Observations On Poverty and Poor in Plato and Aristotle, Cicero and Seneca

Translated from German to English - www.onlinedoctranslator.
com
KLIO 92 2010 2 305-330
S.tefan Kstill (Bamberg)
Observations on poverty and poor in Plato

and Aristotle, Cicero and Seneca
1. Preliminary remarks
Ancient historical research on the role and evaluation of poverty and the poor in
antiquity is quite unanimous in taking the view that in Greco-Roman times there
was a clear antagonism between pagan sources on the one hand and Christian
sources on the other.1 If pre-Christian literature - so it communis opinio -
consider the poor to be worth mentioning at all, they generally paint a negative
picture of them and stigmatize them as a source of social unrest and morally
degraded. For the most part, however, our sources are characterized by a far-
reaching ignorance of the phenomenon of poverty and its causes. Therefore,
Christianity brought a radical change when it placed charity at the center and
turned to the poor and the problem of poverty. The position of pre-Christian Greco-
Roman antiquity is clearly understood as homogeneous, as some exemplary
quotations show: In the New Pauly, Johannes Hahn speaks of A. [rmut], which was
barely perceived by Greeks and Romans as a social and economic problem.2 and
Bolkestein comes to the conclusion in his study of pre-Christian charity and poor
relief, which is still considered a standard work: "The morality of Greeks and
Romans knows no comparison between rich and poor."3 Hans Kloft, too, who is to
be cited as the last example, takes the position that both Greek and Latin sources
in pre-Christian times unanimously took the same stance on poverty: Inability and
a certain bourgeois identity, including the resulting mentality, did not come into
focus. The problem became
1 Relevant literature is only mentioned here: H. Bolkestein, Charity and poor relief in pre-Christian
antiquity. A contribution to the problem of “Morals and Society”, Utrecht 1939; H. Bolkestein et al.,
sv Poverty I (assessment of A.), in: RAC I, 1950, 698– 705; H. Bruhns, Poverty and Society in Rome, in: H.
Mommsen / W. Schulze (ed.), On the misery of manual labor. Problems of historical lower class research,
Stuttgart 1981, 27– 49; JJ Esser,De pauperum cura apud Romanos, Kampen 1902; J. Hahn, sv Armut, in: DNP II,
1997, 17-20; AR Hands, Charities and social aid in Greece and Rome, London et al. 1968,
especially 62-76; H. Th. Mayer, Charity in the western Roman empire, Washington 1973; M. Prell, Socio-
Economic Studies on Poverty in Ancient Rome. From the Gracchen to Emperor Diocletian, Stuttgart
1997; LA Vaskovics et al., Sv Armut, in: Staatslexikon I,7th1985, 342-352, here: 347f .; P. Veyne, Bread
and Games. Social power and political rule in antiquity, Frankfurt et al. 1988.
2 Hahn (note 1) 18. - similar to Bruhns (note 1) 28 and 41f.
3 Bolkestein (note 1) 420.
Brought to you by | University of Georgia Libraries

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/2/15 1:56 AM
306 S. Kstill, Observations on Poverty and the Poor
[] seen primarily as an individual and moral. "4th In view of the social, cultural,
political and philosophical heterogeneity and upheavals of this long period of time,
such a homogeneity in the attitude towards poverty and the poor from the Greek
classical period through Hellenism and the Roman Republic to the imperial era
would be somewhat astonishing.
The present article would therefore like to try to differentiate this rather general
picture; For this, however, the entire source material of the pre-Christian literature
should not and cannot be worked through again, but there is a conscious
restriction to the philosophical and state-theoretical works of four authors who
may be regarded as groundbreaking for the positions and development of ancient
philosophy and state theory: Plato and Aristotle for the Greek, Cicero and Seneca
for the Roman world. Instead of juxtaposing pagan and Christian sources, the
following compares the attitude of Greek philosophy with that of Roman
philosophy on the question of poverty. The analysis will be based on modern
definitions of poverty, by means of which the statements and the often
problematic terminology of our sources can be better classified. It should again be
expressly pointed out that we should only be concerned with the sensitivity and
mentality of the four authors mentioned towards the issue of poverty and not with
concrete measures for poor relief in pre-Christian times.
2. Definition and terminology

As common as the term “poverty” seems to be, it defies a generally binding
definition. For example, those who are considered poor in an affluent society are
rich compared to the population in developing countries, and those who are poor
from the perspective of the rich upper class of a society may themselves feel more
like a middle class. These two examples may suffice to illustrate one of the two
main approaches to a definition of poverty that are encountered in the relevant
literature and have already been usefully applied in ancient historical research:5
the distinction between absolute and relative poverty. The absolutely poor live
below the subsistence level and must, as it were, fear for their daily survival,
whereas the relatively poor have their daily livelihood, but their standard of living
is well below that of a richer comparison group in the same society. The present
article will not only focus on the absolutely poor, but also on the relatively poor,
since the terminological distinction of our sources is not always as clear as the
ideal-typical differentiation (more on this later) would lead one to expect, but
above all because the The boundary between the two states is often fluid. One
must not forget that in view of the social security of the broad population that
hardly existed in antiquity, a relatively poor person could quickly slide into absolute
poverty, be it through an individual stroke of fate (death of the breadwinner,
illness) or through collective catastrophes (poor harvests, wars). In the latter case,
very many or even all parts of the population may have
4th H.
Kloft, thoughts on the Ptochós, in: I. Weiler (ed.), Social marginal groups and outsiders in antiquity,
Graz 1988, 81– 106, here: 94. - similar to K. Thraede, Social behavior and welfare in the Greco-Roman
antiquity (late republic and early imperial times ), in: GK Schäfer / Th. Strohm (ed.), Diakonie - biblical
foundations and orientations, Heidelberg 1990, 44– 63, here: 57.
5 For the following see Hahn (note 1); Prell (note 1) 10–17; Vaskovics (note 1) 342.

Authenticated
KLIO 92 (2010) 2 307
So far they have been able to make a living independently, suddenly hit by severe
impoverishment with correspondingly devastating consequences for the entire city
or area. When our sources think about measures that are supposed to improve the
situation of the relatively poor, they consequently treat the phenomenon of
absolute poverty indirectly, precisely because such measures help at least not to
increase the number of the absolutely poor.
The second important definition of poverty differentiates between economic and
social poverty and thus takes into account the fact that poverty not only has a
material dimension, but can also consist in the fact that individual people or
groups within a society - often as a result of economic poverty - have little
appreciation and influence . If both aspects can be separated from each other at all
(which is often not the case in our sources in terms of content and terminology),
the social aspect will always play a role for our question, although the material side
should be the focus.
Both the Greek and Latin languages have several terms for “poor” (or “poor” /
“poverty”), some of which have different shades of meaning, some of which are used
synonymously.6th The word family is predominantly encountered in Greek peŁ mg |,
which, however, does not refer to the absolute poor, but to people who are “relatively
poor” only from the point of view of the upper class, such as craftsmen, small traders or
day laborers. PeŁ mgse | are therefore those who live from their own work, without
having to rely on outside help, but also without being able to amass a fortune that
would enable them to live a leisure life. Same goes forapoqo | and e¤ mdegŁ | with their
derivatives, which also mean relatively, not absolutely, poor. In addition, the term
containspeŁ mgse | a political component, as it also includes the broad masses of the
people (dg “lo |) denotes, in contrast to the rich upper class, the pkotŁ rioi, stands. This
includes the word familypeŁ mg | Both approaches to the definition of poverty outlined
at the beginning: on the one hand the facet of material poverty, on the other hand that
of social poverty, whereby the characteristics of the second facet depend on the
respective political system, because in a democracy the political influence of the peŁ
mgse | be very big!
Finally, the term describes the absolutely poor psxvoŁ |, which is usually
translated as “beggar” and is found much less often in our sources than peŁ mg |.
The Greek peŁ mg | corresponds to the term in Latin pauper, but without the
political component of meaning. Apauper is therefore a relatively poor man who
has to work to face everyday life, but does have his livelihood and maybe even has
two or three slaves of his own. In Latin, on the other hand, the word families
describe absolute povertyinops and egens / indigenous, which mean something
like “needy”, “suffering from want” and thus aim at a state in which one is
dependent on outside help. This also applies to themendicus, who is completely
destitute and is thus at the bottom of the 'hierarchy of poverty'. Theremendicus
does not necessarily mean a person who actually begs, this term includes not only
the actual beggar, but rather in a broader sense the beggar poor.
6th Forthe following see Bolkestein (note 1) 181– 185, 327– 329 and 339– 341; Esser (note 1) 275– 290; Hahn (note
1) 18; J. Hemelrijk,PemiŁ a en Pkot "so |, Utrecht 1925 (Ndr. New York 1979), 52-54 and 140f .; Kloft (note 4); G.
Milanese, Note sul lessico latino della ricchezza e della povertà, in: G. Urso (ed.), Moneta, mercanti, banchieri. I
precedenti greci e romani dell'Euro, Pisa 2003, pp. 245-255; Prell (note 1) 44–49.

