Pauline Allen, Bronwen Neil, Wendy MayerPreaching Poverty in Late Antiquity

Arbeiten zur Kirchen- und Theologiegeschichte

Begründet von Helmar Junghans, Kurt Nowak † und Günther Wartenberg †Herausgegeben von Klaus Fitschen, Wolfram Kinzig und Volker Leppin

Band 28

Pauline Allen, Bronwen Neil, Wendy Mayer

Preaching Poverty in Late Antiquity

Perceptions and Realities

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in derDeutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sindim Internet über <http://dnb.d-nb.de> abrufbar.

© 2009 by Evangelische Verlagsanstalt GmbH · LeipzigPrinted in Germany · H 7325Alle Rechte vorbehaltenGedruckt auf alterungsbeständigem PapierSatz: Dinah Joesoef, Brisbane, AustraliaDruck und Binden: Hubert & Co., Göttingen

ISBN 978-3-374-02728-6www.eva-leipzig.de

5

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements 9Abbreviations 11

PAULINE ALLEN AND SILKE SITZLER Chapter 1: Introduction 15

1. Problems in approaching poverty 21 1.1. Definitions and terminology 22 1.2. Philosophical and religious frameworks 23 1.3. Modern interpretations of poverty 25

2. A new approach to poverty 28 3. Layout of the book 30 Bibliography 31

PAULINE ALLEN, BRONWEN NEIL, AND WENDY MAYER Chapter 2: Reading the texts: a methodology of approach to genre 35

1. Homilies as a source – the problematic 36 1.1. The homily (what is missing?) 36 1.2. Poverty: rhetoric and reality in the late-antique homily 40

2. The late-antique letter as “sermo cum absentibus” 44 2.1. The epistolographical genre: nature, function, and length of letters

45

2.2. The public/private dichotomy of the letter 46 2.3. Compilation of letter-collections 47 2.4. When is a letter not a letter, and does it make a difference? 50

3. Using hagiography as a witness to episcopal efforts on behalf of the poor 53

3.1. Late-antique bishops’ Vitae: philosophers, martyrs, or monks? 53Postscript 63 Bibliography 64

WENDY MAYER Chapter 3: John Chrysostom on poverty 69

Introduction 69 1. Economic context 71

1.1. Antioch 71 1.2. Constantinople 74

2. Background to the sources 76 3. Models 78

3.1. Ascetic models 78 3.2. Philosophical models 80

4. Discourse on poverty and almsgiving 82 4.1. Socio-economic poverty 82

6

4.2. Spiritual poverty 945. John’s attitude to voluntary poverty 966. John’s social vision 1007. Rhetoric versus reality 104Conclusion 110Bibliography 112

PAULINE ALLEN AND EDWARD MORGAN Chapter 4: Augustine on poverty 119

Introduction 1191. Economic context 120

1.1. Meaning of the poor in the sources 1222. Background to the sources 1223. Models 125

3.1. Flesh-and-blood models 1253.2. Philosophical and theological models 127

4. Discourse on poverty and almsgiving 1304.1. “Don’t sit on your gold like a hen on eggs” 1304.2. Direct or indirect giving 1364.3. Support of clergy 1384.4. Discriminate or indiscriminate giving 1394.5. Material and spiritual almsgiving: a proper fusion 1414.6. Uti/frui, the poor and the correct order of love 143 4.7. Dispositional thinking about poverty 144

5. Augustine’s attitude to voluntary poverty 1466. Augustine’s social vision 1477. Rhetoric versus reality 150

7.1. Augustine’s rhetoric on poverty and material almsgiving 1517.2. Evidence considered: are the poor real or rhetorical constructs? 161

Conclusion 163Bibliography 165

BRONWEN NEIL Chapter 5: Leo I on poverty 171

Introduction 1711. Economic context 1712. Background to the sources 176

2.1. Sermons 1762.2. Letters 1762.3. Liber Pontificalis 1782.4. De vera humilitate 178

3. Models 1793.1. Leo’s evergetical models 1793.2. Theological and philosophical models of caritative giving 186

7

4. Discourse on poverty and almsgiving 188 4.1. Self-interested almsgiving 188 4.2. Divine stewardship 192 4.3. Deserving versus undeserving poor 193

5. Leo’s attitude to voluntary poverty 195 6. Leo’s social vision 197 7. Rhetoric versus reality 198 Conclusion 202 Bibliography 204

BRONWEN NEIL Chapter 6: Conclusions 209

1. Limitations of the sources 210 2. The economic importance of citizenship 212 3. A different understanding of virtue? 215 4. The late-antique gift ideal 218 5. Adaptation of evergetical and caritative models 219 6. Justice for the poor: myth or reality? 224 7. The bishop’s court 226 8. Social vision and social inertia 227 Bibliography 229

Indices 1. Biblical citations 232 2. Ancient works 233 3. Modern authors 240 4. General (people and places, themes) 244

Contributors 252

9

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Australian Research Council, in the form of a Discovery Project grant, on the theme of “Poverty and Welfare in Late Antiquity” (2006 to mid-2009). Australian Catholic University supported the project through a Return-to-work award for Neil in 2008, and through International Conference Grants over three-and-a-half years. Mayer held a research fellowship in Byzantine Studies at Dumbarton Oaks, Washington DC, in 2006/2007. The Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung sponsored Neil on a research fellowship for established scholars at Universität Bonn, Germany, for six months in 2008. We are grateful to Prof. Wolfram Kinzig for suggesting the inclusion of our volume in the AKThG series.

