Page:1902 Encyclopædia Britannica - Volume 26 - AUS-CHI.pdf/717

This page needs to be proofread.


CHARITY

AN;D

mandments” of Hesiod, beside the duty towards the stranger and the orphan. These and other references to the Pythagoreans suggest that they, possibly in common with other mystics, preached the higher religion of marriage and social life, and thus inspired a deeper social feeling, which eventually allied itself with the Christian movement. Next, as to parents and children : the son was under an obligation to support his father, subject, after Solon’s time, to the condition that he had taught him a trade ; and after Solon’s time the father had no claim for support from an illegitimate son. “ The possession of children,” it was said (Arist. Econ.),“ is not by nature for the public good only, but also for private advantage. For what the strong may gain by their toil for the weak, the weak in their old age receive from the strong. . . . Thus is the nature of each, the man and the woman, prearranged by the Divine Being for a life in common.” Honour to parents is “ the first and greatest and oldest of all debts ” (Plato, Laws, 717). The child has to care for the parent in his old age. “ Nemesis, the minister of justice (dike), is appointed to watch over all these things.” And “if a man fail to adorn the sepulchre of his dead parents, the magistrates take note of it and inquire” (Xen. Mem. ii. 14). The heightened conception of marriage implies a fuller interpretation of the mutual relations of parent and child as well; both become sacred. Then as to orphans. Before Solon’s time (594 b.c.) the property of any member of the clan-family who died without children went to the clan; and after his time, when citizens were permitted to leave their property by will, the property of an intestate fell to the clan. This arrangement carried with it corresponding duties. Through the clan-family provision was made for orphans. Any member of the clan had the legal right to claim an orphan member in marriage ; and, if the nearest agnate did not marry her, he had to give her a dowry proportionate to the amount of his own property. Later, there is evidence of a growing sense of responsibility in regard to orphans. HippodamuS (about 443 B.c.), in his scheme of the perfected state (Arist. Pol. 1268), suggested that there should be public magistrates to deal with the affairs of orphans (and strangers) ; and Plato, his contemporary, writes of the duty of the state and of the guardian towards them very fully. Orphans, he proposes {Laws, 927), should be placed under the care of public guardians. “ Men should have a fear of the loneliness of orphans . . . and of the souls of the departed, who by nature take a special care of their own children. ... A man should love the unfortunate orphan (boy or girl) of whom he is guardian as if he were his own child; he should be as careful and diligent in the management of the orphan’s property as of his own—-or even more careful still.” To relieve the poverty of citizens and to preserve the citizenhood were objects of public policy and of charity. In Crete and Sparta the citizens were wholly supported out of the public resources. In Attica the system was different. The citizens were aided in various ways, in which, as often happens, legal or official and voluntary or private methods worked on parallel lines. The means were (1) legal enactment for release of debts; (2) emigration ; (3) the supply of corn; (4) poor relief for the infirm, and relief for the children of those fallen in war ; (5) emoluments; (6) voluntary public service, separate gifts and liberality ; (7) loan societies. (1) In 594 b.c. the labouring class in Attica were overwhelmed with debts and mortgages, and their persons pledged as security. Only by a sharp reform was it possible to preserve them from slavery. This Solon effected. He annulled their obligations, abolished the pledge of the person, and gave the labourers the franchise. And, in addition to this, besides the laws above mentioned, he gave power to the Areopagus to inquire from what