Authenticated
Finally, there is the word family tenuis to name, which also carries the meaning of
"needy" in itself, but aims more at the social than at the material dimension.
3. Plato
In Plato's writings7th In addition to the use of poverty vocabulary in the proper
sense, there is also one in the improper, ie metaphorical, sense. Thus Plato
explains that the ideal government is that of philosophers, because they share in
true happiness because of their virtue (et¤ dailomiŁ a) and therefore be truly rich; the
state, on the other hand, is made up of beggars and the dispossessed (psxvoiØ jaiØ
peimx “mse | a¤ approxJx "mi¤ diŁ xm) ruled who were only out for their own gain, then
the polis would be abandoned to exploitation and doomed.8th Consequently,
according to Plato, both a tyrant and the state he ruled are in truth poor despite all
material wealth (peŁ mg |), there virtue for the ruler as well as his state and thus et¤
dailomiŁ a miss.9 Applied to the level of each individual, it follows that in the material
sense, unusually rich people (palpkotŁ rioi) never be truly happy because excessive
wealth can never be virtuously acquired. On the other hand, those who earn their
money fairly and are not stingy towards good causes cannot become excessively
rich, but they cannot become poor either.10
Even these few passages show that Plato obviously sees in wealth and poverty not
only a material and social component, but also an ethical one that is closely linked
to the other two components.
But Plato uses the poverty terminology much more frequently in the actual, i.e.
in the material and social sense, in particular peŁ mg | and its derivatives. Basically,
he is based on the then widespread assumption that the real states of his present
are composed of two population groups, the rich
(pkotŁ rioi) and the poor (peŁ mgse |).11 He sees the distribution of resources as one, if not the
central issue for the constitution of a community12th and considers poverty to be one of the
factors that determine the form of government and legislation.13
In the “State” he deals with the relationship between rich and poor primarily in
connection with the consideration of the individual constitutional forms and their
peculiarities.14th In a tyranny, according to Plato, the ruler is, as it were, impoverished
7th Plato's
attitude to poverty and the poor deal in detail with three older but still important essays by A.
Fuks: The conditions of "riches" (pkot "so |) and of "poverty" (pemiŁ a) in Plato's "Republic", RSA 6/7,
1976/77, 63-73; ders., Plato and the social question: The problem of poverty and riches in the Republic,
AncSoc 8, 1977, 49-83; ders., Plato and the social question: The problem of poverty and riches in the
Laws, AncSoc 10, 1979, 33-78.
8th Plat. rep. 521a.
9 Plat. rep. 577e- 578a; 579e.
10 Plat. leg. 742e-743c.
11 The idea of a division of the polis society into rich and poor is clearly demonstrable at the latest
End of the 5th century: H.-J. Gehrke, The Classical Polis Society in the Perspective of Greek Philosophers,
Saeculum 36, 1985, 133-150; J. de Romilly, La notion de "Classes moyennes" dans l'Athènes du Ve s. Av.
JC, REG 100, 1987, 1-17, here: 7. - Gehrke, 146-149, even gives indications that the roots of this
dichotomy may already be in pre-Sophist times.
12th Plat.
rep. 422e-423a; 551d. - See Fuks, Conditions (note 7) 63; ders., Republic (note 7) 49f .; ders.,
Laws (note 7) 41.
13 Plat. polit. 292a; 292c; leg. 709a.
14th This topic is discussed in detail by Fuks, Republic (note 7) 57–63.

Authenticated
KLIO 92 (2010) 2 309
of his subjects interested, so that they are busy with the care of their daily bread
and have no time for overturning plans.15th In particular, Plato devotes himself to
wealth and poverty in connection with the origin and nature of the oligarchy.16
Starting from the definition that the rule of oligarchy pkotŁ rioi üAbout the
powerless peŁ mgse | Plato explains the emergence of the oligarchy from the
timocracy with the fact that the pursuit of wealth suppresses all virtues and
considerations, leads to the contempt of the poor by the rich and ultimately to the
establishment of the oligarchical constitution. Again, Plato's point of view meets
here that (excessive) wealth and virtue are in stark contradiction to one another.
For him, the oligarchy is characterized by two main shortcomings: instead of
transferring political power to the most capable, financial assets alone are decisive,
while the poor people's talents remain unused. In addition, rich and poor are so
irreconcilably opposed to one another that an oligarchy is in fact not one state but
two, namely that of the rich and that of the poor.psxvoiŁ) or as a criminal and
formed a constant source of unrest for the polis.
If the poor now become aware of their power and if they actually succeed in
asserting themselves against the rule of the rich, the oligarchical constitution turns into
a democracy, which through the opposite distribution of power - the rule of the
peŁ mgse | üabout the pkotŁ rioi - is marked.17th For Plato, the contrast between rich
and poor not only shaped the state constitutions of his time, but also one of the
most important causes of the overthrow (rsaŁ ri |) from one constitution to another:
Dei “caØ qe¤ m poŁ kei pot, ualeŁ m, sz“ sot “leciŁ rsot morgŁ laso | ot¤ leJenotŁ rz, o diaŁ
rsarim g rsaŁ rim o¤ qJoŁ seqom at the eig jejkg “rJai, lgŁ se pemiŁ am sgØ m vakepgØ
me¤ mei “mai paqaŁ siri sx“ m pokisx “m lgŁ s 'at¤“ pkot “som, x' | a¤ luoseŁ qxm sijsoŁ
msxm sat “sa a¤ luoŁ seqa.
“For, as I think, in a state that is supposed to remain free from the

greatest of all diseases, which is called turmoil or, more correctly,
division, neither one part of the citizens must live in oppressive
poverty nor the other in wealth, since this is both that both
produce. "18th
For Plato, however, what is worse than the division of the citizenry into two groups
and the tendency towards constitutional instability is that both extremes, wealth
and poverty, made people worse and held them back from virtue. While wealth
leads to envy and strife and corrupts people through opulence, poverty makes
others dependent and shameless. Ultimately, however, wealth is greater
15th Plat. rep. 567a; see Plat. polit. 291e.

16 To the following: Plat. rep. 550c- 552e.
17th Plat. rep. 556c- 557a.
18th Plat. leg. 744d (translation largely based on Schleiermacher / Susemihl / Hülser); see also leg. 709a. - One
a summary is provided by Fuks, Republic (note 7) 64–68.

Authenticated
evil from both, since the greed of a minority causes the impoverishment of the majority
and thus the division of society in the first place.19th According to Plato, the optimal
level of life lies in the middle between the two extremes and is content with getting by
on everything that is necessary without having to suffer hardship. Because in a
community without wealth and poverty, people and morals are least corrupted, which
is the basis for the pursuit of virtue and the attainment ofet¤ dailomiŁ a
is laid.20th For Plato, the macroeconomic consequences of poverty are rather a secondary
aspect, which would result from the fact that land remains undeveloped or efficient and
effective work becomes impossible because the necessary investment funds are lacking.21
The consequence of these findings is clear for Plato: Not only must the poverty
factor be taken into account when designing the ideal constitution,22nd but poverty
and wealth should simply be banished from the ideal state.23 For the division of
citizens into rich and poor not only brings with it the negative consequences
described, but the orientation of the division of power on material property is
fundamentally wrong. When taking on political positions, according to Plato, it
should not matter whether someone is rich or poor, but rather whether he is doing
the right thing and is an expert in the task assigned to him. Therefore, in principle,
all citizens should have the right to political participation, regardless of their
financial wealth.24
The measures that Plato proposes to ban poverty and wealth from his ideal state
are different in the “state” and in the “laws”. In the “state”, Plato's approach is
based on the clear separation of political and economic power.25th While the so-
called guardians (utŁ kaje |) live in an absolutely communist community and
exercise the political and military power of the state, the bulk of the population has
private property in production goods, but is politically and morally controlled by
the guards. In addition to the size of the family and the upbringing of children, this
control includes, in particular, the monitoring of material assets, which must not
be too low or too high. In other words, one of the tasks of the guards is to prevent
poverty or wealth from moving into the city.26 Plato assumes that the goal of a
state must not be the happiness of the individual or individual groups, because
this would lead to the individual no longer fulfilling the task assigned to him. The
goal is rather the common good of all citizens and so the guards for the good of
the state have to forego private property and many individual freedoms in order to
fulfill their role.27
Their communist way of life ensures that they are
19th See Fuks, Conditions (note 7) 69; ders., Republic (note 7) 56f .; ders., Laws (note 7) 46– 48. - The negative
The connotation of wealth and its consequences are also common in other sources from the 5th and
4th centuries; see KJ Dover, Greek popular morality in the time of Plato and Aristotle, Berkley et al.
1974, 110-112; Hemelrijk (note 6) 111– 121 and 146f .; G. Hertel, The Allegory of Wealth and Poverty.
An aristophanic motif and its modification in western literature, Nuremberg 1969, 32–41.
20th Plat. rep. 421d-422a; 556c; leg. 679b; 729a; 919b; polit. 292c.
21 Plat. leg. 855b; rep. 421d- e.
22nd Plat. leg. 632a.
23 Plat. rep. 421d-422a; leg. 919b; polit. 292c.
24 Plat. rep. 551c; Alk. 1,107b-c; Mx. 238d.
25th For the following, see the instructive description in Fuks, Republic (note 7) 68–83.
26 Plat. rep. 421e-422a.
27 Plat. rep. 419a-421c.

Authenticated
KLIO 92 (2010) 2 311
interests are within the citizenry and actually only have the good of all in mind, not
their own benefit. So they should remain the comrades-in-arms of the other
citizens and not rise to their masters.28
In the "Laws", however, Plato also praises communism as the best form of
government,29 but this then no longer appears as part of the ideal constitution.
Rather, as a prerequisite for the establishment of the ideal state, the rich should
level out the social discrepancies by sharing their property and their land with the
poorer population and forgetting debts.30th In order to prevent the emergence of
the earlier material inequalities, Plato sets lower and upper limits for the wealth of
every citizen. Citizens are divided into four asset classes and given mothers and
taxes according to their financial resilience.31 The land lot assigned to each citizen
serves as a benchmark: in the ideal state, no citizen may have less than twice the
value of a land lot, none more than five times its value.32 Whoever exceeds the
upper limit must cede the surplus to the state,33 And in view of the Platonic view
that wealth is more dangerous than poverty, it is symptomatic that the question
of how to help those who fall below the minimum wealth limit is not even asked,
let alone answered: If one prevents the creation of wealth, For Plato, the danger of
impoverishment is largely averted, and further interventions are superfluous. Plato
merely made the postulate that no landless should be left undeveloped for lack of
money in order to prevent the loss of economic resources.34
The distribution of resources described ensures the necessary livelihood for every
citizen, so that begging is of a bad character and should therefore be forbidden.35
The citizens of the ideal state live exclusively from agriculture; Small trade and
handicrafts, on the other hand, which Plato sees as contributing to the emergence
of poverty and wealth, are in the hands of non-citizens and must be strictly
regulated; the traders themselves are subjected to constant moral control.36 In this
way Plato tries to solve a dilemma between ideal and reality: on the one hand he
rejects the activities of small traders and craftsmen for ethical reasons, on the
other hand he recognizes them as indispensable.37
If Plato wants to completely abolish wealth and poverty in the "state" by means of
property control, this means in practice that the guards have to watch over that there
are no longer any extremely poor or extremely rich. It remains unclear whether Plato
was thinking of a kind of “unitary property” for all citizens - then one could in
28 Plat. rep. 416a-417b.