We are pleased to acknowledge the contributions of four senior research associates who undertook work on the project at various stages: Geoffrey Dunn, Silke Sitzler, Anna Silvas, and Edward Morgan. David Luckensmeyer and Dinah Joesoef of the Centre for Early Christian Studies provided valuable assistance with the preparation of camera-ready copy. The fifth international conference Prayer and Spirituality in the Early Church on Poverty and Riches (January 2008) afforded us with a valuable forum for our ideas.

One of the unexpected pleasures of this project was collaboration with colleagues in Japan, South Korea, South Africa, and Belgium, who were engaged in similar research. Our research benefited greatly from the exchange of ideas with these scholars, and we look forward to continued collaboration with them. In particular we thank those who attended a seminar on late-antique poverty in Brisbane in September 2008: Kazuhiko Demura, Miyako Demura, Naoki Kamimura, and Wonmo Suh.

The librarians of McAuley campus, Australian Catholic University, proved both resourceful and tenacious in tracking down the many bibliographical items required. We are as ever indebted to them.

Finally to our friends and families – all of whom will be glad to see this project finished – we owe our sincere thanks.

Brisbane, 19 August 2009 Pauline Allen Bronwen Neil Wendy Mayer

11

Abbreviations

ACO Schwartz. E. et al. (eds), Acta Conciliorum Oecu-menicorum (Strasbourg, 1914; Berlin and Leipzig 1924– )

ACW Ancient Christian Writers (Westminster MD 1946–) Atkins and Osborne,

Poverty in the Roman WorldAtkins M. and Osborne, R. (eds), Poverty in the Roman World (Cambridge 2006)

Bolkestein, Wohltätigkeit Bolkestein, H., Wohltätigkeit und Armenpflege im vorchristlichen Altertum (Utrecht 1939)

Brown, Poverty and Leadership Brown, P. R. L., Poverty and Leadership in the Later Roman Empire, The Menahem Stern Jerusalem Lectures (Hanover and London 2002)

Caner, Wandering, Begging Monks

Caner, D., Wandering, Begging Monks. Spiritual Authority and the Promotion of Monasticism in Late Antiquity (Berkeley, CA 2002)

C.J., in Krueger Corpus iuris civilis volumen secundum. Codex Justinianus, in Krueger P. (ed.), (Hildesheim 1989)

C.Th., in Krueger, Mommsen, and Meyer

Codex Theodosianus, in Krueger, P., Mommsen, Th., and Meyer, P. M. (eds), 3 vols (Hildesheim 1990)

CCSL Corpus Christianorum Series Latina (Turnhout 1953– )

CPG Geerard, M. (ed.), Clavis Patrum Graecorum, vols 1–5, Corpus Christianorum (Turnhout 1974–1987); Geerard, M. and Noret, J. (eds), Clavis Patrum Graecorum. Supplementum, Corpus Christianorum (Turnhout 1998)

CPL Dekkers, E. (ed.), Clavis Patrum Latinorum, 3rd edn, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina (Turnhout 1995)

CSEL Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum (Vienna 1866– )

De officiis, Davidson Davidson, I. J. (ed. and trans.), De officiis,Ambrose, 2 vols, Oxford Early Christian Studies (Oxford 2001)

DeVinne, “Advocacy” DeVinne, M. J., “The Advocacy of Empty Bellies. Episcopal Representation of the Poor in the Late Roman Empire”, unpub. PhD Diss. (Stanford, CA 1995)

12

Dodaro and Lawless, Augustine and His Critics

Dodaro, R. and Lawless, G. (eds), Augustine and His Critics. Essays in Honour of Gerald Bonner(London and New York 2000)

Ep. EpistulaEpp. Epistulae Finn, Almsgiving Finn, R. D., Almsgiving in the Later Roman

Empire. Christian Promotion and Practice (313–450) (Oxford 2006)

Finn, “Portraying the poor” Finn, R. D., “Portraying the poor: descriptions of poverty in Christian texts from the late Roman empire”, in Atkins and Osborne, Poverty in the Roman World, 130–161

Fitzgerald, Augustine through the Ages

Fitzgerald, A. D. (ed.), Augustine through the Ages. An Encyclopaedia (Grand Rapids, MI 1999)

FOTC Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC 1947– ) Garrison,

Redemptive AlmsgivingGarrison, R., Redemptive Almsgiving in Early Christianity, Journal for the Study of the New Tes-tament Supplement Series 77 (Sheffield 1993)

GCS NF Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller NF (1995– )

GNO Gregorii Nysseni Opera (Leiden 1960– ) Freu, Les Figures du pauvre Freu, C., Les Figures du pauvre dans les sources

italiennes de l’antiquité tardive, Études d’archéo-logie et d’histoire ancienne (Paris 2007)

Holman, The Hungry Are Dying Holman, S. R., The Hungry Are Dying. Beggars and Bishops in Roman Cappadocia (Oxford 2001)

HEILCV

Historia Ecclesiastica Diehl, E. (ed.), Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae Veteres, 2nd edn, 3 vols (Berlin 1961)

l. ll.

line lines

LP Duchesne, L. and Vogel, C. (eds), Le Liber Pontifi-calis, 2nd edn, 3 vols (Paris 1955–1957)

LP, Davis Davis, R. (trans.), The Book of Pontiffs (Liber Pon-tificalis). The Ancient Biographies of the First Ninety Roman Bishops to AD 715, 2nd edn, Trans-lated Texts for Historians 6 (Liverpool 2000)

MGH Monumenta Germaniae Historica (Berlin 1826– ) NBA Nuova Biblioteca Agostiniana, Opere di Sant’-

13

Agostino (Rome 1965– ) Neri, I marginali Neri, V., I marginali nell’occidente tardoantico.

