Respecting the condition of the poor, in ancient nations, very little is commonly known, the great historians, the tragic poets, and the other classic writers who enjoy what may be termed popularity, not having bestowed their attention on the subject; and to mine, for this species of knowledge, amid the speculations of philosophers, or the dusky rubbish of scholiasts and lexicographers, being a task for which few have patience. Even those writers who might have been expected to enter fully into this matter, supply but slight and unsatisfactory information, either because they attached little importance to the question, or because it did not enter into their design to examine in all their details the poor-laws of Athens, or the numerous sources of private and public charity which circumscribed the operation of those laws. To the best of my ability I shall endeavour to supply the deficiency.
In the earlier ages of the commonwealth there existed no class of citizens so necessitous as to require the aid of charity.[275] The democracy was not disgraced by the beggary of one of its members; for, though many, compared with their neighbours, might be poor, none were reduced to sordid indigence, or so lacked credit as to be unable to command the means of engaging in some profitable branch of industry. Afterwards, however, through the calamitous events of war, and that deterioration seemingly inherent in all forms of government, the number of the indigent exceeded that of the wealthy,[276] (as in every modern country it does,) and distress and destitution occupying entirely the thoughts of the sufferers, corroded to the core that spirit of patriotism which had distinguished their ancestors. But the institutions of Athens, having been truly designed to promote the happiness and provide for the wants of the people, the attention of the legislature was immediately directed to the evil.
As this was the first developement of the spirit of charity, it naturally appeared feeble at the outset, and only acquired strength and volume by degrees. A beginning was made in the case of those who had been disabled in war,[277] and of the children left behind by citizens who fell in defence of their country.
To the former a pension, in early times of one obolos a-day, was allowed: the latter[278] may be said to have been adopted by the state which maintained and educated them till the age of eighteen, when, having been taught some trade or business, they were considered able to provide for themselves.[279]
With whom this humane institution originated is not agreed. In the case of disabled soldiers the honour has, by some, been attributed to Peisistratos, by others to Solon. Bœckh, though he acknowledges that the latter “certainly gave the example to Peisistratos,” considers it not improbable that, for the benefit of this important lesson, humanity is indebted to the tyrant, who, he observes, “was of a mild disposition; and usurpers are generally glad to seize every opportunity of conferring a benefit, with a view to make themselves popular; nor would the Athenians, with their hatred to tyranny, have attributed this honour to him if he had not deserved it.”[280]
Of this I am not sure. Peisistratos, a consummate politician, having unjustly rendered himself master of the state, was, no doubt, careful to appropriate to himself as many as possible of the honours due to Solon, the mildest of all legislators; and, if he abstained from abrogating such a law, might contrive to pass for its author. Certain, at all events, it is, that a tradition long existed among the ancients which attributed the institution to Solon;[281] and however mild and popular in manners the tyrant may have been, it will still, perhaps, be acknowledged that in those qualities he was excelled by the great legislator.
By what steps the law, originally instituted with reference solely to citizens disabled in war, came afterwards to embrace the aged, the sick, the blind, and infirm of every description, is not known. It did not, however, require them to be absolutely destitute before they could receive relief. Any citizen whose property did not exceed three minæ, or twelve pounds sterling,[282] was entitled to the allowance; to eke out which he might keep a small shop, or apply himself to any other branch of industry within his competence. The laws, in fact, were on this point exceedingly liberal, justly considering it to be the duty of society to make up as far as possible for the injuries of fortune. There was little danger of the state’s humanity being abused. The people themselves examined into every case, which in a community so limited they could easily do, and afterwards it was still in the power of any citizen, who suspected imposition, to bring an action against the offender before the Senate of Five Hundred.