29 Plat. leg.739c.
30th Plat. leg. 736d-e.
31 Plat. leg.744c.
32 According to Fuks, Laws (note 7) 65 with note 150, who uses convincing arguments against the interpreters
tation applies that the margin of ownership amounts to one to four times the value of a land lot. - A good
summary of the land distribution and structure of the ideal state in the "laws" is provided by P. Vidal-Naquet,
Étude d'une ambiguité: les artisans dans la cité platonicienne, in: Les marginaux et les exclus dans l'histoire,
Paris 1979, 232-261, here: 239-243.
33 Plat. leg. 744d-745a.
34 Plat. leg. 855b.
35 Plat. leg. 936b-c.
36 Plat. leg. 846d; 919c- 920c.
37 For this ambivalent assessment, see Vidal-Naquet (note 32) 243–249.

Authenticated
in a certain sense actually speak of the “abolition” of wealth and poverty

- or a limitation of the individual assets. In the latter case there would be
So there are still relatively poorer and relatively richer citizens, but the gap
between them would be manageable. While Plato does not express himself
specifically in the “state” what he ultimately means by the “abolition” of wealth and
poverty, he becomes clearer in the “laws”: Here he tries to limit wealth and poverty
by introducing upper and lower limits tame, ie in this ideal state there are only
relatively poor and relatively rich with the landless as a standard of value. If only
the guards in the "state" have to fundamentally change their lives through the
communism prescribed for them, while the rest of the citizens do not have to
endure any structural interventions in their everyday life, the complete focus on
agriculture and the introduction of property limits in the "laws" mean a change in
life,38
As stated at the beginning, includes peŁ mgse | in addition to the material a political
component and is often used as a synonym for dg “lo | second hand; This finding is
confirmed by our analysis of Plato: If Plato has the citizenship continuously inpeŁ mgse |
and pkotŁ rioi divides, this use reflects both a material and a social poverty (and
wealth) term, because Plato draws conclusions about their respective political
participation from the economic situation of the individual citizens.
However, here is its use of peŁ mg | significantly less clear than would be expected
from the ideal-type terminology. In particular, a passage from theSymposium, in which
Plato describes the appearance and way of life of Eros, is very informative for this:39 As
the son of PemiŁ a be Eros always poor (peŁ mg |), do not wear shoes, be homeless and
therefore spend his life on the street and in front of the doors. The picture that Plato
paints here is clearly that of a beggar, not that of a person who has a modest livelihood.
Just as clear is a statement about the financial situation in an oligarchy: In a polis with
this constitution, according to Plato, almost all citizens, with the exception of the upper
class, are beggars (psxvoiŁ).40 Since Plato basically assumes that every state is made up
of pkotŁ rioi and peŁ mgse | put together, he represents here - of course in deliberate
exaggeration in order to reinforce his intention to make a statement - the peŁ mgse |
even with psxvoiŁ on one level. And if he forbids begging on the grounds that, due to
the fair distribution of land in the ideal state, no one needs this anymore,41 Conversely,
this means that for the real cities of his time he obviously saw the existence of beggars
among the peŁ mgse | bills. Also in the places where he is of "oppressive poverty" (pemiŁ
a vakepgŁ) speaks,42 Plato would have thought of absolute rather than relative poor.
After all, as in Ab-
38 See Fuks, Laws (note 7) 44f. and 76f.

39 Plat. symp. 203c- d. - On the following cf. also VJ Rosivach, Some Athenian presuppositions about, the
poor ', G&R 38, 1991, 189– 198, here: 190 with note 3.
40 Plat.
rep. 552d.
41 Plat. leg. 936b-c. - Rosivach (note 39) 196, note 5 also points out that thepsxvoiŁ basically
as part of the peŁ mgse | and did not represent a separate social group below them. See also Kloft
(note 4) 92f., Who, with reference to Plato, states that beggars were omnipresent in the population of
Greek cities in the 5th and 4th centuries.
42 Plat. leg. 709a; 744d.

Authenticated
KLIO 92 (2010) 2 313
Section 2 has already been explained - do not forget that the boundary between
absolute and relative poverty in antiquity was very fluid and, above all, very unstable. In
short: even though Plato was belowpeŁ mgse | Certainly did not primarily think of the
absolute poor - there are many bodies that speak against this that are a certain
property of the peŁ mgse | presuppose - there is no serious doubt that he includes them
in this term and that he includes the constant real risk of the relatively poor slipping
into absolute poverty in his considerations, especially since he selectively possible
reasons for impoverishment - specifically, he has a high number of children and
general disasters like wars43 - expressly named. For Plato, therefore, statements like the
one that he only "the political effects of differences of wealth, not the problem of
absolute poverty"44 interested, simply not; rather, he saw absolute poverty as part of
the problem of the unequal distribution of resources within a polis.
So we find that wealth and poverty play a very central role in Plato's
constitutional considerations. In Plato's opinion, both phenomena, because of
their negative side effects, are related to the striving of the individual as well as of
the entire polis for virtue and for the attainment ofet¤ dailomiŁ a in the way and
must therefore be avoided in the ideal state.45 In the "state", the control function of
the guards serves this purpose, in the "laws" the introduction of concrete lower
and upper limits for private assets. For our context, it is irrelevant how realistic his
proposed solutions for the elimination of wealth and poverty are, the decisive
factor is the fact that he pays great attention to the issue of poverty in its entirety -
in its material and social, in its absolute and relative manifestation .
4. Aristotle
An analysis of Aristotle can be limited to “politics”, since his other philosophical
writings hardly provide anything for our topic.46 Our starting point is a
fundamental essay by Aloys Winterling,47 who elaborates the position of the
Aristotelian "politics" on rich and poor and the difficulties that arise in an
investigation of the same and arrives at the following results:
a) Aristotle uses two different structural models side by side to describe the polis
societies: 1. A stratifying one, ie one based on honor and reputation
43 Plat.
rep. 372c; leg.780b.
44 R.
Osborne, Introduction: Roman poverty in context, in: M. Atkins / R. Osborne (ed.), Poverty in the Roman
world, Cambridge 2006, 1–20, here: 12.
45 In this respect, the thesis of K. Trampedach, Plato, the academy and contemporary politics, Stuttgart
1994, 170f. and others, Plato sees the social upheavals as a symptom, not as a cause of the crisis, to be
relativized.
46 A terminological search followed by a review of the relevant text passages showed that
Aristotle peŁ mg | and its derivatives almost exclusively in "politics" and the word family apoqo |
in the other writings used almost exclusively in the sense of scientific aporia. The other poverty
terms hardly play a role for him, or the corresponding text passages are not productive for our
question.
47 A. Winterling, “poor” and “rich”. The structure of the Greek polis societies in Aristotle's 'Politics',
Saeculum 44, 1993, 179–205. - In contrast, the remarks by GEM de Ste. Croix, The class struggle
in the ancient Greek world, London 1981, 71–74 on the Aristotelian division of Greek society.

Authenticated
the citizen questioning dichotomy, 2. a division made according to economic

aspects into two, sometimes three groups.
b) Aristotle fills these two models with strongly changing terms: the first model
with pairs of opposites such as “the respected - the people / the masses”, “the
noble - the common”, “the noble - the many”, the second model with the terms
pkotŁ rioi and etpoqoi or various descriptions48 for the rich, with
peŁ mgse | or apoqoi for the poor, possibly expanded to include the third group of the
"middle" (oi 'leŁ roi or soØ leŁ rom).
c) Both models often overlap in such a way that the “rich” actually mean the
respected, the noble, and the “poor” the people, the broad masses. In these
cases there is no economic but rather a social concept of poverty (or wealth).
d) Aristotle does not regard the groups of the two schemes of two as homogeneous,
but rather divides them into subgroups, among other things according to economic
aspects.
e) This economic subdivision now leads to a further imprecision of the Aristotelian
poverty and wealth terminology, since Aristotle uses these terms in both an
absolute and a relative sense. In other words, in politics, "not only do poor poor
and rich meet, but also poor rich and rich poor".49
f) On the one hand, Aristotle clearly questions the common division of the polis society
into rich and poor, as also represented by Plato, on the other hand he himself
applies this scheme in part, so that his position on this point is inconsistent and
contradictory.50
It should be noted at this point that the categories “rich” and “poor” also play an
important role in Aristotle, albeit in a semantically very different and often
confusing way. We are primarily interested in those passages in which Aristotle
expressly or implicitly uses a material, especially an absolute, concept of poverty.
At the beginning of the third chapter in the fourth book, Aristotle comments on the
composition of a polis society:51 Some of the citizens are rich (etpoqoi), another poor
(apoqoi), a third part stands between the first two in the middle (oi 'leŁ roi). While the
rich (oi 'etpoqoi) Bear arms, the poor would do (oi 'apoqoi) not this. The bulk of the
population (o 'dg “lo |) composed of farmers, traders and artisans, the respected (oi
'cmxŁ qiloi)
however, differentiated according to property, origin and virtue. This short
passage illustrates very well the different semantics of the poverty and wealth
terminology that Aloys Winterling already worked out: although Aristotle in both
casesetpoqo | and apoqo | is used, the tripartite division of the citizenry is a material
one, while the dichotomy is a stratification, ie a social concept of wealth / poverty
48 For example Aristot. pole. 1279b18– 19:oi 'saØ | ot¤ riŁ a | evomse |respectively. oi ' ½. . .jejsgleŁ moi pkg " Jo | ot¤ riŁ a |.
49 Winterling (note 47) 188.
50 Gehrke explains this contradiction (note 11) 136-140 and 149f. with the fact that Aristotle on the one hand
perceives and describes the multifaceted social reality, the idea of a dichotomy into rich and
poor but had already become a dominant topos in its time, which even a thinker like Aristotle
accepted more or less without reflection. "The contrast is a fixed scheme next to the description
of real groups of the polis and is not derived from this" (ibid., 140).
51 Aristot. pole. 1289b28-1290a2.