Poveri, “infames” e criminali nella nascente società cristiana, MUNERA. Studi storici sulla Tarda Antichità 12 (Bari 1998)

NF Neue Folge NPNF ser. 2 Schaff, P. and Wace, H. (eds), Nicene and Post-

Nicene Fathers. A Select Library of the Christian Church, second series, American edn, 14 vols (Pea-body, MA 1994)

NS New Series NT New Testament OT Old Testament Parkin, “Poverty in the Early

Roman Empire” Parkin, A. R., “Poverty in the Early Roman Empire. Ancient and Modern Conceptions and Constructs”, PhD Diss. (Cambridge 2001)

Parkin, “You do him no service” Parkin, A. R., “‘You do him no service’: an exploration of pagan almsgiving”, in Atkins and Osborne, Poverty in the Roman World 60–82

Patlagean, Pauvreté économique Patlagean, E., Pauvreté économique et pauvreté sociale à Byzance, 4e–7e siècles (Paris 1977)

Patlagean, “The poor” Patlagean, E., “The poor”, in G. Cavallo (ed.), TheByzantines (Chicago and London 1997) 15–42

PG Migne, J. -P. (ed.), Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca, 161 vols (Paris 1857–1866)

PL Migne, J. -P. (ed.), Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Latina, 221 vols (Paris 1844–1864)

PLRE 2 Jones, A. H. M., Martindale, J. R., and Morris, J. (eds), The Prosopography of the Later Roman Em-pire 2, AD 395–527 (Cambridge 1980)

Prayer and Spirituality 5 Dunn, G. D., Luckensmeyer, D., and Cross, L. (eds), Prayer and Spirituality in the Early Church5. Poverty and Riches (Strathfield 2009)

Ramsey, “Almsgiving” Ramsey, B., “Almsgiving in the Latin church: the late fourth and early fifth centuries”, Theological Studies 43 (1982) 226–259

Rebillard and Sotinel, L’Évêque dans la cité

Rebillard, É., and Sotinel, C. (eds), L’Évêque dans la cité du IVe au Ve siècle. Image et autorité. Actes de la table ronde organisée par l’Istituto patristico Augustinianum et l’École français de Rome, Rome,

14

1 et 2 décembre 1995 (Rome 1998) Rouche, “La Matricule” Rouche, M., “La Matricule des pauvres. Évolution

d’une institution de charité du Bas Empire jusqu’à la fin du Haut Moyen Âge”, in M. Mollat (ed.), Études sur l’Histoire de la Pauvreté (Moyen Âge-XVIe siècle), vol. 1, Publications de la Sorbonne, Série “Études” 8, 1, 11 (Paris 1974) 83–110

SC Sources chrétiennes (1941–) StP Studia Patristica (1957– ) TDST Silva-Tarouca, C. (ed.), S. Leonis Magni Epistulae,

Textus et Documenta Studia Theologica 9, 15, 20, 2 and 3 (Rome 1932–1937)

VC Vigiliae Christianae (1947– ) Veyne, Bread and Circuses Veyne, P., Le Pain et le cirque. Sociologie histor-

ique d’un pluralisme politique (Paris 1976); trans. B. Pearce, Bread and Circuses. Historical Socio-logy and Political Pluralism (London 1992)

Wickham, Framing Wickham, C., Framing the Early Middle Ages. Europe and the Mediterranean 400–800 (Oxford 2005)

WSA The Works of Saint Augustine. A Translation for the 21st Century (Hyde Park, NY 1990– )

15

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Pauline Allen and Silke Sitzler

Poverty and the poor in the ancient world have received increasing interest from scholars in recent years. A corpus of work is now available which considers the plight of the poor and responses to them from the early Roman empire through to late antiquity and Byzantium.1 This present work seeks to add one more study to the

1 For example, see in chronological order: Bolkestein, Wohltätigkeit (1939); O. Plassmann, Das Almosen bei Johannes Chysostomus (Münster 1961); A. R. Hands, Charities and Social Aid in Greece and Rome (London 1968) 48; S. Zincone, Ricchezza e povertà nelle omelie di Giovanni Crisostomo (L’Aquila 1973); Rouche, “La Matricule”, vol. 1 (1974) 83–110; R. J. Rowland, “The ‘very poor’ and the grain dole at Rome and Oxyrynchus”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik21 (1976) 69–72; Veyne, Le Pain et le cirque politique (1976) (= Veyne, Bread and Circuses, 1990); Patlagean, Pauvreté économique (1977); F. Young, “Christian attitudes to finance in the first four centuries”, Epworth Review 4.3 (1977) 78–86; Ramsey, “Almsgiving” (1982); C. Pietri, “Les Pauvres et la pauvreté dans l’Italie de l’Empire chrétien”, Miscellanea Historiae Ecclesiasticae 6,Bibliothèque de la Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 67 (Brussels 1983) 267–300; W. Klingshirn, “Charity and power: Caesarius of Arles and the ransoming of captives in sub-Roman Gaul”, Journal of Roman Studies 75 (1985) 183–203; G. Hamel, Poverty and Charity in Roman Palestine. First Three Centuries C.E. (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and Oxford 1990); J. Herrin, “Ideals of charity, realities of welfare: the philanthropic activity of the Byzantine church”, in R. Morris (ed.), Churchand People in Byzantium (Birmingham 1990) 151–164; G. Woolf, “Food, poverty and patronage: the significance of the epigraphy of the Roman alimentary schemes in early imperial Italy”, Papers of the British School at Rome 58 (1990) 197–228; P. R. L. Brown, “Poverty and power”, in Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity. Towards a Christian Empire (Madison, WI 1992) 71–117; Garrison, Redemptive Alms-giving (1993); C. R. Whittaker, “The poor”, in A. Giardina (ed.), The Romans(Chicago 1993) 272–299; Garrison, Redemptive Almsgiving (1993); B. Leyerle, “John Chrysostom on almsgiving and the use of money”, Harvard Theological Review 87 (1994) 29–47; DeVinne, “Advocacy”, 1995; Patlagean, “The poor”, 1997; M. Prell, Sozialökonomische Untersuchungen zur Armut in antiken Rom (Stuttgart 1997); P. Horden and R. Smith (eds), The Locus of Care. Families, Communities, Institutions and the Provision of Welfare since Antiquity (London and New York 1998); R. P. Saller, “Poverty, honor and obligation in imperial Rome”, Criterion (Spring/Summer 1998) 12–20; M. Sheather, “Pronouncements of the Cappadocians on poverty and wealth”, in P. Allen, R. Canning, and L. Cross (eds), Prayer and Spirituality in the Early Church 1 (Everton Park 1998) 375–393; S. R. Holman, “The hungry body: famine, poverty, and identity in Basil’s Hom. 8”, Journal of Early Christian Studies 7 (1999) 337–363; P. Veyne, “La Plèbe moyenne sous le haut-empire romain”, Annales 6 (2000) 1169–1199; S. R. Holman, “The entitled poor. Human rights language in the Cappadocians”, Doctores Ecclesiae in Pro Ecclesia 9 (2000) 476–489; Parkin, “Poverty in the Early Roman Empire” (2001); Holman, The Hungry are Dying (2001); Brown, Poverty and Leadership (2002); Finn, Almsgiving (2006); Atkins and Osborne, Poverty in the Roman World (2006); Parkin, “‘You do him no service’” (2006); G. N. Gotsis and G. A. Merianos, “Wealth

