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]]