Poverty in ancient Rome

Modern scholars of ancient Rome have found difficulty in defining who was considered to be living in poverty due to their lack of significant coverage in the historical record, and the difficulty in defining the lines between poverty and middle class. Roman writers describe the poorer parts of the population as unvirtuous and immoral masses who were threats to the nation and unconcerned with the values of the Roman world. Ancient Roman Christian depictions tend to depict the poor as more sympathetic and often call for the wealthy to help them. There were other efforts to help the poor, such as the Cura Annonae, a policy which redistributed grain. The Roman poor also had limited rights. They were unable to access political offices, had higher tax rates, and were unable to afford most status symbols.

Definition

Defining poverty in ancient Rome can be difficult. Unlike the modern conceptualization of poverty, the ancient Romans did not regard poverty as an unacceptable condition. The conditions of most people in the Roman world resembled modern ideas of poverty; ancient Rome was a largely agrarian, rural society afflicted with high rates of infant mortality, poor diets, and low literacy rates.^[1] Ancient Rome may have lacked a distinctively poor social class. Poverty in the ancient world was possibly a fatal, unsustainable condition, preventing the development of a poor social class.^[2] Roman poverty can be defined by the lack of presence in the historical record. Archaeological evidence of poorer classes and people of low social status in ancient Rome is rare.^[3]

Amongst Roman citizens, there existed various different social distinctions. In many cases, these strata were organized according to political power more than economic standing; for example, the Patricians earned greater political influence due to their claimed descent from the first 100 senators of ancient Rome while the Plebeians were the common citizens of Rome with less political significance. Similarly, the honestiores and humiliores were a Roman social distinction which classified the holders of high offices such as senators as honestiores and the rest of the population as humiliores.^[4] Roman writers typically do not differentiate between different social strata amongst the poorer plebeian classes, instead dividing society into the wealthy upper-class patricians or equestrians and the lower-class masses.^[5] Poverty itself may have been partially defined by the lack of political power; during the Roman Republic, only a small fraction of the massive population was truly capable of partaking in or influencing the political process either because they lacked the legal ability to vote due to non-citizenship or because they lacked the practical capacity to deliver their ballot.^[6]

Another uncertainty is the presence of a Roman middle class. Their society may have consisted of a handful of wealthy individuals which made up 0.6% of the population, an army that made up 0.4% of the population, and the poor masses that made up 99% of the populace. Other scholars, such as William Harris divided Roman society into three economic classes: those that relied on other's work, those that were well-off although they still worked, and the slaves and menial laborers. However, there is little archaeological evidence that can pinpoint who belonged to these classes.^[7] Landownership may also have distinguished the poor from the wealthy in much of the Roman countryside. Those with significant amounts of quality land capable of yielding good crops were undoubtedly much wealthier than those without such luxuries. Such persons would have been freed from concerns affecting poorer civilians, such as food insecurity.^[8] Land was widely used as security for loans, making it harder for landless people to acquire wealth. Urbanized settings contained populations of landless, yet not necessarily impoverished, people; artisans and laborers in towns or cities could enrich themselves through their work, or at least benefit from food security.^[9]

Social status and stigma

Wealth in ancient Rome was a status symbol, and many expensive objects, such as large houses were also status symbols.^[10] In the Roman Republic political privileges were often restricted to the wealthy, although most rights and privileges were based on citizenship status, rather than economic status. The Roman military typically employed the poorer members of the Roman population. By the end of a campaign, the poverty-stricken populace was in a position to demand reforms or relief.^[11] During earlier periods of Roman history the poor were considered to be virtuous and poverty was considered honorable. Stoic philosophers such as Seneca and Epicurus believed that poverty could lead to contentment with life and that increasing wealth did not reduce the problems a person suffered from, but merely altered it.^[12] The Cynics believed poverty was a more desirable condition than wealth.^[13][14]