Pauline Allen and Silke Sitzler

16

growing corpus, uniquely comparing and contrasting three significant figures of the early church and their identification of, and responses to, the poor in the fourth and fifth centuries of the common era. In studying the homilies of John Chrysostom, Augustine, and Leo I, this study both supports some of the assertions and assumptions that have been made in relation to poverty and the poor in the late-antique world, while questioning others.

From the nineteenth century onwards, studies of poverty in Christian antiquity displayed a largely Christian and theological bias, with significant non-theological, social, and economic studies on poverty appearing a century later.2 Influential amongst these works were those of Bolkestein,3 Veyne,4 and Patlagean.5 These three scholars approached the issue using economic and political perspectives, and argued that there was a fundamental shift in the conceptualisation of, and response to, poverty between the classical and early mediaeval worlds. Though the exact period of change is disputed (ranging from the first century to the sixth),6 they posited that there was a shift in the social imagination from a civic to an economic model of community that impacted on the focus of philanthropy (evergetism). 7

With regard to pagan attitudes to poverty, the classic work remains that of Hands, who stresses the reciprocity of giving in ancient Rome and the lure of honour which lay behind it.8 Giving was a discriminate exercise, he argues, because the emphasis lay on the donor’s giving not to the penniless, but to the morally good person, who almost inevitably belonged to the same elite educated class as the donor.9 More recently two incisive studies by Parkin10 and a number of papers in the Atkins and Osborne volume have continued the work of Hands. For the purpose of this overview we shall take as representative Parkin’s study, “‘You do him no service’”, which is an exploration of pagan almsgiving. As its starting-point, it accepts Bolkestein’s dictum that Christian

and poverty in Theodoret of Cyrrhus’ On providence”, Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 59 (2007) 11–48; Freu, Les Figures du pauvre (2007); S. R. Holman (ed.), Wealth and Poverty in Early Church and Society, Holy Cross Studies in Patristic Theology and History (Grand Rapids, MI, and Brookline, MA 2008). 2 See Finn’s literature review, especially on the nineteenth century (Almsgiving, 26–33, esp. 26–28). 3 Bolkestein, Wohltätigkeit.4 Veyne, Bread and Circuses.5 Patlagean, Pauvreté économique. A rare critique of Patlagean is offered by M. Mazza, “Poveri e povertà nel mondo bizantino (IV–VII secolo)”, Studi Storici 23 (1982) 283–315. 6 For instance, Patlagean locates it in the late-antique period, while Bolkestein argues for the first century. On this see especially R. Osborne, “Introduction”, in Atkins and Osborne, Poverty in the Roman World, 2–3.7 By “evergetism” we refer to classical pagan or civic models of giving; to distinguish specifically Christian models we use the word “caritative”. In general we use the term “pagan” to refer to classical Graeco-Roman antecedents which continued to have currency in late antiquity.8 Hands, Charities and Social Aid, 48.9 Hands, Charities and Social Aid, 74. 10 “Poverty in the Early Roman Empire” and “‘You do him no service’”.

Introduction

17

charity did not evolve from pagan munificence.11 Echoing Hands, Parkin remarks that the pagan writers whose works survive to us were not interested in the desperately poor or marginalised in their societies, but mostly in the respectable citizens who had fallen on hard times or who could repay a favour which would redound to the honour of the donor.12 She makes the point that while patronage of the poor became visible only in late antiquity as a manifestation of Christian ideology and politics, previous pagan almsgiving was indeed practised, but by non-elite donors towards the destitute, and probably the almsgiving was in small amounts.13 We shall need to consider these pagan approaches to evergetism in what follows as we try to determine whether Christian attitudes to the poor came to dominate, and if so, how and when.