The speech of a defendant in a cause of this kind has come down to us. It was written for the unfortunate citizen by Lysias; and I own I can discover in it nothing of that “jesting tone,” which, in the opinion of some writers, proves it to be a mere rhetorical exercise.[283] On the contrary, it breathes of that manly confidence, which it became the citizen, however poor, of a republican state, to feel. We must not conceive of him as a miserable pauper whining to a board of guardians. He understood the intent and meaning of the law, and certain that his case entitled him to the relief it was designed to afford, he spoke before the Senate like a man claiming no more than was equitably due to him; and too well assured of the humanity and justice of his countrymen to be under much apprehension. He kept a small shop, it appears, in the vicinity of the agora, and one of the principal points dwelt on by the prosecutor was, that he there drew together a number of saunterers and newsmongers, such as usually at Athens frequented the shops of barbers, perfumers, &c., in that fashionable part of the town.[284] Another point was, that he sometimes rode on horseback, which, in the opinion of the accusers, a man receiving aid from the state should not have done. But, to this part of the accusation, he replies, that, being so lame as to be compelled to make use of crutches, he was wholly unable to answer the more distant calls of business without hiring a horse, the expense of which only augmented his difficulties.
From these circumstances we may learn, that the Athenian government was by no means penurious in its appropriation of those funds which the contributions of the wealthier citizens placed at its disposal.
On the amount of the daily allowance writers are not agreed, some pretending it was three oboli, others two, and others an obolos. The truth, probably, is, that, originally, it exceeded not a single obolos, but that, as prices augmented, or, rather, as the coin deteriorated in value, it was found necessary to double the amount.[285] Whether it was ever raised to three oboli seems doubtful; the affirmation of the Scholiast on Æschines[286] may be a mistake; but the mere fact that this was the pay of the dicasts is no reason at all for calling the testimony of the grammarian in question.[287] Be this, however, as it may, in the time of Lysias,[288] one obolos only was bestowed, and Bœckh has attempted, with much ingenuity, to determine the date of the increased allowance. It had not taken place, according to Harpocration, in the time of Aristotle; but Philochoros, the next writer who touches on the subject, observes, that it was nine drachmæ a month, or fifty-four oboli,[289] which, omitting the fractions, is equal to two oboli a day. The year in which Aristotle composed his treatise on the Athenian government is not exactly known; it was probably, however, after his return from Macedon, 334 B.C. Philochoros was Hieroscopos at Athens in the year of Corœbos, 306 B.C. He did not, however, publish his Atthis till about the year 260 B.C., at which time the poor allowance had been raised to two oboli. The date of the increase, therefore, falls somewhere within the preceding seventy years.[290]
With respect to the number of persons blind, old, sick, maimed, or otherwise disabled, who received maintenance from the state, no exact computation can be made. Bœckh,[291] imagining that Meursius had reckoned them at five hundred, after remarking that the assumption is founded on a false reading in Suidas, accepts the number as the least that can be adopted. But Meursius,[292] in the passage referred to, assumes nothing; he does not even allude to the number at all. And, in fact, it will be evident, at the first glance, that no conjecture can hope to approach the truth where circumstances were constantly varying, adding to, or taking from, the number of those who required relief. This was chiefly affected by the general poverty of the state, which augmented rapidly towards its decline, when the number of the aged and infirm, not possessing three minæ, or twelve pounds sterling, per annum, must, no doubt, have been considerable. On the other hand, having no longer to defend its freedom, which was gone for ever, the children of citizens falling in battle were comparatively few, and, accordingly, the gain on this item went to balance the loss on the other.