By the late Republic, the poor were considered to be beneath others and to be lower in prestige and virtue than other social castes. Writers described them as incapable of any lasting virtue. They were considered to be a mass of peasants that was easily swayed and a threat to political stability.^[15] Roman writers also considered the poor to only be concerned with "bread and circuses," rather than the intricacies and values of Roman society. Martial's epigrams compare the poor to dogs.^[16] Roman cities and settlements were typically designed to geographically separate the living spaces of the rich from those of the poor. This social stigma likely reinforced the economic inequality and the social stratification present in ancient Rome. Wealthy Romans were terrified of poverty, and the humiliations and social ostracization that came along with it.^[17][18] By the reign of Marcian in the 5th century poverty was no longer seen as shameful.^[19]

Financial aid

The Cura Annonae was a program designed to aid the population of Rome.^[20] It was a grain redistribution program that gave free or subsidized grain.^[21]In the 2nd century BCE, Roman magistrates sometimes supplied grain from the provinces to the aediles who managed civilian markets in the city of Rome itself. The aediles would then cheaply distribute the food products, helping the magistrates to gain popular support. This practice set the precedent for the passing of the lex Sempronia frumentaria in 123 BCE, a law which established a ration of cheap grain available for all male Roman citizens above the age of 14, possibly 11. Augustus later reformed the system, delegating responsibility for managing the grain supply to 2—later doubled to 4—senatorialfrumenti dandi. Between 8 and 14 CE, the grain supply came to be headed by the equestrian praefectus annonae.^[22] Those eligible for the Cura Annonae were likely also eligible for the Congiarium, a gift of money delivered by the emperor to the populous.^[23] Philanthropic acts could also be performed through the alimenta, a welfare program designed to aid orphans and poor children in Roman Italy.^[24] The program was started by Nerva and funded by wealth gained through the Dacian wars, philanthropy, and taxation.^[25] Although it was ended by Aurelian after his triumph.^[26][27]

Although in ancient Rome the concept of a legal person existed in the form of collegia, this principle did not extend to charitable organizations. For wealthy Romans to engage in philanthropy, donations had to be offered in the form of a gift or through a will.^[28] In some circumstances, wealthy Romans aimed to establish funds in the form of legislation proposed to local government.^[29] The 1st-century BCE Greek geographer Strabo described supplies to the poor in Rhodes being funded by wealthy philanthropists: "Accordingly, the people are supplied with provisions and the needy are supported by the well-to‑do, by a certain ancestral custom."^[29][30] An ancient inscription from Acmonia recounts a legislative proposal by an individual named Titus Flavius Praxias to, in 85 CE, to allocate the funds earned from select pieces of property for an annual banquet.^[29][31] Emperor Nerva permitted all local to receive gifts; by the reign of Hadrian all stipulations associated with donations were enforceable.^[32] However, the local government retained the right to reallocate the provided funds for other purposes.^[33] According to ancient records, an individual Gaius Vibius Salutaris attempted to create a fund for the six tribes of Ephesus. Although at least half the funds were used for other purposes.^[31][33]

Usually, ancient Roman philanthropy was motivated by a desire to receive something in return.^[34] Latin terms such as obligatus, nexus, and damnatus all were used to describe debtors, although they initially referred to the recipients of a gift who therefore owed a return on the favor.^[35] The 2nd-century BCE Roman comic playwright Terence mocked the reciprocal nature of Roman gift-fiving: "this reminder to the forgetful of a service rendered is almost a reproach."^[36][37] John Chrysostom, a 4th-century CE Christian apologist, rejected the idea that gifts should only be offered with the expectation of a reward: "Do not give to the rich who can give back."^[38]