Authenticated
KLIO 92 (2010) 2 315
underlying. The latter is emphasized by the following sentence by juxtaposingdg “lo | and
cmxŁ qiloi (instead of the previously used apoqoi and etpoqoi) and he makes one more
thing clear: If Aristotle allows a material component to resonate with the concept
of social poverty at this point - social poverty usually results from material poverty -
then we are clearly dealing with relatively poor (namely farmers, traders and
Craftsmen), not absolutely poor.
Elsewhere he adds the farmers, merchants and artisans as further subgroups
within the broader population, the dg “lo |, In addition: seafarers of all kinds, wage
laborers and generally those who are dependent on daily work; Finally, he names
the polis residents, who are free, but not in possession of full civil rights.52 This
breakdown of the dg “lo | takes Aristotle from two different points of view:
1. According to an ethical aspect: Depending on the dominant group of the dg “lo |

there are different forms of democracy. According to Aristotle, the best way is
the one in which everyone is subject only to the laws. It is achieved when the
peasants are the ruling group, since the peasant class is the best, most virtuous
part of thedg “lo | represent. The second best group within the
dg “lo | formed the shepherds, whose way of life was at least similar to that of the
peasantry. The worst people, on the other hand, are craftsmen, traders and day laborers,
because they lack any virtue. Consequently, a democracy under their domination is the
worst, since everyone and everything is subject to the discretion of the masses.53
2. According to a material aspect: The best form of democracy is that in which the
peasant and moderately wealthy part (soØ cexqcijoØ m jaiØ soØ jejsgleŁ mom lesqiŁ on
ot¤ riŁ on) of dg “lo | is predominant, the fourth and worst is the one in which the
amount of the poor (soØ sx "ma¤ poŁ qxm pkg" Jo |) Mistress of the polis.54
Obviously, there is a purely material gradation from the relatively wealthy part
of the dg “lo | down to the relatively or even absolutely poor part of it.
In case of doubt, however, the ethical structure aspect is decisive. According to

Aristotle, craftsmen are often wealthy,55 so that, according to the second, material
aspect of structure, they are relatively high up in the 'hierarchy' of dg “lo | would be
to settle, but their financial assets are not decisive, but their activity, which lacks
virtue. The material aspect only takes effect if the moral aspect does not already
have clear relationships with regard to the ranking of two comparison groups
within thedg “lo | creates, for example when comparing wealthy and (relatively)
poor farmers.
All the more astonishing is the fact that Aristotle's presentation of the best
possible form of government then puts the financial aspect in the foreground.56
The starting point of his considerations is his plea when designing a
52 Aristot. pole. 1291b15-28.

53 Aristot. pole. 1296b24-31; 1318b6-1319a38.
54 Aristot. pole. 1292b25-33; 1293a1-10.
55 Aristot. pole. 1278a24-25.
56 To the following Aristot. pole. 1295a25-1296a38; 1296b34-1297a7; 1308b28- 31.

Authenticated
not to base the ideal constitution on standards unattainable for the citizens, but to
start from the average person and his behavior - a very obvious criticism of the
Platonic ideal state in the “state” as in the “laws”. Since the middle is always
preferable to the extreme - a principle that Aristotle also advocates in other
contexts57 - For the distribution of the financial resources of a citizenry, it applies
that excessive wealth and excessive poverty are to be avoided, especially the
middle class (oi 'leŁ roi or soØ leŁ rom) is to be promoted. The thought that theleŁ roi
Playing an important role in the stability of a polis is by no means an Aristotelian
invention, but rather has a long history. Although Aristotle uses the term rather
vaguely and does not define it in more detail, it can be assumed that he
understands by it mainly economically independent small and medium-sized
farmers, from whom the hoplites were recruited in the classical period and whose
number had fallen noticeably in the Aristotelian period.58 According to Aristotle, a
citizen with moderate wealth is most likely to be guided in his actions by reason,
whereas the rich are unwilling to obey and the poor too submissive. In addition, an
extremely uneven distribution of wealth leads either to extreme democracy or to
oligarchy and tyranny, while a state in which there is no significant gap between
rich and poor has the advantage of great stability. Since the middle class acts as a
buffer and broker between the rich and poor and has no subversive ambitions
itself, the danger of turmoil and constitutional amendment is largely averted. But
because the even distribution of goods within the citizenry is very difficult to
achieve or maintain, This best possible constitution hardly exists in reality.
Conversely, according to Aristotle, a constitutional upheaval occurs when the
middle class is absent or too small and the two extremes rich and poor diverge too
widely.59 Aristotle uses an economic concept of wealth and poverty as the basis of
his considerations, the approach of which - despite the swipe at his teacher -
ultimately points in the same direction as Plato's proposals in his "laws".
How do these purely material considerations fit with the ethical structure of the
dg “lo | together? Obviously, Aristotle assumes that ethics alone is not enough to
establish a stable polis, as his clear criticism of Plato already shows. For purely
pragmatic reasons, he therefore advocates, beyond all ethical premises, for the
most balanced possible distribution of resources within the citizenry, regardless of
the question of how virtuous the concrete activity of each member of this middle
class is. This is the only way to prevent possible dissatisfaction among those who
have too little virtue for theet¤ dailomiŁ a to be able to attain. The pragmatism in this
question reflects Aristotle's fundamental striving to give instructions for practical
politics instead of restricting himself to purely theoretical considerations.60 This is
also borne out by a suggestion
57 So z. B. Aristot. Top. 113a8; m. mor. 1185b13-15; eth. Nic. 1104a12.

58 P.Spahn, Mittelschicht und Polisbildung, Frankfurt et al. 1977, 7– 14 and 174– 182. - See also Romilly
(note 11) passim, whose thesis, ibid., 15-17, that such a middle class never existed, is not convincing,
however.
59 Aristot. pole. 1304a38-1304b2; 1306b36- 37.
60 On the pragmatic goals of Aristotle, see, for example, O. Höffe, Introduction to Aristotle's Politics,
in: Aristotle, "Politics", ed. by O. Höffe, Berlin 2001, 5-35, here: 14; ders .: Aristotle, Munich32006,
191-194.

Authenticated
KLIO 92 (2010) 2 317
which he puts forward to strengthen the middle class and in which Aristotle
exceptionally deals with the absolute poor: The distribution of urban surpluses to
the citizens, as it is currently customary, lacks the long-term perspective, because it
keeps the poor (oi 'apoqoi) in constant dependence. It makes more sense to
The shots are not to be distributed again directly, but to be paid into a kind of fund
from which the individual poor citizen receives so much financial support that he can
buy a small estate or a shop.61 This idea of helping people to help themselves not only
appears very modern, but also makes it clear that Aristotle is involved here apoqoi
contrary to the ideal-typical terminology, does not mean relatively poor citizens - that's
what the apoqoi can only be done through the fund assistance
-, but those that are constantly dependent on urban support and thus
were so poor. The introduction of common feasts for all citizens, as propagated by
Aristotle, can also be interpreted, among other things, as a measure to secure food
for the absolutely poor, although this aspect was certainly not in the foreground.62
Again and again Aristotle includes the causes of impoverishment and possible
countermeasures in his considerations, for example when he expressly names too
many children and the resulting fragmentation of land as a possible risk of poverty.
63 In the seventh chapter of the second book he also deals in detail with the
equality of property proposed by Plato and other philosophers to prevent poverty.
64 However, he does not see the setting of upper and lower limits on wealth alone
as an effective means of preventing riots and constitutional amendments; instead,
in his opinion, a fundamental change in mentality of the citizens through
appropriate education is required.65 In the second and third chapters of the fifth
book, Aristotle mentions as causes for uprisings and constitutional changes, in
addition to the contrast between rich and poor, striving for honor and violence (
diaØ tbqim), Fear, superiority or a strong increase in the power of a person or group,
mutual contempt, sneaking in office, political negligence, successive erosion of the
constitution (diaØ lijqoŁ sgsa) and too great a heterogeneity of civil servants
membership (di 'a¤ moloioŁ sgsa) at.66
For Aristotle, therefore, the question of material wealth and poverty is also of
importance for the state constitution, even if it is not as central as it was with Plato.
In addition to the unequal distribution of resources, he sees a whole bundle of
factors that can lead to unrest and constitutional upheaval, and thus stands out
from Plato's more monocausal explanation. In Aristotle's work, the social concept
of poverty is more often encountered than the material concept, the latter in turn
mostly not in an absolute but in a relative sense. Aristotle only explicitly addresses
absolute poverty once, otherwise it is given more indirect attention to the extent
that broad circles of the relatively poordg “lo | were always threatened with slipping
into absolute poverty. In this context it is symptomatic thatpsxvoŁ | not a single
61 Aristot. pole. 1320a29-1320b1.

62 See in detail R. Kraut, Aristotle. Political philosophy, Oxford 2002, 222-224.
63 Aristot. pole. 1265b10-12; 1266b10-12; 1270b4- 6.
64 Aristot. pole. 1266a31-1267b21.
65 Aristot. pole. 1266b14-31; 1267a37-1267b9.
66 Aristot. pole. 1302a16-1303b16.