The offspring of citizens thus bequeathed to the care of the state were at one time exceedingly numerous, and highly exemplary and honourable was the attention they received.[293] To the females a maintenance, education, and a portion, were given; and the males having also been supported and educated until manhood, received in the public theatre a complete suit of armour, as a memento of their fathers’ valour, to incite them to follow their example. The whole audience being assembled, the herald introduced the orphan youths clothed in panoply of “complete steel,” and then, with a loud voice, proclaimed what Æschines rightly regarded as a most glorious and valour-inspiring proclamation, viz., that the fathers of those youths, like brave and good men, had fallen in their country’s battles, on which account the state had undertaken the charge of their bringing up, and now, on the verge of manhood, having adorned them with an entire suit of armour, dismissed them under happy auspices to watch over their own affairs, granting them, likewise, for the day, the most honourable seats in the theatre.[294]
Petit[295] supposes this to have taken place on their attaining the age of twenty, before which they could not legally assume the management of their inheritance, or encounter the fatigue and peril of regular warfare; but, others, perhaps, with more probability, fix upon the age of eighteen.
The above legal provision, however, does not appear to have sufficed, and there sometimes occurred cases of distress which it could not reach. Many, too, would submit to great privation rather than have recourse to public aid. Such persons, where numbers were in similar circumstances, usually united and formed, what may very properly be denominated a Benefit Club (ἔρανος[296]), to which they contributed when in their power, that, should misfortune overtake them, they might still be sure of support. This description, however, of Eranos constituted only one branch of the numerous Clubs, Companies, Associations, Trades-unions, &c., which, like the Clubs of the Civil Wars[297] and Associations of a still later date, occasionally assumed a political character and impeded the movements of the machinery of the state.[298] These societies were instituted with various objects. In the first place they were established to defray by subscription the expense of certain sacrifices, offered up in behalf of their members who were called Eranistæ and Thiasotæ. But under cover of this pretext combinations of an evil tendency were sometimes formed,—among the aristocracy, for example, who established the tyranny of the Four Hundred,—and these obnoxious clubs, varying in character with the period, espoused the cause of freedom in Roman times, and were of course watched jealously by the conquerors.[299]
With respect to those associations which bore a legal character, they were by the laws of Solon permitted to enact whatever rules and regulations they judged proper for their own government and advantage, provided no public ordinance prevented.[300] Sometimes the citizens of a whole Demos, or borough, formed themselves into a club, or a ship’s crew,[301] or an eating society, or persons having a right to the same burial-ground, or the partners in a mercantile expedition. Thus we find three several motives,—religion, gain, and pleasure,—impelling men into unions of this kind, all recognised by law. The curious and intricate internal structure of Athenian society lent itself readily to the formation of such clubs; the whole population having originally been divided into four tribes, each tribe into three phratriæ,[302] each phratria into thirty clans (γενη), each clan containing thirty houses, among whom the honours of the priesthood were distributed by lot.[303]
In these Attic associations we discover the germs of those companies of merchants, guilds, &c.,[304] so familiar to the modern world; or rather similar wants in both cases gave rise to similar institutions. But with the trading companies we have, in this place, nothing to do; and if incidentally the other associations are noticed, it is simply for the purpose of more fully developing a system of which the Benefit Clubs formed a part. These evidently rose out of the Eranæ established originally for purposes of pleasure: that is, a number of individuals desirous of enjoying a more splendid entertainment than they could generally afford at home,[305] together with the society of their intimate friends, entered into a subscription[306] for the purpose of getting up a public dinner during the celebration of the great national festivals. In some cases the associations thus formed, pro tempore, did not outlast the occasion, while in others the taste for social pleasures, or the accidental meeting of congenial tempers, led to the establishment of a permanent club, the members of which grew naturally among a warm-hearted people to take an interest in each other’s welfare. The expenses of the sacrifices during these festivals were in part defrayed from the revenues of the sacred lands, but these not sufficing, it was generally necessary to raise a common fund by subscription.[307]