Philanthropic acts were important for presenting oneself as a generous and virtuous member of society; if a wealthy Roman did not partake in philanthropy, they would bring infamia—a loss of social standing—onto themselves.^[39] According to Plutarch, a 1st-century CE Greek historian, the masses "are more hostile to a rich man who does not give them a share of his private possessions than to a poor man who steals from the public funds" as they believe that the former’s conduct is due to arrogance and contempt of them, but the latter’s to necessity."^[40][41] Cicero, a 1st-century BCE Roman statesmen, claimed that the improvement of social status motivated most altruistic acts:^[42] "We may also observe that a great many people do many things that seem to be inspired more by a spirit of ostentation than by heart-felt kindness; for such people are not really generous but are rather influenced by a sort of ambition to make a show of being open-handed."^[43] It was common practice for people who had funded the construction of buildings to leave a marker announcing their role in the construction process. This practice was designed to boost the popularity and reputation of the benefactor, who, due to their philanthropy, could have a statue depicting them built in their honor. One inscription from Gytheio dated to 161-169 CE describes the conditions attached to a philanthropic donation; the donor recorded the gift upon three marble stones, which they asked to be publicly displayed in the local market, in the Temple of Caesar, and in the gymnasium.^[44][45] In some circumstances, older statues were reused and the names on older inscriptions were replaced to allow for the monuments to honor new benefactors. Cicero commented upon this whilst serving as governor as Cilicia, declaring that the "false inscriptions" of statues which were truly dedicated to others.^[46] Tacitus, a 1st-century CE Roman historian, describes an accusation against the proconsul of Bithynia, Granius Marcellus, which claimed that he substituted the head of a statue of Augustus with a bust of Tiberius.^[47][48] The good reputation the wealthy would gather through these efforts allowed for them to gain favors from other wealthy Romans. In Pro Plancius, a legal defense of Gnaeus Plancius in 54 BCE, Cicero asks "who ever can have, or who ever had such resources in himself as to be able to stand without many acts of kindness on the part of many friends?"^[49] This statement implies that the gift-giving and the repayment of gifts were of significant economic benefit to the wealthy.^[50] Political ambitions also motivated philanthropy: patricians offered plebeians services such as legal defenses, donations of food or money known as sportula,^[51][52][53] supplies of material goods, or invitations to feasts in exchange for support during elections.^[54]

Cicero critiqued the selfish motivations behind many charitable acts in ancient Rome;^[55] he instead promoted acts of genuine generosity: "there is nothing so characteristic of narrowness and littleness of soul as the love of riches; and there is nothing more honorable and noble than to be indifferent to money, if one does not possess it, and to devote it to beneficence and liberality, if one does possess it."^[56] Cicero utilized the Roman concept of humanitas in his writings, which had, by the 1st-century CE, acquired an new meaning referring to a level of concern for the welfare of others.^[57] Ideas of sacredness of humanity found their way into stoic schools of thought; the 1st-century CE Stoic philosopher Seneca exclaimed that "man is a sacred thing to man,"^[57][58] Seneca believed that the "wise man" will "stretch out his hand to the shipwrecked mariner, will offer hospitality to the exile, and alms to the needy—not in the offensive way in which most of those who wish to be thought tender-hearted fling their bounty to those whom they assist and shrink from their touch, but as one man would give another something out of the common stock"^[59] Seneca condemned unrestricted generosity stemming from pity, calling pity "a disease of the mind" although "many praise it as a virtue, and say that a good man is full of pity."^[60] These views of Seneca likely reflect the ideas of Graeco-Roman philosophy; Aristotle believed that pity partially stemmed from fear that similar misfortunes might befall oneself. Seneca may have felt that pity, since it stemmed from fear, upstaged the stoic ideal autarcheia, or being untroubled by emotion.^[61] His condemnation of the emotion of pity does not necessarily indicate he rejected all charitable acts.^[62] Seneca described instances of individuals feeling obligated to aid a poor person due to pity. He describes an instance of a mother being compelled to aid a beggar due to the presence of an exposed child. According to Seneca, the woman imagined her own son in the position of the child.^[63][64] Similarly, John Chrysostom alleged some to have blinded their own children, chewed old shoes, attached sharp nails to their heads, dwelled in frozen pools with bare stomachs, and "different things yet more horrid than these" to make them more sympathetic.^[65][66] The 1st-century BCE Roman poet Horace describes a beggar who attempts to attract attention by pretending to have a broken leg.^[67][68]

