ABSTRACT
One’s opportunities in life in the ancient world differed markedly depending on whether one was a member of the group of the wealthy and respectable or in the much larger group described as the ‘humble’ or the poor (see Chapter 1). This basic division into two classes underlies, for example, the interpretation of the probable outcome of dreams (6.1). But as ‘poor’ is simply a relative term in comparison with the ‘rich’, it covers a wide range from people whom we might consider well off (for instance, the satirist Juvenal talking about himself), to craftsmen and vendors (pauperes), to the completely indigent (egeni). The latter are even mocked as too poor to be called poor (6.2). In philosophical/ethical writing, it is not uncommon for poverty to be praised as representing a freedom from the dependence on material goods that afflicts the wealthy (6.3; cf. 6.9). This reflects the nature of our sources, who would not consider themselves ‘poor’ (except in relation to their peers), and whose attitude to the poor is very much based on the maintenance of their own status. Schemes that might appear to offer support for the underprivileged, such as Trajan’s alimentary scheme or even the grain ‘dole’ (annona) at Rome, are open to all members of society and select from ‘worth’ rather than need (6.4, 6.5). Group solidarity meant that the wealthy would first support their own (6.6) and that their philanthropy was likely to be based on personal display rather than the result of concern for the needy (an attitude often criticised in Christian sources: cf. 6.15).