In his chapter “Poverty and power” in Power and Persuasion and his monograph Poverty and Leadership Brown attempts to account for the late-antique shift to the visible care of the poor as a class.14 He accepts the premise that there was a change in the social conception and response to poverty, noticeable in a new model of evergetism that included society’s marginalised (citizen and non-citizen). Brown proposes that Christianity played a greater and more influential role in the process than previously prescribed, locating this change in the fourth to the sixth centuries.15 Arguing that the Christian bishops (and Christianity) were not merely carried along with this change in “social imagination”, but that Christian bishops were actually the agents of the change, he states: “to put it bluntly: in a sense, it was the Christian bishops who invented the poor.”16 For Brown it is in the Christian discourse of late antiquity that a heightened visibility and acknowledgement of the poor is evident.17 He writes that poverty in late antiquity was not dissimilar from what it had always been:

But we now look at it with the sharper eyes of Christians, for whom it was both a moral challenge and a spur to action; and, above all, we look at poverty with the eyes of Christian leaders (the bishops) for whom the existence of the poor offered, for the first time in the history of the Greco-Roman world, an opportunity to highlight their role in a new, post-classical society.18

11 “‘You do him no service’”, 61. 12 “‘You do him no service’”, 61, 62, and 65. 13 “‘You do him no service’”, 68–70. 14 Sheather, “Pronouncements of the Cappadocians”, would agree with the idea that it was Christ-ianity that first classified the poor. 15 It should be noted that this sentiment was already touted by Av. Cameron in her 1980 review of Patlagean’s work, “Late antiquity – the total view”, Past and Present 88 (1980) 129–135, at 135. Patlagean also pays more attention to the role of Christianity in her chapter, “The poor”, esp. 16–17. 16 Brown, Poverty and Leadership, 8. 17 Indeed Brown goes so far as to say that “suddenly there are poor everywhere” (Poverty and Leadership, 11). 18 Brown, Poverty and Leadership, 16. In support, consider Garnsey and Woolf’s statement on the poor in antiquity: “The poor were ubiquitous but are more or less invisible.”: P. Garnsey and G. Woolf, “Patronage of the rural poor in the Roman world”, in A. Wallace-Hadrill (ed.), Patronage in Ancient Society (London and New York 1989) 153–170, at 153.

Pauline Allen and Silke Sitzler

18

Thus he proposes that the increasing power-base of the Christian bishop in this period can be associated with the poor. The bishop was now entrusted with funds and authority from a variety of sources, including Christian, secular, and imperial, in order to nourish, protect, care for, and provide justice for the poor.19 This increased authority and power, emanating from an evolving Christian social model and a religious discourse influenced by ancient near-eastern models, he claims,20 ultimately promoted and presented the Christian bishop as the guardian and lover of the poor, and marked Christianity as significant in the shifting social imagination towards the poor and evergetism. Emphasising the role of the bishop as preacher in the putative transformation of the social imagination, from a civic to an economic model of social relations, Brown maintains:

All over the empire, Christian bishops, clergymen and monks fostered a nonclassical image of society by the simple process of speaking as if society were, indeed, divided primarily between the rich and the poor, the weak and the powerful, according to a Biblical, Near Eastern model.21

This shift in the conceptualisation of the poor, Brown argues further, relied partly

on a christological foundation because “[b]y becoming a human being, Christ, the emperor of heaven, had joined himself to the destitute ‘poverty’ of human flesh”.22

From this line of reasoning it follows that the Christian emperor and his subjects became closely connected because of Christ’s act of synkatabasis or condescension in the incarnation, and their common faith. Brown ventures the opinion that the “sense of unbridgeable separateness between God and man, similar to that between an emperor and his subjects, hovered over the thought of Nestorius”,23 resulting in the ultimate failure of Nestorius’ christological position and the triumph of Cyril of Alexandria.

In one quarter Poverty and Leadership was met with stern criticism for its “grand notions” and poor scholarly underpinning, as well as its propensity to extrapolate from one period or geographical area to the whole Roman empire.24 Another reviewer criticised it for its rash excursus into the realm of christology in order to explain the rapport between the emperor and his people, and by extension the bishop and his people. Furthermore, the same reviewer took Brown to task for his imprecise language, particularly his use of the expression “middling classes”.25

19 This included imperial funds for the dispersing of grain, or Christian almsgiving in order to protect widows and orphans (Brown, Poverty and Leadership, 31–32, 58, 67–72). 20 Brown, Poverty and Leadership, 111. 21 Poverty and Leadership, 80. 22 Poverty and Leadership, 93. 23 Poverty and Leadership, 101. 24 G. Osborn in Journal of Roman Studies 93 (2003) 414–415. 25 C. Sotinel in Antiquité Tardive: revue internationale d’histoire et d’archéologie (IVe–VIIIe s.) 11 (2003) 359–363.

Introduction

19

Nonetheless, in general Brown’s work met with acquiescence,26 and it has since had a noticeable impact on studies of late-antique poverty, as can be seen in the work of DeVinne and Finn. DeVinne in his unpublished thesis, “Advocacy”, expands on Brown’s exposition of the emerging visibility of the poor in Christian discourse, arguing that although the poor are everywhere in the pre-Constantinian era, they are not seen. It is the church Fathers, such as Chrysostom and Gregory of Nyssa, who make the poor visible and shift the Christian gaze towards them. This is most obvious in their vivid and expansive imagery of the body, and their portrayals of the poor using the language of the arena, entertainment, and soldiery.27 Furthermore DeVinne argues that the bishops, in making the poor “seen”, are also shaping their discourse on charity within the framework of urban patronage and evergetism, constructing the evergetists as praiseworthy and the poor as their worthy clients.28 DeVinne’s thesis lends support to Brown’s position on the prevalent role of the bishop in changing attitudes and behaviours to the poor, perhaps best seen in the statement of the former:

Through their rhetoric and their activities, bishops not only lead others to see these formerly unrecognized urbanities and acknowledge their claim to citizenship; they also forge a strong, durable, personal link between themselves and the new citizens they have created. The poor are indebted uniquely to their bishops.29