CHARITIES

661

sources each man obtained the necessaries of life, and to punish those who did not work. His action and that of his successor, Peisistratus (560 b.c.), suggests that the class of poor (a-poroi) was increasing, and that by the efforts of these two men the social decline of the people was avoided or at least postponed. Peisistratus lent the poor money that they might maintain themselves in husbandry. He wished, it is said (Arist. Ath. Pol. xvi.), to enable them to earn a moderate living, that they might be occupied with their own affairs, instead of spending their time in the city or neglecting their work in order to visit it. As rent for their land they paid a tenth of the produce. (2) Akin to this policy was that of emigration. Athenians, selected in some instances from the two lowest political classes, emigrated, though still retaining their rights of citizenship. In 570-565 B.c. Salamis was annexed and divided into lots and settled, and later Pericles settled more than 2750 citizens in the Chersonese and elsewhere—practically a considerable section of the whole body of citizens. “ By this means,” says Plutarch, “he relieved the state of numerous idle agitators and assisted the necessitous.” In other states this expedient was frequently adopted. (3) A third method was the supply of corn at reduced rates—a method similar to that adopted, as we shall see, at Rome, Constantinople, and elsewhere. The maintenance of the mass of the people depended on the corn fleets. There were public granaries, where large stores were laid up at the public expense. A portion of all cargoes of corn was retained at Athens and in other ways importation was promoted. Exportation was forbidden. Public donations and distributions of corn were frequent, and in times of scarcity rich citizens made large contributions with that object. The distributions were made to adult citizens of eighteen years of age and upwards, whose names were on the registers. (4) In addition to this there was a system of public relief for those who were unable to earn a livelihood on account of bodily defects and infirmities. The qualification was a property test. The property of the applicant had to be shown to be of a value of not more than three minas (say £12). Socrates, it may be noted, adopts the same method of estimating his comparative poverty (Xen. Econ. ii. 6), saying that his goods would realize about five minse (or about twenty guineas). The senate examined the case, and the ecclesia awarded the bounty, which amounted to 1 or 2 obols a day, rather more than l|d. or 3d.—out-door relief, as we might say, amounting at most to about Is. 9d. a week. There was also a fund for the maintenance of the children of those who had fallen in war, up to the age of eighteen. (5) But the main source of support was the receipt of emoluments for various public services. This was not relief, though it produced in the course of time the effect of relief. It was rather the Athenian method of supporting a governing class of citizens. The inner political history of Athens is the history of the extension of the franchise to the lower classes of citizens, with the privileges of holding office and receiving emoluments. About 650 B.C., at a time when trade was increasing, the citizens were classified on the basis of property. The rich retained the franchise and the right of holding office ; the middle classes obtained the franchise ; the fourth or labouring class gained neither. By the reforms of Cleisthenes (509 b.c.) the clan-family and the phratry were set aside for the derm or parish, a geographical division superseding the social. Finally, about 478 b.c., when all had acquired the franchise, the right to hold office also was obtained by the fourth class. These changes coincided with a period of economic progress. The rate of interest was high, usually 12 per cent. ; and in trading and bottomry the returns were much higher. A small capital at this interest soon produced comparative wealth ; and simultaneously prices were falling. Then came the reaction. “After the Peloponnesian war” (432 to 404 b.c. ), writes Professor Jebb, “the wealth of the country ceased to grow, as population had ceased to grow about 50 years sooner. The rich went on accumulating ; the poor, having no means of enriching themselves by enterprise, were for the most part occupied in watching for some chance of snatching a larger share j of the stationary total.” Thus the poorer classes in a time of prosperity had won the power which they were able to turn to their own account afterwards. A period of economic pressure followed, coupled with a decline in the population ; no return to the land was feasible, nor was emigration ; the people had become town-folk inadaptable to new uses ; decreasing vitality and energy were marked by a new temper, the “pauper” temper, unsettled, idle, and grasping, and political power was utilized to obtain relief. The relief was forthcoming, but it was of no. avail to stop the general decline. The state, it might almost be said, in giving scope to the assertion of the spirit of dependence, had ruined the self-regarding energy on which both family and state alike depended. The emoluments were diverse. The number of citizens was not large ; the functions in which citizens could take part were numerous ; and when payment was forthcoming the poorer citizens pressed in to exercise their rights (cf. Arist. Pol. 1293a). All Athenian citizens could attend the public