Of all these clubs, whether temporary or permanent, whose object was the providing of funds for sacrifice, or to enjoy the pleasures of society, the generic name was Erani, though such as partook of a religious character received besides the appellation of Thiasi.[308] Their members were called Eranistæ and Thiasotæ. It was common among the Greeks to indulge in feasting immediately at the close of harvest, both on account of the plenty which then prevailed, and, because the great business of the year being finished, they had more leisure to devote to enjoyment.[309] That these associations tended to generate and promote friendship and affection among their members was well understood; wherefore in the ancient tyrannies they were rigidly prohibited, together with all common tables, educational establishments, and whatever else, to adopt the expression of Aristotle, promotes reflection and mutual confidence.[310] It was supposed to be their interest to keep men as far as possible in ignorance and distrust of each other. Hence all religions with a tendency to beget mutual love were proscribed (as among the Romans Christianity) as of an antimonarchical character. Thus Mæcenas, as ardent a patron of tyranny as of literature, urged Augustus to persecute and proscribe all attempts at introducing new creeds, as favourable to innovation or, at least, to change; to sworn brotherhoods, associations, clubs, things in their nature hostile to monarchy.[311]
The conjecture is probable, that the conversion of the Erani into charitable institutions was matter of accident. At first it seems clear, as I have observed already, that their object was sacrifice, feasting, and pleasure. But it sometimes happened that, of the funds subscribed, some portion would, after their objects had been fulfilled, remain; and if, when this was the case, any member of the club happened to fall into distress, it was perfectly natural to think of applying this surplus to his benefit.[312] From this the step was easy to subscribing expressly for the purpose of relieving indigent members, which, at length, was the practice, though the gradations by which they arrived at it have not been accurately marked.[313] Arrian has left a curious account of a Celtic eranos established by a Hunting Club in honour of Artemis,[314] to whom solemn sacrifice was annually offered up. A fund was created by the members of the club in the following manner: every one who caught a hare paid into the treasury two oboli: the capturer or destroyer of a fox a drachma, the fox being a mischievous animal and fatal to the hare; they therefore considered his destruction in the light of a triumph over an enemy. The sportsman who took a roebuck (δορκὰς), which among them was the noblest game, and the largest animal hunted, paid four drachmæ. On the birth-day of the goddess the treasury was opened, and a victim, whether a sheep, a she-goat, or a calf, according to their means, was purchased. Sacrifice was then offered, after which both men and dogs regaled themselves with a banquet. Bitches were on this day crowned with flowers, to show that the feast was celebrated in their behalf.[315]
In all these clubs the chest was the soul of everything; for this being removed the whole society fell to pieces.[316] Accordingly, to become a member it was necessary to subscribe a certain amount to the fund, and all payments were made monthly.[317] As these clubs, moreover, were legal, the person who neglected such payments could be prosecuted at law, as for any other debt; and what shows the importance of these institutions at Athens, the ordinances referring to them formed a separate branch of jurisprudence,[318] to enter into which, however, does not belong to my present inquiry. The president or chairman of the club was likewise treasurer, whether chosen by lot or elected by the members of the club, whose expenses and behaviour, while assembled, he appears to have regulated.[319] It has been seen that the meetings of these societies took place during religious festivals; but whenever they were called together, whether by business or piety, it was customary, as in all similar cases among ourselves, for the members to dine together. They do not appear, however, to have possessed club-houses; but, like our literary men of the last century, to have dined at taverns or alternately at each others’ dwellings.[320] On these occasions it was customary to restrain their expenses within moderate limits, the object being rather the enjoyment of each others’ society than the indulgence of a passion for luxury.[321]