In contrast, in his book Almsgiving Finn responds to Brown’s thesis by challenging the latter’s main argument for the influence of Christianity on evergetism. Finn argues that episcopal authority evolved not simply from patronage of the poor in its discourse on almsgiving, but involved a variety of factors that made its construction considerably more complex. He writes: “Competition between almsgivers, the co-operative dimen-sion of episcopal almsgiving, and the continuing vitality of classical euergetism, should be seen as a significant limit on the ability of generous almsgiving to elevate bishops to civic leadership as supreme patrons.”30 Thus the importance of almsgiving for status and leadership outside of the patron-client paradigm (such as competition for almsgiving between monks and bishops, as well as pagan and Christian notables, and

26 A representative example of positive reviews is: B. Shaw, “Loving the poor” in The New YorkReview of Books 49.18 (2002) 42–45; J. Harries in Classical Review NS 53 (2003) 167–168; P. Maraval in Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 98 (2003) 328–329; W. Brueggemann, “How the early church practiced charity”, The Christian Century (June 14, 2003) 30–31; C. Tiersch in Historische Zeitschrift 276 (2003) 732–734; G. A. Cecconi in Prometheus 30 (2004) 286–287; C. Corbo in Studia et documenta historiae et iuris 70 (Rome 2004) 545–550; R. De Acutis in Rivista di archeologiacristiana 81 (2005) 312–314. 27 The poor are made visible in the church, though they are not physically there. For example, on John Chrysostom, DeVinne, “Advocacy”, 20, writes: “As he elucidates this elective vision, the rent, the rupture bodies of the poor, though now physically concealed by the walls of the church, become compelling present”. We note here, however, that rendering the poor visible is less noticeable in western texts, as will become clearer in our studies on Augustine and Leo, below. 28 DeVinne, “Advocacy”, 95–99. 29 DeVinne, “Advocacy”, 118. 30 Finn, Almsgiving, 266.

Pauline Allen and Silke Sitzler

20

the glory of benefaction),31 in addition to continued support for games, public buildings, and amenities, are relevant issues that weaken Brown’s argument for almsgiving as a significant factor of increased episcopal power.

Further support for Finn’s argument can be found in the earlier work of Garnsey and Woolf on poverty and patronage, in which they argue that patronage (and they are not referring here to Christian episcopal patronage, but traditional patronage networks) offered one source of assistance, but it coexisted with charity, evergetism, and family or community support. Indeed, “Any study of patronage as is conceded by specialists in the field…, runs the risk that it will overrate the significance of that one institution. Patronage is ‘a way of doing things, amongst others.’”32

Finn again responds to Brown’s work, and also DeVinne’s, in his article “Portraying the poor”. In this study Finn challenges their thesis that Christian discourse increased and enhanced the visibility of the poor. He writes: “It is now taken for granted that in their promotion of almsgiving Christian preachers of the late fourth and fifth centuries gave a new visibility through and in their texts to the poor and the very poor.”33 Examining the extent of this heightened visibility through a comparison of sermons with hagiographies, particularly using Augustine’s Enarrationes in Psalmos,Mark the Deacon’s Vita Porphyrii episcopi Gazensis, and Callinicus’ Vita sanctiHypatii, Finn concludes that what is evident at most is a “disguised visibility”, that is a visibility of an “indefinite” poor. This, he asserts, is because visibility of the actual destitute could negatively impact upon almsgiving and/or limit a bishop’s liberty in distributing almsgiving.34 Consequently,

by not presenting the listener with specific groups, with named or otherwise delineated individuals, from a given social stratum, the promoter of almsgiving removes or mutes a traditional interpretative frame which taints the very poor with that contempt due to inferiors, while avoiding the question of whether any particular individual is a worthy recipient of alms.35

Holman’s The Hungry are Dying,36 though more geographically, chronologically, and theologically focused, is a study which derives conclusions similar to Brown’s regarding the influence of Christianity on the emerging visibility and awareness of the poor. Through an examination of the “poor” in the sermons of the Cappadocians – Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory Nazianzen – Holman concludes that in the fourth century a new Christian discourse about politics and poverty emerges. Considering the themes of (1) leitourgia and the gift economy, (2) paideia and power dynamics, and (3) in a more limited way, an emerging theology of incarnation as related to constructed meanings of the poor body, Holman argues that the poor become visible in Christian

31 Finn, Almsgiving, 33 and 258–268. 32 Garnsey and Woolf, “Patronage of the rural poor”, 154. 33 Finn, “Portraying the poor”, 130. 34 Finn, “Portraying the poor”, 135 and 144. 35 Finn, “Portraying the poor”, 134. 36 See also Holman, “The hungry body”.

Introduction

21

texts by being located in God’s creation-order and entering both the civic and religious liturgies.37 She proposes that:

Through their rhetoric in these sermons, Basil and the Gregories give meaning to the poor by placing them within the liturgical concepts of emerging Christian culture. Building their construct of the poor on patronage ideals and an economics ruled by gift exchange, operating with the rhetorical finesse of the ideal citizen trained in paideia, the sermons weave together an image that is at its most basic essence a theological identity.38

The main arguments of these scholars revolve around the increased acknowledgement and reception of the poor in Christian discourse and consequently the impact of this discourse on practice. While the relatively prevalent appearance of the “poor” and “poverty” in Christian rhetoric between the fourth and sixth centuries can be little disputed, the purpose and manner of the representations can well be questioned. Thus, for example, while DeVinne argues that the church Fathers’ portrayals increase the visibility of the actual poor, Finn argues on the contrary that the portrayals represent an objectified poor distanced from the reality of contemporary poverty. How such portrayals subsequently influence action is also disputable. While Brown persuasively argues for the poor as a catalyst for increasing episcopal power based largely on changing patterns of patronage, Finn offers a strong argument for the flaws of seeing the patronage framework as an isolated function for the accession of power. The issues and arguments raised by these scholars are valid and lend themselves to further careful inquiry, which is the aim of this book.