Authenticated
Sometimes found in "politics", rather the lowest social group that Aristotle several
times when describing the dg “lo | calls who is the day laborer.67
5. Cicero
The position of Cicero on the subject of poverty in his philosophical writings is
initially characterized by a purely metaphorical, ie non-material concept of poverty,
as it is used above all in the explanations of the sixth stoic paradox.68 Here Cicero
gives a detailed account of the Stoic doctrine that true wealth is not material but
moral. Accordingly, ownership of money and land is not a sign of wealth, but
rather a person's virtue and inner satisfaction. Wealth and poverty are not
objective facts, but subjectively perceived conditions, which is why it is true for
materially wealthy but morally bad people whose greed cannot be satisfied that
they are in truthnon modo non copiosi ac divites sed etiam inopes ac pauperes
existimandi sunt.69 The bridge to ancient Roman ideas of virtue and the praise of
mos maiorum beats Cicero by appealing to Manius Manilius, consul in the middle
of the 2nd century BC. Chr .: Could one, so his rhetorical question, therefore be
considered poor (pauper) because he had a rather modest fortune compared to
Cicero's present? No, so the answer can be inferred, because Manilius' wealth was
not material but moral due to his exemplary character and his achievements for
themres publica.70 This passage from the Paradoxes
stands for many similar statements by Cicero in his philosophical writings (especially in
the "Tusculanen"), which are based on a metaphorical concept of poverty.71
In many cases, Cicero argues with a material concept of poverty, but this only
happens superficially: When he reproduces the stoic position that a wise man
cannot be inwardly disturbed by material poverty, this is ultimately the
philosophical disregard for the material versus the moral concept of wealth . It is
also noticeable that Cicero works in most of these passages
pauper and its derivatives are used, that is, a relative poverty terminology is used.
Since Cicero's philosophical-metaphorical concept of poverty does not help our
question, we now turn to his writings on the theory of the state De re publica and De
legibus to, because they allow a comparison with the already examined works of Plato
and Aristotle. Such a comparison leads to the finding that Cicero inDe re publica -
although here, as with the two Greek philosophers, the focus is on the question of
the best and most stable constitution - in contrast to these, at no point mentions
the contrast between poor and rich as a decisive or at least important factor for
the political life of a community; on the contrary encounter here as well as inDe
legibus Poverty and wealth terms only very sporadically and without
67 Aristot. pole. 1290b39-1291a8; 1317a24-26; 1319a26-30; 1321a5– 6. - The search mentioned in note 46
che revealed that Aristotle is the word family psxvoŁ | used only five times, exclusively in his
rhetorical and poetic writings.
68 Cic. parad. 42-52.
69 Cic. parad. 52.
70 Cic.
parad. 50. - The topos of the old Roman frugality can already be found in Polybius and Poseido-
nios; see R. Vischer, The simple life. Studies of the history of words and motifs on a concept of value in
ancient literature, Göttingen 1965, 96f., 114– 116 and 125.
71 Without claiming to be exhaustive, the following are mentioned: Cic. fin. 4.72; 5.84; of f. 2.37-38; Tusc. 3.56; 3.81; 4.46;
4.59; 5.29-30; 5.89; 5.102; 5.102; 5.113.

Authenticated
KLIO 92 (2010) 2 319
any systematic use.72 Rather, Cicero's starting point is the definition of the state (
res publica) as res populi,73 ie all citizens are initially part of the state people.
Depending on the respective constitution, the direct exercise of power lies with an
individual (monarchy or tyranny), with a few (aristocracy or oligarchy) or with all
citizens (democracy or ochlocracy). The group of those not directly involved in the
exercise of power is referred to by Cicero in bothDe re publica as well as in De
legibus mostly as populus, sometimes also as plebs. The term populus
He uses it in two ways: both in the sense of state people and in the sense of
broader population. The latter meaning also lies in the formulasenatus
populusque Romanus with the difference that the formula only separates the
senators and thus includes even the knights of the mass of the population. Other
names for the general population are Ciceromultitudo, vulgus
and turba, whereby he often uses the latter two in the derogatory sense of rabble and mob.
74 Populus in the sense of state people, Cicero defines it as coetus multitudinis iuris consensu
et utilitatis communione sociatus,75 ie basis of everyone res publica is on the one hand the
omnipotence of law, on the other hand the primacy of the common good. Consequently, he
considers the Platonic idea of community of property to be unjust and therefore extremely
questionable, and even vehemently rejects the community of women and children as
incompatible with the sense of family and traditional role behavior of men and women.76
For a comparison with Plato and Aristotle, Cicero's analysis of the domestic
political conditions of the Roman Republic of the 2nd century BC is also interesting.
Chr., Which he puts in the mouth of the protagonists of his fictional dialogue and
with whom he ultimately criticizes the domestic political situation of his own
present. So he lets Laelius express his regret thatin una re publica duo senatus et
duo paene iam populi sint 77 - a lament that recalls the inner turmoil of every polis
in arms and riches in Plato and Aristotle. However, Cicero does not use the
terminology of poverty or wealth, but has in mind a purely political split without
any material background: the naming of two senates makes it clear that the split in
the citizenry is not a horizontal but a vertical one. The goal must be to end this
situation and have a Senate and a people again78 - this applies to the Roman
republic at the time of Laelius like Ciceros.
72 Cic. rep. 1.48; 1.51; 2.39-40; 3.34; leg. 2.25; 3.24. - Of course, it should not be forgotten that both scriptures
have only survived in fragments; but the existing passages and the other Ciceronian works give
no indication that Cicero used detailed and systematic terms of poverty and wealth in the lost
parts.
73 Cic. rep. 1.39.
74 For general Latin terminology for the general public, see Prell (note 1) 59f. - About the division
of Roman society and the social and political terms used, specifically by Cicero s.
J. Béranger, Ordres et classes d'après Cicéron, in: C. Nicolet (ed.), Recherches sur les structures sociales dans
l'antiquité classique, Paris 1970, 225–242; B. Kühnert:Populus Romanus and sentina urbis: on the terminology
of the plebs urbana the late republic in Cicero, Klio 71, 1989, 432-441; M. Raskolnikoff, La richesse et les riches
chez Cicéron, Ktema 2, 1977, 357-372.
75 Cic. rep. 1.39, similar rep. 1.49; 3.45.
76 Cic. rep. 4.5.
77 Cic. rep. 1.31.
78 Cic. rep. 1.32.

Authenticated
Cicero deals more extensively than in the two writings on the theory of the state
in his work on social theory De officiis with the issue of poverty, mainly in
connection with beneficentia and liberalitas towards the needy - Cicero speaks
several times of indigent or inopes, so from absolutely poor.79 Financial generosity
is generally to be welcomed, but must always be used with moderation and
caution. Indeed, according to Cicero, care should be taken that neither the
generous man exhaust his own fortune nor that the recipients become lazy and
dependent on trust in regular donations. In addition, Cicero does not evaluate
every kind of generosity positively: Anyone who spends his money on events with
short-term effects such as public banquets or circus games is a wasteful, but real
spending in the long term has the effect of buying prisoners, repaying debts or
providing a dowry for third parties. In addition to the useful ones, Cicero names
inevitable gifts that are indispensable for a politician's career, and here, too, he
only approves those expenses that are not for short,
and the like). The short or long term refers to the question of how long the
generosity of the donor remains in the individual or collective memory. According
to Cicero, it is therefore all the more important to ensure that the recipient
receives avir bonus et gratus, ie who is worthy of help. Because there are definitely
people who deserve their misfortune and are therefore out of the question as an
object of goodwill. Of thevir bonus et gratus on the other hand, he said he would
show himself to be grateful for the help received, and his family and descendants
would also be grateful, so that the fame of the donor would be increased in the
long term. The goal ofbeneficentia and liberalitas thus ultimately the increase in
the reputation and influence of the donor, in other words the subject, not the
object of the action, is at the center of the benefit.80 Since Cicero specifically points
out that also a inops could well be worthy of support, in this case he does not
make the moral valuation of a person dependent on his material and social status -
a position which, however, is rather singular within his writings.81
Cicero's statement is informative that it is in the interest of the common good to

financially support the socially weaker (locupletari tenuiores), for here we hear the
idea familiar from Plato and Aristotle that a certain redistribution of financial
wealth from top to bottom for social stabilization makes perfect sense. It is
significant, however, that Cicero - as his statement inDe re publica
already showed on the platonic community of property - rejects a forced redistribution
of property; rather, it is precisely the task of the state to protect private property:Hanc
enim ob causam maxime, ut sua tenerentur, res publicae civitatesque constitutae sunt.
82 Desiring the property of others is worse than poverty (paupertas) endure
79 To the following Cic. off. 2.52-64; 2.69–73. - See Bolkestein (note 1) 313–316; I. Samotta, Das
Role model of the past. Historical images and reform proposals in Cicero and Sallust, Stuttgart 2009, 290– 294.
80 See Bolkestein (note 1) 318–320; N. Wood, Cicero's social and political thought, Berkley et al. 1988,
101. This finding coincides with the objective of the Roman one humanitas; to summarize
S. Knoch, Slave Welfare in the Roman Empire. Shapes and Motives, Hildesheim et al. 2005, 242.
81 Wood (note 80) 96f.
82 Cic. off. 2.73. - See also off. 2.78–85.

Authenticated
KLIO 92 (2010) 2 321
to have to, since respect for the good of the other is the basis of the state, indeed
of any human coexistence.83 In other words, Cicero sees the protection of private
property as one of the foundations of the res publica and especially not the fight
against wealth inequality within the citizenry.84 Only the common good may have
priority, because while the disadvantage of another out of selfish interests is an
injustice, according to Cicero, there is no wrongful action if the same situation
occurs for reasons of utilitas publica he follows.
For Cicero, the issue of poverty is obviously not a problem that can be solved
under constitutional law, but rather refers it to the realm of Roman clientele.85
Anyone who is in economic need must turn to their patron for support, who in turn
has a moral duty to provide his client with the necessary help - provided that the
client is worthy of it. This clear distribution of roles is illustrated by a passage from
Cicero's speech for L. Murena:
Homines tenues unum habent in nostrum ordinem aut promerendi aut referendi
benefici locum, hanc in nostris petitionibus operam atque adsectationem. [];
tenuiorum amicorum et non occupatorum est ista adsiduitas, quorum copia bonis
viris et beneficis deesse non solet. Noli igitur eripere hunc inferiori generi
hominum fructum offici, Cato; sine eos qui omnia a nobis sperant habere ipsos
quoque aliquid quod nobis tribuere possint. Si nihil erit praeter ipsorum
suffragium, tenues, etsi suffragantur, nil valent gratia. Ipsi denique, ut solent loqui,
non dicere pro nobis, non spondere, non vocare domum suam possunt. Atque
haec a nobis petunt omnia neque ulla re alia quae a nobis consequuntur nisi opera
sua compensari putant posse.
“The common people have an opportunity to do or reciprocate a

service to our class: the trouble of accompanying us with our
applications. [. . .] This constant presence is the affair of friendly
little people who are not employed; they tend to be available in
large numbers to able and helpful men. So do not take advantage
of this service from the lower folk, Cato; allow those who hope
everything from us to have something in turn to grant us. If the
little people have nothing but their voice, then their influence is
83 On this and the following: Cic. off. 3, 21–32. - This passage in the several timespaupertas and only once
egestas is used without any difference in meaning being ascertained, together with Cic. off.
2,37–38 suggests that Cicero does not use the two terms according to the ideal-typical
difference in meaning, but largely synonymously, as was then generally customary in late
antiquity (see Milanese [note 6] 254)). V. d'Agostino, Sul concetto di povertà e di ricchezza negli
scrittori antichi, RSC 5, 1957, 236–247, here: 237, also observed something similar.
84 Raskolnikoff also underscores the central role that guaranteeing private property plays for Cicero
(Note 74) 370f .; Samotta (note 79) 294–306; Ste. Croix (note 47) 426; Wood (note 80) 105– 115 and
128– 132.
85 See Mayer (note 1) 34–36; Wood (note 80) 183f. and 202. - On the Roman clientele as an important
according to the element of social security for the lower classes in general, see Esser (note 1) 260– 267; G. Laser,
Populo et scaenae serviendum est. The importance of the urban mass in the late Roman Republic, Trier
1997, 110-126; RP Saller, Personal patronage under the early empire, Cambridge et al. 1982; Thraede (note 4)
53–55; A. Wallace-Hadrill (ed.), Patronage in ancient society, London et al. 1989 (especially the contribution by
P. Garnsey and G. Woolf).