On those occasions, when a member received the club at his house, he himself, it has been conjectured, took the chair,[322] not, however, necessarily and by rule; for it has been seen that the president was sometimes chosen by lot, sometimes by vote. But this supposition is, probably, ill-founded; for, as the same individual was at once eranarch and treasurer, it appears exceedingly improbable that he should be changed every time the club dined together. It seems to me more likely,—and we are left to conjecture,—that an annual chairman was chosen to transact the general business of the society, while another individual might be selected to fill the office of chairman for any particular evening. Towards the close of the republic, when the worship of Serapis had been introduced, women would seem to have been received as members of Erani established in honour of that foreign divinity.[323]
But as these clubs were only accidentally connected with charity and the condition of the poor, I proceed to consider another species of Eranæ, conceived almost in the spirit of Christianity. Van Holst,[324] whose researches on the subject of the Hellenic clubs, though pedantic and confused, are not without value, denies that any permanent charitable associations existed among the Greeks, though among the Romans, he conceives, they did. At the same time, he confesses what it were difficult to deny, that the friendly subscription called Eranos derived its name and being from the clubs above-described. He contends that no club existed with permanent funds for the relief of distressed friends, and that the relief actually afforded was the spontaneous effort of beneficence and humanity. On this point he is at issue with Casaubon,[325] whom he appears, in some respects, to misunderstand. Salmasius, he conceives, comes nearer the mark where he says, that when any person was overwhelmed with debt or poverty, he found a ready refuge in his friends, who subscribed what they could, both to satisfy his creditors and provide for his future subsistence. It was in the discharge of debts, however, that men found most aid from their friends;[326] though such subscriptions were set on foot on many other occasions, to redeem a man from captivity, for example, or to portion a friendless girl, as was the practice also at Thebes.[327]
The mode in which this subscription was collected, and the principle on which the transaction was based, had something characteristic about them. In the first place, the money resembled a loan (which, strictly speaking, it was not), because, if the receiver afterwards became fortunate, he was bound to make repayment,[328] though while in unfavourable circumstances his mind was not oppressed by the consciousness of being in debt, since no one regarded himself as a creditor, or could ask him for an obolos. Salmasius observes very justly, that the greatest proof of generosity is to give without any desire of a return, which the Greeks called eleëmosynè, or eranos of strict charity. The second grade is, where money is lent to be repaid without interest, which our Saviour calls τὰ ἶσα ἀπολαβεῖν.[329] The lowest, where you lend, but on condition of receiving interest.[330]
For the repayment of money collected by eranistic subscription, no exact time, it has been observed, was fixed. It appears to have depended entirely on the recipient’s sense of honour or feelings of gratitude. But Petit,[331] whose researches on this part of his subject were not sufficiently exact, confounds the monthly subscription paid by members of a trading company or ordinary club, with the money which a man, aided by his friends, might be supposed to owe them, and says, that such-a-one was required to pay it back by monthly instalments, or all at once within a month. The former would be the case were we to understand Harpocration to speak of this kind of eranos at all; the latter, if we accept his interpretation. But Van Holst[332] is right in remarking that Petit here apprehends the sense of the grammarian “minus recte”; that is, he mistakes it altogether. However, that the money was at some time to be repaid appears from a variety of passages. Theophrastus, for example, in his Chapter on Grumbling, observes, that the querulous man, to whom a collection made for him by his friends is brought, will reply to the person who bids him to be of good cheer,—“Wherefore? when I must return as much to each of them, and be grateful, moreover, for the favour?”[333]
Among the other peculiarities in the construction of Athenian society which tended to better the condition of the poor, were the entertainments given by rich citizens to their tribes, on certain festivals or days of public rejoicing.[334] And this was a matter by no means left to the caprice of individuals, for if some one came not forward voluntarily to undergo the expense, the members of the tribe proceeded to cast lots,[335] and the citizen to whose chance it fell could not escape the performance of this duty, unless he pleaded, as his excuse, some cause deemed satisfactory by the public. Of course, the character of the entertainment depended on the wealth or munificence of the Hestiator.[336] Necessary, it was not, that he should regale his fellow-tribesmen sumptuously, as frugality was one of the characteristics of the nation; but, at the same time, it is quite evident that on many occasions[337] the Feast of the Tribe was a magnificent banquet.[338]