1. PROBLEMS IN APPROACHING POVERTY

In all studies of history there are inevitable problems of anachronism and particularism as well as the ambiguity and exclusivity of sources. The study of late-antique poverty is no exception. When dealing with the primary sources and their contexts there are problems of both modern and ancient interpretation with which we must contend when attempting to understand the influential variables and concepts of “poverty” in the Graeco-Roman world. Such problems of interpretation include antique definitions of poverty, ambiguities and flexibility in the terms used, social understandings of class, status, kinship, education, honour, and shame, as well as the philosophical and rhetorical frameworks underlying our antique sources. In addition, modern analyses can risk paying too little or too much attention to these factors, potentially resulting in skewed or anachronistic interpretations.

37 Holman, The Hungry are Dying, 178–182. 38 Holman, The Hungry are Dying, 182.

Pauline Allen and Silke Sitzler

22

1.1. Definitions and terminology

Perhaps the place where all investigation should begin is in a search for a unified and accessible definition or understanding of the topic at hand. In the case of antique poverty, when seeking a definition or some understanding of ancient definitions from sources such as those used in this study, namely John Chrysostom, Augustine and Leo I, we are faced with a variety of terms mostly offering contextual definitions that may not be valid beyond the document in use. For instance, the Latin terms for the states and emotions related to poverty and wealth used by Augustine and Leo include: avaritia, cupiditas, debitum, divitiae, egestas, fames, indigens, inopes, merces, pauper,pecunia, possessio, sitiens, and utens. The inventory of words is likewise significant in the Greek homilies of John Chrysostom and includes: , , ,

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

, , , , , , , , and a variety of related terms. The fluid and contextualised

meanings of these words indicate that seeking a few definitive terms to represent the entire subject can lead to misinterpretations of our sources.

Nevertheless, scholars have sought to isolate terms for the representative mean-ings, with mixed results. For instance, Patlagean notes that among both Christian and non-Christian authors in the Greek-speaking East a poor person had traditionally been described as (having an insecure and unsatisfactory living), (being “passively impoverished” and dependent on others), and (being needy, “reflecting a lack”).39 Finn comments on Augustine’s general use of pauperes for the poor and very poor, with little or no further specification on their situation.40 Neil confirms a similar general use of pauperes in Leo I, noting the important exceptions which expand on categories of destitution.41 The reason for such vagueness in terminology is seen by Neil as a rhetorical ploy to distance audiences from the realities (and visibilities) of poverty, while Finn interprets it as a deliberate strategy for foreclosing social distance between the potential giver and recipient.42 Other studies offer little more precision in definitions and terminology. Humfress, for instance, investigates the increased references to the “poor” per se in legislation from the early fourth to mid-sixth centuries, and concludes that individual cases reveal that poverty is determined by individual judges on the merits of each case, hence “once again there is no general or constant definition of poverty, rather the tacit recognition that the poor would include those lacking all property”.43 Grodzynski likewise seeks to determine

39 Patlagean, “The poor”, 15. See also ead., Pauvreté économique, 25–28, and the discussion in B. Neil, “Blessed are the rich: Leo the Great and the fifth-century Roman poor”, StP, forthcoming.40 Finn, “Portraying the poor”, 135. 41 Neil, “Blessed are the rich”. 42 Neil, “Blessed are the rich”; Finn, “Portraying the poor”, 134. 43 C. Humfress, “Poverty and Roman law”, in Atkins and Osborne, Poverty in the Roman World,183–202, at 202.

Introduction

23

whether words did take on specific meanings and inferences in the legislation of the C. Th.,44 and finds that there is only faint interest in the economic poor shown in legislation, with terms generally subsumed under the use of the word paupertas.45

It is not surprising that a search for one or more embracing and definitive term(s) for the poor and poverty seems somewhat elusive. If we consider, for instance, that scholars still dispute when the poor and poverty came into the mindset of Graeco-Roman society at large, then their clear and definitive existence in contemporary vocabulary can only be problematic, for if the poor never clearly existed in the cultural mindset, then lucid and consistent terminology in their regard cannot be expected. Therefore in any study of antique poverty the extant evidence, both literary and material, must be read in context in order to gauge how the poor and poverty are incorporated into the rhetoric and reality of the antique world.

Consequently, in order to contextualise and understand poverty we need to consider late-antique social understandings of class, status, kinship, education, honour and shame, as well as the economic, imperial, and environmental issues that affected Graeco-Roman society and more particularly specific communities within the Roman empire. For instance, the elite position of our literary sources must be taken into account when we consider poverty, as their backgrounds inevitably affected both their view and interpretation of the poor and poverty, both in social and economic terms. Would, for instance, elite and privileged members of Graeco-Roman society include the destitute and/or “real poor” in their rhetoric, regardless of religious influences and directives? Furthermore, if their audiences are largely of a similarly prosperous background, would they not be working on a similar understanding? Can the beggar, for instance, particularly the socially-shunned, shameful, undeserving, idle beggar, ever be incorporated in charity and welfare programmes beyond the speech of a church Father?46

1.2. Philosophical and religious frameworks

Also important are the inherited philosophical and religious frameworks of the authors we are studying. Jewish models of caritative activity illuminate much of our Christian materials on the topic from late antiquity.47 For Jews, as for Christians, almsgiving was compulsory and could be defined under four headings: redemptive almsgiving, anonymous giving, indiscriminate giving, and justice for the poor. The notion of

44 D. Grodzynski, “Pauvres et indigents, vils et plebeians (Une étude terminologique sur le vo-cabulaire des petites gens dans le Code Théodosien)”, Studia et documenta historiae et iuris (Rome 1987) 140–218. 45 Grodzynski, “Pauvres et indigents”. 46 Considered, for instance, by S. Sitzler, “Deviance and destitution: social poverty in the homilies of John Chrysostom”, paper presented at the Fifteenth International Conference on Patristic Studies, August 2007. 47 See in detail on this subject B. Neil, “Models of gift giving in the preaching of Leo the Great”, Journal of Early Christian Studies, forthcoming.

