oriental’ usage, sanatoria, 141
64; as colonists, 68; and family sanctions, protecting public funds,
limitation, 69S; in fifth-century 21ft 95
Athens, 72; assimilation to sewage, 144
slaves, 72, 75, 76; and the gods, sick, state com ration secured for
77ft not favoured in private the, 96
distributions, 89; discriminated sitometria, 97 f
against, 91ft at sacrificial feasts, sitonai, 53
 222 INDEX OF SUBJECTS

slaves, and failure to repay gifts,, as hostels for sick, 132

28; poor assimilated to, 72f, tesserae (‘corn-tickets’), 106
74f, 86, 143; revolts of 81; as theorikon, 98f
friends, 86; humanitas and, 88; thiasos, 51
at feasts and distributions, 88, time: see honour
90, D. 10, D. 33; manumission town-councillors, privileged at
of, 90, 103, iosf, n. 99; and distributions, 9if, D. 27, D. 35,
Augustan legislation, 112; in D. 40-43; expenses incurred by,
collegia iuvenum, 128; in collegia 93
tenuiorum, D. 28; as doctors, traders, foreign, 66, 7if, 98, 124
140; medical attention for, 141; tyranny, 37
at gymnasia, 143, D. 71; at
baths, I43f, D. 75 unemployment, law against, 65
^sportulae, 92
-J. statues, benefactor pays for, 50, valetudinaria, 141
1 D. 10, D. 26, D. 43, D. 46, D.
55; feasts at dedication, D. 26, war-captives, 84, D. 9
D. 27, D. 40; re-used, 54; war-funds, 43
scene of distributions, 58; for water supply, 145
kostnetes, 119 wealthy, monopoly of, 7iff
Stoicism, 33, 71; and pity, 8iff; women (wives), recipients in
religious expression, 83,87; and distributions, 9off; at baths, 143
benignitas, 88 work, manual, 75
suinma honoraria, 38, n. 33, D. 58 ‘worth’, of recipient, 67, 74ff, 78.
84#, 91
teachers’ pay, 121, 126
temples, subscriptions for, 42, 51; xenos, xenia, 29, 35, 78