Authenticated
ineffective despite the voting support. After all, as they say, they
themselves cannot speak for us in court, they cannot guarantee
or invite us to their homes. And they expect all of this from us,
and they believe that what they receive from us can only be paid
for through their services. "86
In return for the diverse support from the patron, the clients of the lower classes (
tenues respectively. tenuiores) always available to him as a companion in public to
underline his social status and promote his political ambitions. According to Cicero,
the state, on the other hand, does not have to worry about social problems, but
only to guarantee the legal framework conditions so that thepatroni can fulfill their
duty of support. Cicero regards social inequality as a natural constant and does not
question it. The consequences of unequal distribution of resources and political
power are not alleviated by forced redistribution on the part of the state or the
legislature, but rather by the moral obligation of the upper class, within the
clientele - that is, on a private level and nominally voluntary - of their resources and
their influence on the masses submit.87 This attitude resulted in Cicero's vehement
rejection and opposition to political movements that sought to overcome the crisis
of the outgoing republic with the help of legal redistribution, as did the Gracchi
and their successors.88 In doing so, Cicero took note of the fundamental crisis in
which the Roman Republic had found itself since the 2nd century, and he was also
aware of the potential for political unrest in the poorer sections of the population,
as he repeatedly shows in his speeches and letters.89 In contrast to Plato and
Aristotle, however, the mass of the population was not really an independent
political factor for him, but was always only an instrument in the hands of
intriguing politicians from the upper class. Ultimately, Cicero was blind to the root
causes of the crisis and saw the lack of social disruption instead of the social
upheavalconcordia ordinum, so ultimately a predominantly moral problem, as the
cause of all evil. That the Roman expansion in the Mediterranean area had led to
such serious social, economic and political upheavals that its onmos maiorum
oriented solutions completely missed the core of the problem, as a staunch

Republican and traditionalist he could not or would not accept.90 It is true that the
crisis of the Roman Republic is (also) a crisis of its leading social classes,91 but with
serious social upheavals as a cause and consequence.
86 Cic. Mur. 70–71 (translation by M. Fuhrmann).

87 The material dependence of the lower classes on the upper class not only promoted the social
economic and political position of the respective patron, but at the same time represented a means of
social control over the broader population. See in addition to the remarks in Saller (note 85) 38 in
detail A. Wallace-Hadrill, Patronage in Roman society: from republic to empire, in: ders. (note 85) 63–
87.
88 In detail Samotta (note 79) 272–290.
89 Forexample, Cic. dom. 79; Catil. 2.20; Flacc. 18; Att. 14,10,1. - Just be here about the whole complex
referred to Raskolnikoff (note 74) 371f.
90 So also Wood (note 80) 211– 213. similar to Samotta (note 79) above 303f. and 391-393, which also den
emphasizes the moral approach of Cicero, which largely ignores the economic and political
upheavals, but basically assesses the feasibility of his proposals as realistic (ibid. 402f.).
91 See only Wood (note 80) 29–41.

Authenticated
KLIO 92 (2010) 2 323
same. In order to be able to come up with sensible proposals for a solution at all,
Cicero would have had to address the increasingly unequal distribution of
economic resources within Roman society in his constitutional considerations. But
that is exactly what he did not do.
While Cicero mainly uses a metaphorical concept of poverty in his philosophical
writings, he plays in his writings on the theory of the state De re publica and De
legibus neither poverty nor wealth terms play a central role. Rather, he describes
the division he noted in Roman society as vertical, not horizontal, and uses purely
political terminology. According to Cicero, a state must not redistribute material
resources within society, but on the contrary must protect private property.
Therefore, Cicero treats the support absolutely and relatively poor not in
connection with his constitutional considerations, but in the context of the
Roman clientele; a material redistribution takes place with him not on a legal, but
on a moral-social basis.
6. Seneca the Younger
In his philosophical writings, the younger Seneca differentiates in terms of content,

but not terminology, between material and spiritual (ie metaphorical-
philosophical) poverty. This fact explains the seemingly contradicting observation
that Seneca on the one hand the relative poverty of themaiores and the simple
way of life (egestas) praises primitive peoples,92 on the other hand, the conditions
of prehistoric times are so idyllic that there was no division of people into rich and
poor, but everyone enjoyed the fruits of nature together and only through greed
for the unequal distribution of resources and thus poverty
(paupertas) came.93 So while Seneca extols material poverty in the first case, the
poverty he criticizes in the second case is moral in nature.94
The material side is also taken into account by the numerous passages that deal with
the question of who is poor at all (pauper) to be mentioned. This point is so important
to Seneca that he has given him the entire 119th letterEpistulae morales dedicates.
There he explains that you can get rich very quickly if you become aware of the fact that
only a few things are really necessary for life. Those who strive for more do not live
according to nature, but in truth desire superfluous luxury or, as Seneca says in
another letter:non qui parum habet, sed qui plus cupit, pauper est.95 Consequently, do
not be poor who are satisfied with what they have. In other words, every poor man is
ultimately to blame for his own misfortune, because that is the only reason why he is
poor (pauper), because he strives for more than he has - if he were satisfied with his
situation, he would not be poor either! In this way Seneca - as we were able to observe
with Cicero in the sixth paradox - makes poverty extremely high
92 Sen.De ira 3.2.1; (Ad) Helv (iam matrem de) cons (olatione). 12.5–7. - On the commonplace of the
glorification of the simple life and the devaluation of wealth in the ancient, especially Latin sources,
see d'Agostino (note 83)passim; Vischer (note 70) passim.
93 Sen. epist. 90.38.
94 See Vischer (note 70) 153.
95 Sen. epist. 2.6. - Other relevant passages: (De) tranqu (ilitate animi) 9.1; Helv. Cons. 11.4; epist. 1.5;
4.10-11; 16.7; 17.9; 25.4; 27.9; 108.11; 123.16.

Authenticated
subjective problem, the solution of which is entirely possible for every person by
changing their inner attitude. The position of the philosopher Antipater, cited by him in
his 87th letter, but not commented further there, who, with his definition, is poverty
parvi possessio, is based on external criteria,96 he obviously refuses.
But Seneca goes one step further: Don't just be paupertas a question of inner
attitude, but one can also see positive aspects from it. It discourages decadent and
perverse living and makes it possible to determine who is a true friend and who is
just an opportunistic flatterer.97 It also means that there is little to lose, because
while a wealthy man is afraid of war and muggers and has to worry about feeding
his abundant slavery, a poor man is completely free of such fears and worries. In
general, the poor are much more relaxed and cheerful than the rich, which is why
paupertas and not even egestas not only are not detrimental to philosophy, but
are even beneficial because they free the mind from superfluous ballast.98
Consequently, the wise man does not allow himself to be frightened or restricted
by poverty, but rather knows how to tame it and use it for his own ends.99 To prove
his remarks, Seneca encourages his readers to 'poverty on trial', as it were: If you
voluntarily forego luxury for a few days and only use a few slaves - an exercise
that, according to Seneca, is actually practiced by the rich in so-called cellae
pauperis practiced - it could be established that poverty (paupertas) is quite
bearable. Only then can one really enjoy one's wealth, since one is finally free from
the fear of thepaupertas may be.100 Seneca expressly does not have a
condemnation or even an 'abolition' of wealth in mind, on the contrary: Securius
divites erimus, si scierimus, quam non sit grave pauperes esse ("We will live in
wealth more carefree when we have experienced how little it is difficult to be poor.
”).101
In this context, Seneca's detailed explanations of the relationship of the wise to
poverty and wealth are interesting De vita beata.102 There he deals with allegations
against the philosophers, whose doctrine and personal life practice are often in
blatant contradiction to one another, and fully admits that even the wise prefer the
more comfortable life in case of doubt, but unlike the fool, he could just as easily
deal with illness , Poverty and similar adverse living conditions. The wise man is not
characterized by a principled renunciation of wealth, but by the fact that he knows
how to deal with wealth properly and how to acquire it fairly:
divitiae enim apud sapientem virum in servitute sunt, apud stultum in imperio;
sapiens divitiis nihil permittit, vobis divitiae omnia; vos, tamquam aliquis vobis
aeternam possessionem earum promiserit, assuescitis illis et cohaeretis, sapiens
tunc maxime paupertatem meditatur cum in mediis divitiis constitit.
96 Sen. epist. 87.40.