Pauline Allen and Silke Sitzler

24

redemptive almsgiving in early Christian texts came directly from Jewish Scriptures, particularly Psalms, Proverbs, Tobit, and Isaiah.48 Late-antique rabbinic teaching focused on self-interested almsgiving as a means of salvation which gave the donor advocacy before God, and on the necessity of poor and rich for each other’s existence.49 Almsgiving had to be conducted anonymously and was to be indiscriminate as long as the recipients were Jews.50 Justice for the poor included the acknowledgement of the poor person’s right to human dignity.51 All these ideas can be found in our three authors in this book, John Chrysostom, Augustine, and Leo I.

We have already considered pagan almsgiving, which, while not the direct precursor of Christian caritative activity, co-existed with it for a considerable time and exercised great influence on it. The Stoic rationale for almsgiving, for example, based on the dignity of all human beings,52 was a useful one for church Fathers in promoting the concept of the body of Christ, that is, his church. By extension, because the poor share the humanity of Christ, giving to them is the same as giving to Christ. However, the Stoic motivation for assisting the needy – stern justice rather than compassion53 –had to be reworked by Christians to incorporate the notion of mercy as found pre-eminently in Matthew 5:7 (“Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy”). The Stoic notion that all sins are equal was also moderated, particularly by Augustine,54 in turn leading to a hierarchy of almsgiving according to the gravity of the sin committed.

The Greek writings of the Egyptian philosopher Plotinus (c. 204–270 CE), regarded as the founder of neo-Platonism, had great currency in both East and West in late antiquity. In their Latin version they were digested by Ambrose and others, including the young Augustine, in Milan. Neo-Platonic concepts like the ascent of the soul, the contemplation of the truth, the importance of one’s inner disposition, detachment, and the moral neutrality of material goods can be found over and over again in late-antique Christian preachers on poverty. The spiritualising of poverty, particularly in pastors like Augustine and Leo, and the concept of almsgiving as an eschatological tool for ascending to God also have their roots in neo-Platonism.

In the East in John Chrysostom we find predominantly Stoic and Cynic frameworks, but also perceptible are Platonic, Aristotelian, and Epicurean elements, in the main little different from those of his pagan counterparts who had been educated in the same philosophical schools.

In sum, the eclecticism of the philosophical and religious approaches used by church Fathers in their discourses on poverty must be reckoned with, not to mention

48 See further Garrison, Redemptive Almsgiving, 52–53. 49 See Neil, “Models”. 50 See Neil, “Models”. 51 See Holman, The Hungry are Dying, 43. 52 See further Parkin, “‘You do him no service’”, 60–82. For a more detailed discussion see ead., “Poverty in the Early Roman Empire”, 115–155.53 See further Holman, “The entitled poor”, 478–479.54 See further Chapter 4.3.2 below.

Introduction

25

the fact that the bulk of their observations occurs in homilies, a genre which does not readily admit systematic exposition of philosophical theories.

The point to be made at this stage is that the words of our late-antique authors can never be read at face value. Their numerous frameworks and lenses require lengthier and more detailed attention than can be offered in this chapter. In particular their use of rhetoric needs a study in its own right, which will be provided in Chapter 2, where we consider how we read through the rhetoric of various literary genres when trying to identify the reality of poverty.

1.3. Modern interpretations of poverty

Not only is the ancient understanding of poverty at issue here, but also modern interpretations of poverty and the poor which, when not applied with care, obscure rather than enhance our view of the ancient world. This is particularly the case when the analysis is tainted by anachronistic views that have taken little or no account of the different social, cultural, and economic contexts and mindsets of our antique subjects. Thus, for instance, the use of non-specific terms which carry with them modern meanings and their own particular social inferences automatically impose on the antique evidence various assumptions about social understandings, groupings, and constructions which may be inapplicable. Such labels as “middling population”55 or even the notion of the “slippery slope”,56 with no explanation or definitive statement of their meaning, provide some examples, for they only allow the reader to place modern understandings on their use and consequently categorise ancient material according to modern conceptions. This offers a subjective reading of history, particularly when one considers how the concept of “middling classes” can vary between regions and coun-tries in the modern world. Thus no two modern readers need read a modern analysis using such vague terminology with the same understanding.

Similar criticism can also be levelled at the application of modern concepts such as “standard of living” to studies of ancient poverty. While such concepts hold considerable relevance to some modern societies, their applicability to the Graeco-Roman world must be questioned. Scheidel proposes that poverty in the Roman world should be investigated with a regard not only for income and asset distribution, but also for “quality of life or human development”.57 Again, a concept like “quality of life” is subjective and both regionally and culturally specific in the modern world, dependent not only on financial position but also on social and environmental conditions and understandings. However, one must also question whether the sense of “self”, of the “individual”, to which “quality of life” is inexorably linked, can be identified within the Graeco-Roman world. Certainly it has been well argued that the Graeco-Roman

55 Brown, Poverty and Leadership, 14, and R. Scheidel, “Stratification, deprivation and quality of life”, in Atkins and Osborne, Poverty in the Roman World, 40–59. 56 Brown, Poverty and Leadership, 49–50, and Scheidel, “Stratification”.57 Scheidel, “Stratification”, 40.