The rich and the poor

The distinction between the rich and the poor intersects the distinctions between the citizen and the outsider, and between the free and the un-free. The ideology of the polis might state that all citizens were equal, but it is obvious enough that in several respects they were not equal at all. The big gap between haves and have-nots was quite conspicuous: in classical Athens, one could meet day laborers who had no property at all, millionaires, and everyone in between. A few philosophers dreamed of an ideal society with all property held in common, but the general opinion was that the difference between rich and poor was a fact of life and quite acceptable. Society at large did not attempt to do away with such differences. The differences in wealth and income were even formalized: as we have seen, ever since the early 6th century, the Athenian citizenry was divided into four classes according to assessable property. In the 4th century BC, the gap between the rich and the poor widened all over the Greek world, as also in democratic Athens, although Athens managed to avoid some of the excesses seen elsewhere. In Sparta, landed property was concentrated in ever fewer hands, and this caused the number of Homoioi to decrease, and the number of “lesser citizens,” the ones who could no longer afford the compulsory contributions to the sussition, to increase. Perioikoi, helots, and mercenaries had to replace these demoted citizens in the Spartan army, which started to weaken.

Not only among citizens, but also among metics and slaves we find the entire gamut from extreme poverty to extreme riches. A wealthy slave was much better off than a poor citizen: being free born and having citizenship did not ensure one a comfortable life. The absolute number of rich citizens in Athens was small: the division of property was very much skewed, with a large percentage of total property concentrated in a few hands. Athenians considered as truly plousioi, “rich,” those who were wealthy enough to be members of a leisure class. These rentiers were the same people who were the benefactors of the polis by way of the liturgies, and as we already saw, this was a small group.

Among the rich, we find both old and new money. This implies the existence of upward social and economic mobility, even if the chances of advancement were comparatively slim in 5th and 4th century Athens, where so many lived at or near minimum subsistence level. Some, however, enriched themselves, by way of a windfall profit, a shrewd marriage, a substantial inheritance, or war booty. If one had no citizen’s rights, there were even more hurdles to overcome. The richest metics, whether immigrants or liberated slaves, were as wealthy as the richest citizens, but even for them it was difficult to obtain citizenship, certainly after the law regulating citizenship of 451-450 BC. Citizenship could not be conferred by an individual, not even when liberating a slave or adopting an heir. Only the assembly could decide on the naturalization of groups or individuals who had done something special to benefit the polis. The most affluent metics could gain goodwill by their willingness to pay taxes and undertake liturgies. By showing themselves to be as loyal to the polis as the most loyal citizens, they might hope for naturalization.

Becoming a citizen would not solve all problems: new money was looked down upon, and even the born citizen who had struck it rich was not so easily accepted by the established families. Among the Athenian elite of the 5th and 4th centuries, belonging to the nobility no longer brought any real advantages, even if family trees and ancestors were valued. The

Noble families of old supplied several of the leading figures of Athenian politics, but these had to share the stage with newcomers. Nevertheless, there was an aristocratic background to many of the ideals of the polis. The whole notion of a leisure class originated in the ideology of the nobility, as did the notion that landed property was the best form of property. Nouveaux riches whose property depended upon trade or manufacture could not measure up to such ideals. During the 5th century, they were accepted into wealthy society with bad grace, matters only improving somewhat in the course of the 4th century. Buying land was something in the way of a solution: it was bought with the wrong kind of money, but at least it was the right kind of property. All in all, it was difficult to climb the social ladder in classical Athens. If one made money, there were still political and social hurdles to overcome.