97 Sen. Helv. Cons. 10.4; epist. 20.7.
98 Sen. (De) const (antia sapientis) 13.3; tranqu. 8.2-3; Helv. Cons. 12.1; epist. 14.9; 17.3-6; 80.6.
99 Sen. (De) vita (beata) 25.1; epist. 85.37-41.
100 Sen. (Ad) Marc (iam de) cons (olatione) 19.6; tranqu. 9.3; Helv. Cons. 10.8-10; epist. 18.6-8; 20.13; 80.5;
100.6; 104.9.
101 Sen. epist. 18.8 (translation by M. Rosenbach). - See also Sen. epist. 18.13; 87.41.
102 Sen.vita 17– 27. - On this in detail M. Giacchero, Economia e società nell'opera di Seneca. Intuizoni e
giudizi nel contesto storico dell'età giulio-claudia, in: UikiŁ a | vaŁ qim.FS E. Manni, Vol. 3, Rome 1980,
1085-1136, here: 1095-1100.

Authenticated
KLIO 92 (2010) 2 325
“For wealth is in the position of a slave with a wise man, in that of

a master for a foolish man, the wise allow nothing to wealth,
wealth to you everything; you - as if someone had promised you
its eternal possession - get used to him and cling to him, the wise
think of poverty especially when he is in the midst of wealth. "103
In view of Seneca's goal of freeing his peers from the fear of impoverishment, it is
also astonishing that he explicitly assumes elsewhere that many rich people do not
anticipate the possibility of impoverishment and are accordingly surprised when
they see such a fate overtakes104 These two findings are contradicting one another
and do not want to go together very well. Equally astonishing is Seneca's advice
that the optimal standard of living is just above thatpaupertas settled105 - an
opinion that is not in the other praise of the paupertas and suggests that Seneca is
evidently not quite convinced of the merits of poverty itself!106
Seneca devotes himself in detail to the question of whom one should show
charity De beneficiis and comes to similar results as Cicero in De officiis. Since not
everyone is worthy to receive benefit, one must carefully choose the objects of
benefit.107 An important criterion in addition to an impeccable character is the
expected gratitude of the recipient, while his material and social status is
irrelevant. Hence be a poor onevir bonus always preferable to an unworthy rich
man.108 Basically, a benefit should be received in the presence of third parties,109 to
make the debt relationship between donor and recipient obvious. As with Cicero,
increasing social prestige by granting benefits plays an important role in Seneca.
Even in those cases in which help is given quietly and anonymously out of
consideration for the recipient's feelings of shame - Seneca cites the support of an
inegestas advised friend - the giver does not act selflessly in the end, because the
taker should recognize the originator of his salvation in an indirect way and thus
give his gratitude, to which he is eternally indebted to Seneca, a goal, i.e. the social
prestige of the benefactor can increase.110
103 Sen. vita 26.1 (translation by M. Rosenbach). - Seneca deals mainly with the allegations concerning the
relationship of philosophers to wealth in chapters 22–26.
104 Sen. Marc. cons. 9.2; tranqu. 11.8-9.
105 Sen. tranqu. 8.9.
106 For the contradictions and inconsistencies in Seneca's position on poverty and wealth see also
MT Griffin, Seneca. A philosopher in politics, Oxford 1976, 294-314.
107 Sen. benef. 1,1,2; 4,10.2.
108 Sen. benef. 4,3,1; 4.10.4-11.1. - In other places too, Seneca repeatedly emphasizes that the material
and a person's social situation does not allow any conclusions to be drawn about his moral
perfection. This also results from the fact that many of the famous ancestors were poor by the
standards of Seneca's time: Sen. Helv. Cons. 12.5-7; epist. 66.34; 74.28; 115.6–7. Of course - as
in Section 5 above with Cicero - doubts about the sincerity of this position are in order, because
Seneca also has the typical reservations of the Roman upper class towards the general
population (cf. Prell [note. 1] 218).
109 Sen. benef. 2.23.1-3.
110 Sen. benef. 1.9.1; 2.9.2-10.4.

Authenticated
In contrast to Cicero, who expressly approves donations for the good of the
community and cites infrastructure measures as concrete examples, Seneca takes
the position that beneficia not to the crowd (vulgus) should be directed, but always
only to specific individuals.111 In general, Seneca seems to be predominant, if not
even exclusively beneficia to keep an eye on between members of the upper class.
It is symptomatic when given as specific examplesbeneficia necessaria, ie benefits
that serve to preserve a person's livelihood, not the satisfaction of basic human
needs (food, clothing, etc.), but release from captivity, liberation from the violence
of a tyrant and rescue from proscription112 - largely dangers (with the exception of
the former) which only affected members of the upper class and not the bulk of
the population. If Seneca also advocates thatbeneficia always have to take into
account the social position of the donor and recipient,113 It is very clear that,
according to Seneca, benefits serve to stabilize the social and economic order and
not to redistribute economic resources from the richer to the poor.
How are the findings on the treatment of the poverty issue by Seneca to be
classified? First of all, it is noticeable that Seneca almost always refers to the word
family as poverty termspauper used; in the relatively rare cases in which heegens
or inops or the respective derivatives used, it is largely synonymous use for pauper.
114 The fact that Seneca has relative poverty in mind is also reflected in his
description of the phenomenon of poverty, which is not characterized by absolute
lack of property, but by a low, but adequate standard of living. This brings us to the
second important factor: the addressees of Seneca's writings. With his advice, of
course, he does not address the general population or even the absolutely poor,
but rather the affluent upper class, who, among other things, want to take away
the fear of falling into (relative!) Poverty. He is only interested in the issue of
poverty insofar as a rich senator or knight can be affected by it, and this is not
simply being a beggar, but rather the relative impoverishment compared to his
peers.115 This leads to the third observation: Seneca's description of the location of
a pauper completely misses the realities. It is of course pure idyllization without
any truthfulness whatsoever when he makes assertions such as the fact that a
relatively poor person laughs more than a rich man, lives more carefree and has
no fear of robbery
111 Sen. benef. 1,2,1.

112 Sen.benef. 1,11,1-3.
113 Sen.benef. 2.15.3-17.4.
114 Seneca uses the word families egens and inops mostly for contexts in which he relates to others
Place the word family pauper used, so a difference in meaning cannot be seen, e.g. B. Sen.vita
11.1; tranqu. 8.4; benef. 2.9.2; 2.15.1; 2.17.2; 4,10.5; 6,30,1; epist. 14.3-4; 74.4; 85.41. -Mendicus its
derivations are found only three times (Sen. const. 13.3; tranqu. 11.9-10) in a material, that is, not
transferred, meaning without these passages being productive for our question.
115 On this in detail VJ Rosivach, Seneca on the fear of poverty in the epistulae morales, AC 64, 1995,
91– 98. - Although S. Mratschek-Halfmann, Divites et praepotentes. Wealth and Social Position in the
Literature of the Princely Period, Stuttgart 1993, 144– 146 suggests that at least knights were affected
by absolute impoverishment, but some of the sources cited - satires and epigrams - are very
questionable, and even if they were true , it must have been extremely exceptional cases with
certainty.

Authenticated
KLIO 92 (2010) 2 327
must. Seneca is not concerned with a description of social reality, rather he would
like to relativize the meaning of power and wealth in the form of philosophical
thought games and make the reader aware of their overvaluation. He
does not want to limit or 'abolish' wealth, but on the contrary, by relativizing it,
relieves the fear of impoverishment and thus enables the enjoyment of wealth in
the first place.
As a result of this instrumentalization of the poverty issue, which deliberately fades out
reality, some statements in the entire work that cannot be completely congruent are made
(see above), from which it becomes clear that Seneca does not strive for a systematic
treatment of the phenomenon of poverty, but only uses it on a case-by-case basis where it is
relevant to him Clarifying his intention seems advisable. Depending on the context, his
perspective on poverty is different and thus also how it is portrayed.
In contrast to the material concept of poverty and wealth in Cicero's
philosophical writings, which on closer inspection turned out to be a philosophical-
metaphorical use, Seneca is actually also concerned with the relationship of the
wise to wealth and poverty in the strictly material sense, and in contrast to Cicero
this relationship is not characterized by pure contempt for material wealth. A
parallel to Cicero, on the other hand, emerges from the observation that Seneca
does not question wealth inequality, but Seneca is even more restrictive with
regard to the poor's participation in the material resources of the rich. While Cicero
advocates a top-down redistribution, at least within the framework of the clientele,
beneficia within this group.
7. Results
Finally, let us summarize the central observations of our investigation again! First
of all, we can state that the use and importance of poverty termspeŁ mg |, apoqo |,
pauper and egens with their respective derivations in the examined writings are
sometimes much more blurred than the clear, ideal-typical definitions would lead
one to expect. All four authors also advocate the principle that one should not help
everyone who is in need without reservation, but only those who are worthy of
help. This is an old principle that was widespread in Greco-Roman antiquity,116
which throws a clear light on the motive behind Plato and Aristotle, Cicero and
Seneca's preoccupation with the issue of poverty: They are not concerned with
solving social problems or even with humanitarian aspects, but pursue purely
philosophical and / or sociopolitical ones Goals. Strive for Plato and Aristotleet¤
dailomiŁ a for the polis and the individual, Cicero sees in the clientele system a
means of social control of the lower classes and to increase the prestige of the
upper class, Seneca exploits the poverty issue to increase the joie de vivre of his
peers. Nor are all four interested in the poor in general, but only in the poor
citizen, since only he is interested in the constitutional considerations of Plato and
Aristotle or the social
116 Bolkestein (note 1) 213f .; Hands (note 1) 74f.