However, the kindness of these philosophers did not necessarily extend to all the impoverished of ancient Rome; instead, they believed that all of the beneficiaries of this aid should be respectable members of the population with good moral character who would use the aid to try and escape poverty.^[69][70][71] Seneca advises wealthy persons to limit their charity to "good men or to those whom it may make into good men."^[72] Plutarch believed that charity could prolong the suffering of the poor by encouraging laziness, describing a Spartan telling a beggar "But if I gave to you, you would proceed to beg all the 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."^[73] Plautus expressed the same point more succinctly: "A man who gives a beggar something to eat or drink does him bad service: what he gives him gets wasted and he prolongs his life in misery."^[73][74] Legislation from the Codex Theodosianus dated to June 20, 382, ordered an examination of the beggars throughout Rome. They decreed that enslaved beggars of no disability were to be granted to those who informed upon them; freeborn beggars of no disability were made permanent coloni, or tenant farmers, of those who informed upon them.^[75][76] Upper-class Romans were far more likely to help other members of the upper-class than they were to help poorer civilians.^[77] Juvenal, a 2nd-century CE Roman poet, describes how mobs of poor individuals harassed the carriages of the rich if they slowed down at Via Appia in Ariccia. Wealthier citizens may have been motivated to aid this people due the fear of being physically assaulted or publicly shamed.^[78] Certain groups did argue in favor of financial aid for the poor Such as the Cynics, Stoics, and Christians.^[79]

Causes

The poor in Roman society had little or no access to land or property. Those who owned land were capable of using that land to generate more wealth or cultivate resources. Land was also the most common item used as security in loans. Poorer civilians were often relegated to working alongside slaves, although this provided an irregular source of income. Debt was another major factor that contributed to ancient Roman poverty. Loans usually had high interest rates and were required to be paid back under threat of harsh penalties. The Roman government imposed high rates of taxation on the poorer parts of the Roman population, while the wealthy paid little in taxes.^[80] Poor Romans also faced difficulties finding jobs with adequate pay. It was extremely improbable for a worker to find enough work to properly support a family of three.^[81]

Effects

Poor Romans often sold themselves or their child into slavery. The disabled population of Rome had to rely on the goodwill of other people to survive. According to Ammianus Marcellinus, a Roman historian, the Roman poor lived in buildings' crevices, tabernae, or vaults beneath theaters or circuses.^[82] They also lived in low-quality apartment buildings called insulae.^[83] Poor Romans were especially vulnerable during crises, being vulnerable to food shortages or being the victims of crime.^[84]

The poorest parts of the Roman population were unable to afford most forms of social interaction and demonstrations of status, such as baths, dinners, or collegia.^[85] Poor Romans were barred from political positions and certain activities. Emperor Constantine enacted a law prohibiting unvirtuous women from marrying high-status men. Poor individuals in general were banned from marrying people above their social status. It was unclear if the poor belonged to this group. Roman law did not define the poor as a group. Poorer Romans were also buried in puticuli, which were mass burial sites.^[86] It was also difficult for the poor to find jobs due to slavery. People would purchase slaves rather than pay workers.^[87][88]

Christianity

Christians in ancient Rome sought to highlight the poorer members of Roman society and to bring attention to their struggles. John Chrysostom, a saint, a Church father, and the Archbishop of Constantinople argued that if the wealthy were to redistribute their wealth and fortune amongst the populace "you would have difficulty in finding one poor person for every fifty or even every hundred of the others." Paulinus' epistulae describe Christians organizing mass events designed to provide alms and gifts for the poor. However, it is possible he made this story up. Christian interpretations of the poor in ancient Rome didn't differentiate between differing groups of poor people. They depicted them as a homogenous mass in line with previous negative outlooks on those stuck in poverty. However Christian depictions did not portray poverty as immoral or unvirtuous. Augustine, a Catholic theologian, described beggars as immoral criminals who acted in unvirtuous ways and were far from God. However he also portrayed obsession with wealth and accruing money as like begging and only resulting in dissatisfaction with life. Augustine also believed that Jesus taught that people should aid beggars, and wrote that people should redirect their stigma from the poor, and towards the wealthy. Jesus himself was frequently associated with poverty.^[89]

References

Bibliography