Of the state of the poor at Sparta,[339] our information is exceedingly scanty. We only know that, when they were unable to contribute their share to the maintenance of the public tables, they lost the privilege of being present, and had to provide for themselves at home in the best manner they were able.[340] It would thus appear that their Phiditia differred very little, except in being more general, from the Erani of the Athenians. As Laconia abounded with game, it may be conjectured that the more indigent citizens frequently relied greatly for support on the chase,[341] to which may be added the charity of their wealthier neighbours, in whatever way bestowed. In Crete, the citizens being placed more upon an equality, there was little room for extreme poverty.[342] The population, moreover, by artificial restraints, was kept within due bounds; consequently, most persons lived plentifully, and possessed wherewith to exercise the most generous hospitality. But even here they multiplied in later times more rapidly than the means of subsistence, so that numbers of Cretans were fain to serve as mercenary archers in the intestine wars of Greece. The same remark will apply to the Arcadians, and several other people whose poorer members earned a subsistence by their hereditary valour.[343]
At Athens, when persons in easy circumstances made a feast, as on all occasions of sacrificing they did, the custom was to send some small presents, as parts of the victim, to their friends, more especially when poor.[344] But most joyful for the indigent was the period of the Athenian jubilee, the Panathenaia,[345] on which occasion the state received presents of oxen from all the colonies founded by Athenians, so that the whole city overflowed with meat and soup, of which every person might take his share. Sometimes, however, if not generally, the meat fell into the hands of those who least needed it, while the poor got nothing but a little soup with a scanty slice of bread.[346] In times of great scarcity corn was distributed to the indigent in the Odeion, where, on ordinary occasions, it was sold.[347] A similar distribution took place at the Peiræeus in the arsenal, where loaves were given out at an obolos each. On extraordinary occasions, as when a famine raged in the country, the state applied for corn to its foreign allies, and, on receiving any, distributed it equally among the citizens. This was the case when Psammitichos made the Athenians a present of a vast quantity of wheat, of which every citizen received five medimni.[348] A peculiar kind of windfall is commemorated by Athenæus, who relates, that when Ion, the dramatic poet of Chios, won the prize of tragedy, he was so overjoyed at his success, that he presented every Athenian with a jar of the best Chian. No doubt, foreign tragedians were not every day winning prizes, or, when they won, so rich and generous as Ion; but advantages of various kinds were enjoyed by the Athenian people not anywhere else known.[349]
Sometimes, when generals obtained any remarkable quantity of plunder, instead of laying it up to meet the serious exigencies of the state they lavished it in feasting the people. Thus, Chares is said to have expended more than sixty talents, or near 15,000l. sterling in entertaining his fellow-citizens,[350] when the public tables were laid out in the agora; and Conon,[351] having obtained a great naval victory over the Lacedæmonians at Cnidos, and surrounded the Peiræeus with fortifications, offered a real hecatomb in sacrifice, and feasted the whole body of people. Of these thoughtless donations the poor, of course, obtained their share. Cimon acted more judiciously and more nobly towards the unfortunate among his countrymen. Looking upon wealth only as a means of recommending himself and obtaining friends, he set no guard upon his lands or gardens, from which every Athenian who chose might freely take what he needed. His house, likewise, in the city was open to all; a plain table being constantly laid for a number of men, so that whosoever was at a loss for a dinner might dine there. He willingly obliged those who came daily to demand some favour of him; and is said always to have gone abroad accompanied by two or three domestics bearing money, who were instructed to give to any citizen who approached him with a request. He contributed also to the interment of many; and, often, if he observed a poor Athenian meanly clad, ordered one of his attendants to change raiment with him. By these means, as may be supposed, he acquired marvellous popularity, and stood first among his rivals in public estimation.[352]