Authenticated
Cicero's political intentions play a role, not to mention Seneca's focus on the upper
class.
For Plato and Aristotle, the contrast between poor and rich is an important
factor in the constitution of a state and a cause of civil strife and constitutional
overthrow. While Plato focuses on the material and social, the relative and
absolute dimensions of poverty, Aristotle is more concerned with the social than
the material aspect, and in the context of the latter also with relative rather than
absolute poverty. Both agree, however, that the optimal distribution of wealth
within a citizenry is to be seen in avoiding both extremes - wealth and poverty. If
Plato and Aristotle are thus also in a long tradition from Solon on,117 So one can
interpret this plea for an even distribution of resources as possible as a reference
to the time of the classical polis before the economic and social upheavals as a
result of the Peloponnesian War, in which the middle class - i.e. the peasant
hoplites - was the politically dominant group.118 It is irrelevant whether this
assessment by Plato and Aristotle corresponds to historical realities or not,119 just
as it is also undisputed that both of them largely failed to recognize the actual
structural causes of poverty and impoverishment; The decisive factor for our
question is that they obviously perceived the contrast between rich and poor
subjectively and attached great importance to it for their constitutional
considerations, Plato even more so than Aristotle.
In contrast, poverty and wealth terminology do not play a central role in Cicero's
writings on the theory of the state De re publica and De legibus, on the contrary,
he describes the split in Roman society that he also noted as a vertical, not a
horizontal one, and uses purely political terms for it. In particular, Cicero differs
from Plato in another essential point: According to Cicero, the goal of the state
must not be to bring about an even (re) distribution of material resources within
society; on the contrary, the state has to protect and guarantee private property .
Cicero devotes himself to the issue of poverty in a completely different context,
namely within the framework of the Roman clientele, which serves as a kind of
social network for poorer citizens or those in need. With Cicero, the poorer share in
the resources of the richer
If Cicero treats the poor population rather marginally, in fact it no longer plays a
role at all for Seneca. Although he uses the terminology of poverty very often, in
the end it is not about the poor, but about the rich that he cares for
117 Hemelrijk (note 6) 122– 131 and 148f.

118 See Spahn (note 58) 9f.
119 A widespread impoverishment of Greece in the 4th century and the unrest resulting from it emphasize Bolkestein
(Note 1) 207f .; A. Fuks, Patterns and types of social-economic revolution in Greece from the fourth to
the second century BC, AncSoc 5, 1974, 51–81, va 61–70; Ste. Croix (note 47) 293– 300. - On the other
hand, H.-J. Gehrke,Stasis. Investigations into the internal wars in the Greek states of
5th and 4th centuries BC Chr., Munich 1985, especially 321–328 in his fundamental study, among
other things, to the result that the vast majority of unrest, contrary to the image conveyed by the
literature of the 4th century, was not socially but purely politically motivated. Elsewhere (Gehrke
[Note 11] 144f. And 149f.), He sees in the scheme of a division of the polis population into poor and
rich more an anti-democratic prejudice of the 5th century than a reflection of the social realities of
the 4th century. s.

Authenticated
KLIO 92 (2010) 2 329
wants to enable the enjoyment of their wealth by relativizing the importance of

money and possessions and thus taking away their fear of possible
impoverishment. To do this, he paints a completely unrealistic, idyllic picture of the
paupertas, the actual living conditions of the pauperes or even who scorns the
absolutely poor. Even in connection with the granting of benefits, he is not
interested in the poor, but is obviously focusedbeneficia exclusively between
members of the rich upper class. While, according to Plato and Aristotle, not only
poverty but also wealth has negative consequences for the individual and the
entire state, Cicero and especially Seneca are far from evaluating wealth negatively
in any way.
Despite some similarities, the differences between the four authors in their attitude
to the issue of poverty cannot be misunderstood, the image of a more or less
homogeneous position of the pre-Christian sources, as is the case communis opinio
draws, is therefore incorrect in its generality. Plato and Aristotle deal with the
phenomenon of poverty - albeit of course with a completely different perspective and
for completely different motives than the Christian sources will later do - so for them
the statement that it is poor and poverty is just not true would completely ignore their
considerations. On the other hand, our analysis of the two Roman authors confirmed
the prevailing research opinion, because in fact the poor play only a marginal (Cicero)
or no role at all (Seneca) in their considerations.
While Seneca's treatment of the issue of poverty, due to its purely philosophical
thrust, does not allow a direct comparison with the state-theoretical writings of
Plato and Aristotle, the situation is different with Cicero. With him, the finding that,
in contrast to his two Greek predecessors, he does not systematically consider the
poor in his theory of the state is almost obvious and demands an explanation. A
central reason can certainly be seen in the different historical background against
which the three authors wrote their writings: Plato and Aristotle drafted their
theory of the state with a view to the frequent civil wars and constitutional
upheavals of the 4th century BC. BC, which they perceived as the result of an
economic decline,120 On the other hand, Cicero's writings on the theory of the state
are a clear statement against the increasing erosion of the Roman republican
constitution, which Cicero saw as caused by the selfish power politics of individual
members of the upper class. In general, the basic division of the population by the
Romans did not take place according to material, but according to political-social
(senators, knights, plebs) and according to legal criteria (free, freed, slaves).121
Hence, Cicero's failure to consider the categories poor and rich is in De re publica
and De legibus consequent. If Cicero, in contrast to Plato and Aristotle, deals with
the issue of poverty in connection with the clientele, this is also a consequence of
different social and historical framework conditions: while clientele was an integral
part of Roman society, it played a role in Greece in the 5th and 4th centuries.
Century is not a significant role.122 Another reason for the sensitivity of the two
Greek philosophers and especially Plato for the problem of poverty, which we are
concerned with
120 See note 119 above.

121 See only Prell (note 1) 43.
122 P. Millet, Patronage and its avoidance in classical Athens, in: Wallace-Hadrill (note 85) 15–47.

Authenticated
enter the realm of speculation, the social origin of Plato's teacher Socrates may be.
Despite all the uncertainties and ambiguities surrounding the historical figure of
Socrates, it is at least certain that he was neither completely destitute nor
belonged to the rich nobility of Athens, and therefore as a middle class citizen or -
to use Aristotle - as a member of theleŁ roi can be designated.123 As such, he was
certainly more aware of the problems of the general population than a member of
the upper class,124 and he could well have passed this awareness on to his noble
pupil Plato and, through him, to Aristotle.
In any case, there are strong doubts as to whether the general thesis of the
largely homogeneous attitude of our pre-Christian sources to the poverty issue is
tenable in its generality. These doubts are additionally nourished by observations
that even in non-Christian sources from the high imperial period the issue of
poverty played a considerable role.125 In order to finally clarify this question, of
course, a much more extensive and systematic examination of the entire source
material than this article could and wanted to provide.
summary
Based on the Greek and Latin poverty terminology and using modern definitions of
poverty, the philosophical writings of Plato, Aristotle, Ciceros and Seneca are
examined with regard to their consideration and evaluation of the poor. It turns
out that the position of the four authors on the topic of poverty is significantly less
homogeneous than research generally assumes for the Greco-Roman sources of
the pre-Christian period.
Summary
Based on the Greek and Latin terms for poverty and by means of modern definitions, it is
analyzed to what extent the philosophical works of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, and Seneca
consider the poor and how they estimate them. One conclusion is that the approach of the
four authors on the issue of poverty differs greatly from what has commonly been assumed
by scholars for Greek and Latin sources of the pre-christian era.
Key words: poverty, poor, poverty discourse, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca
123 On the social position of Socrates see K. Döring, sv Sokrates (RxjqaŁ sg |) [2], in: DNP XI, 2001,
674-686, here: 674f .; H. Toole, The social status of Socrates as inferred from his military service and other
information, Platon 27, 1975, 147-152.
124
Similar to Bolkestein (note 1) 199.
125 H. Grassl already showed, Socio-Economic Concepts in Imperial Greek Literature
(1st– 3rd century AD), Wiesbaden 1982, 65–72 and 175–192, that in the non-Christian literature of the
1st - 3rd century AD the problem of poverty and the contrast between rich and poor often emerge as
important issues. Unfortunately, he does not go deeper into his observations and also forego the necessary
terminological differentiation.

Authenticated

Observations On Poverty and Poor in Plato and Aristotle, Cicero and Seneca

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Observations On Poverty and Poor in Plato and Aristotle, Cicero and Seneca

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Translated from German to English - www.onlinedoctranslator.

KLIO 92 2010 2 305-330

S.tefan Kstill (Bamberg)

Observations on poverty and poor in Plato

Brought to you by | University of Georgia Libraries

2. Definition and terminology

Brought to you by | University of Georgia Libraries

Brought to you by | University of Georgia Libraries

Brought to you by | University of Georgia Libraries

“For, as I think, in a state that is supposed to remain free from the

15th Plat. rep. 567a; see Plat. polit. 291e.

Brought to you by | University of Georgia Libraries

Brought to you by | University of Georgia Libraries

28 Plat. rep. 416a-417b.

Brought to you by | University of Georgia Libraries

in a certain sense actually speak of the “abolition” of wealth and poverty

38 See Fuks, Laws (note 7) 44f. and 76f.

Brought to you by | University of Georgia Libraries

Brought to you by | University of Georgia Libraries

the citizen questioning dichotomy, 2. a division made according to economic

Brought to you by | University of Georgia Libraries

1. According to an ethical aspect: Depending on the dominant group of the dg “lo |

In case of doubt, however, the ethical structure aspect is decisive. According to

52 Aristot. pole. 1291b15-28.

Brought to you by | University of Georgia Libraries

57 So z. B. Aristot. Top. 113a8; m. mor. 1185b13-15; eth. Nic. 1104a12.

Brought to you by | University of Georgia Libraries

61 Aristot. pole. 1320a29-1320b1.

Brought to you by | University of Georgia Libraries

Brought to you by | University of Georgia Libraries

Brought to you by | University of Georgia Libraries

Cicero's statement is informative that it is in the interest of the common good to

Brought to you by | University of Georgia Libraries

“The common people have an opportunity to do or reciprocate a

Brought to you by | University of Georgia Libraries

oriented solutions completely missed the core of the problem, as a staunch

86 Cic. Mur. 70–71 (translation by M. Fuhrmann).

Brought to you by | University of Georgia Libraries

6. Seneca the Younger

In his philosophical writings, the younger Seneca differentiates in terms of content,

Brought to you by | University of Georgia Libraries

96 Sen. epist. 87.40.

Brought to you by | University of Georgia Libraries

“For wealth is in the position of a slave with a wise man, in that of

Brought to you by | University of Georgia Libraries

111 Sen. benef. 1,2,1.

Brought to you by | University of Georgia Libraries

116 Bolkestein (note 1) 213f .; Hands (note 1) 74f.

Brought to you by | University of Georgia Libraries

117 Hemelrijk (note 6) 122– 131 and 148f.

Brought to you by | University of Georgia Libraries

wants to enable the enjoyment of their wealth by relativizing the importance of

120 See note 119 above.

Brought to you by | University of Georgia Libraries

Brought to you by | University of Georgia Libraries

You might also like