One form of social exchange or two? "Euergetism," patronage, and testament studies - Roman and Greek ideas of patronage

Biblical Theology Bulletin, Spring, 2001 by Stephan J. Joubert

Abstract

Researchers usually understand ancient Roman patronage and Greek "euegetism" as one and the same social exchange relationship, the difference being one of form rather of substance. In view of a brief investigation of primary historical data, ranging from Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics, to honorary inscriptions, to Seneca's De beneficiis, the present scholarly status quo is challenged in this essay. A more nuanced view of ancient Mediterranean reciprocity in general, and "euergetism" and patronage in general, is presented. Finally, some implications of these findings are spelled out in terms of the interpretation of the Second Testament.

**********

From different angles of incidence social scientists, historians and biblical scholars alike have during recent years focused on the various forms of dependency relationships that are established and/or maintained through the exchange of goods and services. In this regard research has made it clear that gift--exchanges in primitive societies, as well as economic and social transactions in modern societies, are marked by mutual obligations, together with differentiations of status and power between the interlocutors. Although the obligations imposed on participants in these reciprocal processes may vary in time and space along with their status, we can actually speak of a universal norm of reciprocity based on, at least, the minimal demand that people must help those who have helped them.

In this study "euergetism" and patronage, as specific forms of social exchange in the ancient Graeco-Roman world, will acquire our attention. The question that needs to be addressed is whether these two exchange relationships refer to the same form of exchange, or to two different forms. Finally, the implications of our findings in terms of a understanding of early Christian groups will also be out.

"Euergetism"

Reciprocity was basic to all forms of social interaction in ancient Mediterranean society. Cicero (De officiis 1.47), for example, tells us that if obligations are incurred between two parties, an adequate response is required, for no duty is more imperative than that of proving one's gratitude. Seneca (De beneficiis I.4.2), in turn, does not hesitate to point out reciprocal interchange constitutes the chief bond that holds people together in society. Within the socially stratified Graeco-Roman world the exchange of services were never voluntary, but always reciprocal.

According to the late first-century magnate, Dio Chrysostom of Prusa (Oratio 75.6), at least the following three social relationships were marked by reciprocal obligations: children to parents, beneficiaries to private benefactors, and cities to their public benefactors. Perhaps the best "introduction" to the last two of these exchange relation. ships is presented in Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. In his sketch of the so-called "magnificent" man (IV.2.5) and the "great-souled" man (IV.3. 1ff.), he presents us with the outlines of the two basic types of benefactors in the Hellenistic world: namely (a) the noble figure who engaged in collective undertakings for the common good of all his fellow citizens, and (b) the individual in the upper social strata of society who engaged in reciprocal interchanges of a more personal nature with status-equals, or near-equals. Following Paul Veyne (1990: 10), who refers to the phenomenon of benefit exchange by its transliterated Greek name, namely "euergetism," both public and private benefaction in the ancient Graeco-Roman world will be included in our use of this concept. According to Veyne (1990: 103-04), "euergetism" was civic, in the sense that it benefited the city or the citizens as a whole. But it was also an act of the notables, who gave benefits because they saw themselves as superior to the mass of the people (the plebes). However, in his excellent analysis of benefactors in the Graeco-Roman world, Veyne deals only with collective forms of benefit-exchange, and not with the more personalized side thereof. Spicq (1994: 107-13) offers a broader description. He maintains that the term "euergetes" in the Hellenistic period retained its banal sense, "benefactor," but also became a technical term for the "benefactor-protector" of a city or a people, and, in case of the gods, the whole world.

Public Benefaction

In his presentation of portraits of a series of individuals who have been turned into types of everyday speech, Aristotle focuses on the virtue "magnificence" (1V.2.1ff.), which is related to great expenditure by the nobles (IV.2.14). This magnificent man often engages in great ex. penditure in service of the gods, such as votive offerings, buildings, sacrifices, and holding of religious offices, as well as in public benefactions, such as giving banquets or building ships of war (IV.2.11). Private expenditure, such as weddings or the entertainment of foreign guests, is also undertaken, but then only in the interest of the general public.

Aristotle's profile of the magnificent man, who bestows collective benefits upon his community or city out of his own pocket, presents us with a helpful description of "euergetism" in the Hellenistic world. The nobles, who, because of their birth and wealth controlled access to all essential services, were expected to provide various services to their cities in exchange for the public bestowal of honor from the inhabitants. In the Art of Rhetoric (1361a28-43), Aristotle states that true wealth consists in doing good; that is, in monetary handouts, giving of scarce and costly gifts, and helping others to maintain an existence. The return on these benefits is public honor. As a matter of fact, Aristotle tells us that the services exchanged between the interlocutors fulfil the needs of both benefactors, as lovers of honor, and beneficiaries, as lovers of money (Rhet 1361a43-1361b3).