But persons thus subsisting on the bounty of the opulent soon lost of necessity the dignity of sentiment which should belong to the citizens of a free state. Many, therefore, when reduced by misfortune, to a choice of evils, preferred the bread obtained by honest labour,[353] however mean or ill paid, to so humiliating a dependance on charity; and, unable to obtain more favourable conditions, actually worked for their food.[354] To labour for hire they scarcely accounted a hardship. A large class of citizens, including women,[355] appear by this means to have gained their livelihood, some as cooks, others as reapers, mowers, or any other description of labour which happened to offer itself.[356] Poverty sometimes drove the unprincipled poor to keep houses of ill fame. Others became itinerant flower-sellers, and cried “roses so many bunches the obolos;” or hawked radishes, lupines, or olive-dregs about the streets.[357] And, after their death, the daughters of poor men sometimes joined the Hetairæ, not having been able to earn their livelihood by needlework, weaving, and spinning.[358]
In many respects the poor of southern climates have the advantage of those of the north.[359] The atmosphere itself forms their clothing, and during a great part of the year it is immaterial to them where they sleep. But at Athens, however temperate the climate, a shelter from the cold in winter is desirable, and here, therefore, as in every other part of Greece, the practice was to erect houses where, as in the Caravanserais of the East, any man, native or stranger, might enter and obtain shelter for the night. These buildings were called Leschæ, erected without doors, to intimate that all were welcome; and in them, accordingly, beggars and wanderers of every description congregated round great fires in winter and bad weather, both to sleep and converse.[360] Even the citizens, particularly at Sparta, met in the Leschæ, to enjoy the delights of gossiping; whence any idle assemblage was called a Leschè.[361] In a fragment of the lost oration of Antiphon against Nicoles, mention is made of these edifices, which served as a refuge for the destitute. They were erected by the state; and, to cast over them an air of sanctity, dedicated to Apollo, who thence obtained the surname of Leschenorios.[362] Nowhere were these humane institutions so numerous as at Athens, where, according to Proclus,[363] there existed no fewer than three hundred and sixty, in which the indigent, who had no home, might congregate together and keep themselves warm at the nation’s expense.
In addition to these the public baths served as an asylum to such of the poor as had no home, or were unable to provide themselves with fuel in their own dwellings. Here they would seem to have pressed so eagerly about the furnaces as to be sometimes scorched and blistered;[364] and the crowd of poor wretches in this necessitous condition would appear to have been occasionally so great as to deteriorate the state of the atmosphere by their breath,[365] on which account they were exposed to be driven forth by the bath-keepers.
In Homeric times, beggars and all other sorts of vagrants took refuge from the nightly cold in smiths’ forges,[366] just as in former ages they did in the glass-houses of London. These fathers of sacrilege, as Plato[367] calls them, when properly equipped for the road, presented a tolerably picturesque aspect with their close Mysian bonnet,[368] ragged cloak, and bottle strapped to the thigh,[369] and supporting themselves as they walked on a huge staff. To this worshipful society Dionysios, once tyrant of Syracuse, belonged in his old age.[370]
There was at Athens, in later times, a class of men who resembled the bone-grubbers and dung-hill scrapers of London and Paris. These were the grain-pickers of the Deigma and Agora, who hovering about where the farmers and corn-chandlers meted their grain, and collecting what dropped from the sacks,[371] or was spilled in measuring, thus earned a miserable subsistence. Persons of this description might eke out their livelihood by appropriating to themselves the coarse brown bread which pious and charitable persons placed in the propylæa of temples for their use.[372] Here Diogenes, the Cynic, who, carrying about provisions in his wallet, was independent of these offerings, sometimes dined; and, for the sake of uttering a bon mot, threw out the loaves that might have been useful to others; observing, that nothing coarse[373] should be allowed to enter the temples of the gods.
Religion has everywhere been favourable to the poor. On the festival of the new moon, when the great and opulent offered up costly sacrifices to the gods, as to Hecatè, for example, on cross-roads,[374] their more indigent brethren seized the occasion when their hearts were thus softened, to ask them for something. Thus Homer, according to the legend attributed to Herodotus, went in Samos to the houses of the wealthy, chanting his Eiresione, for which he received a consideration.[375]
There was a class of beggars who went about the country begging for the crow,[376] holding, apparently, a tame bird of that species like a falcon on their wrist, and chanting the following ditty:—