In Oriental societies the basic unit of community was the household (Hebr. bet, Gr. oikos). It was the duty of the lord of the house to “clothe and feed” members of the household (spouse, children, elders, suppliants). In order to be able to do this, he had full authority over the family members.

Most of the social care was organized along this basic system of the household. The idea of philanthropy, as stated above, occurred in the very meaning of the word, gods’ benevolence to men. The family god or goddess granted the welfare of the family and the paterfamilia was basically a sort of vizier of this family-divinity, executed her/his orders and was responsible for his actions to her/him.

The root metaphor of household was extended to other institutions of the society as well. Thus, palace was the king’s household and temple was the household of the respective divinity. Schoolmaster and artisan were the “fathers” of their pupils and appreciates. Inhabitants of a city or members of a clan were “children” of the patron divinity of the city/clan/tribe.

According to Thorkild Jacobsen (1976) the frame of gods as parents of their people emerged during the second millennium BC and since then, gods were seen as benevolent caretakers of their respective people. As a repayment of this divine kindness, both individuals and communities submitted themselves under the leadership of their god. The Biblical concept of sedek, righteousness, has a strong connotation to this bond or covenant.

The Babylonian creation epic Enuma elish (“When on high”) tells how humankind was created as slaves in order to free gods from such menial tasks as digging canals. Like earthly kings, gods were not necessarily interested in the fate of every individual in their possession but required that their officials took care of the everyday business of their household. This included the support of their subjects. Like earthly kings, gods punished severely their officials if they did not fulfill their duties. Fear of this gods’ wrath was reality in every Mesopotamian city. The story of Jonah (Ch. 3) preaching condemnation over the city of Nineveh is a good example of the general pattern: the people of Nineveh – from king to slave – repented. As far as they were concerned, they had enough examples of cases where gods had punished cities and wiped them away.

This fear of gods had a significant impact on Mesopotamian social care. While the primary responsibility of care was on family, “flesh and blood,” to be more exact, the idea of subsidiarity principle can be attested already in the Code of Hammurabi (§32) in the case of ransoms of prisoners of war. If the family was unable to give support, the responsibility was on the wealthier relatives because, basically, all property of the clan belonged to the god of the forefathers. If the clan divinity had helped someone, it was his duty to deliver this support to other members of the clan. If he did not do it, there was always a possibility that the divinity would withdraw her/his support and drop the hard-hearted one into misery (Van der Toorn, 1996: 108f.)

State responsibility for social care was rather limited. The main role of the state, however, seems to be in creation of such legislation that minimised the need. Almost every Mesopotamian king claims that he “brought justice to his people.” With justice kings ensured that “[t]he strong should not harm the weak” as the prologue of Code of Hammurabi states. Special emphasis was laid on the task “to protect the widows and orphans” as the Epilogue of the code states. The task of the state was to implement such rules under which people could take care of their own welfare. It was only in the extreme cases when the state was forced to intervene. This was done, first by the right to appeal to the king (Parpola, 1987: 21) and, second, through the royal edicts which, from time to time, canceled all the debts, freed the debt slaves and, thus, stabilised the over heated economy.

It was a society where “noblisse oblige” was an ideal. Under the patron divinity, the king was seen as a “good shepherd” who ensured the prosperity and welfare for his people. Rich were required to use their wealth to lighten the burden of their more unlucky kin people and their neighbors. In return, they got respect and obedience. Basically, the same ideals were prevalent in Egypt and Israel as well (see Von den Driesch, 1959; Hanson, 1994; Loewenberg, 1994, 1995).

In Greece, there existed this old Oriental idea of oikos as the basis for welfare. However, the difference to the Orient was, as Ferdinand Tönnies’ famous distinction states that a Hellene polis was (at least in classical era) a Gesellschaft (association, alliance, society based on locality) instead of Gemeinschaft (community, society based on kinship). Thus, the Greek philanthropy was based on the idea of communal union, koinonia. Those who shared this unity were philoi (sg. philos: friend, beloved; philia: friendship). The Greek city-state, polis, was basically a network of free citizens – or better – band of warriors, who have committed to share their destiny together. Koinonia politikhe (civil society) means basically “fate unity of the town.” The philoi were those who were in arms and their families. This unity between philoi was maintained with the system of reciprocity or gift-giving (Hands, 1968: 26–48).

In the absence of central authority, the gift-giving between philoi is a powerful mechanism in maintaining communal relationships. As Marcell Mauss (1967), Arthur R. Hands (1968), Marshall Sahlins (1969, 1972), Ian Morris (1986) and writers in Reciprocity in Ancient Greece (1998) have argued, gifts create bonds between givers and the receivers. Already Aristotle (Aristot.Nic.Eth. 8.1.4) noted that “friendship appears to be the bond of the state.”

Elizabeth Belfiore (1998, 143–147) lists four types of philia relations. First, there are those that are kin. According to her “the Greek concept of kinship (ankhisteia) includes relatives to the degree of children of cousins” (p. 143). Second, “[w]hile spouses are not blood relatives, they are an integral part of the household (oỉkía) (p. 144)” and “[o]f the three reciprocal relationships, marriage is closest to blood kinship” (p. 145). These two Belfiore’s types are not different to those in the Orient. It was the duty of the kyrios (master, lord) to take care of the members of his oikos.

There are two other types of philia that are interesting from the philanthropy perspective. One is xenia (guest friendship) and the other is hikete (suppliant). While all philia relationships require reciprocity there is one significant difference between the two first and the two last ones. Belfiore notes that “kin may fail to keep their obligations and still remain kin, but xenoi must engage in reciprocical benefits if they are to become and remain” xenoi (p. 145). The same is valid in the case of hiketes as well (p. 146).

The difference is that while a xenos usually has means to repay the guest friendship in kind, hiketes have only their loyalty and obedience to give in return. Thus, the first one is a special case of reciprocity between equals when the latter is a case of hierarchical relationships.

Philanthropic relationship between equals can be bilateral where one individual or household gives something and receives something else. It can be exchange of gifts, favors, or even family members (in cases when fathers arrange the marriage of their children). The mechanism was that gifts required repayment – not in the moment but in the future. When the repayment often was higher than the original gift, after a while nobody could say who was in debt to whom. The end result is a bond between families that can be inherited from father to son.

Hans van Wees (1998: 21f.) has noted that there are three other forms of this equal type of reciprocity. First, referring to Malinowski and Lévi-Strauss, he speaks of general gift giving. This occurs when a group member “in excess of what he can actually consume on the spot would be expected to give it away.” This happens, for example in the case of smoking in a group. Another form of balanced reciprocity is circular: A helps B, B helps C,… N helps A. A third form of reciprocity is a net, “which is ‘group-focused’ when members take turns to benefit the group, as in the pub-goers’ custom of buying rounds, and ‘individual-focused’ when the group benefits each of its members in turn, as in cooperative harvesting arrangements.”

In ancient Greece and Rome, city administration was one part of this mutual gift-giving system among equals. Wealthy persons donated gifts to public purposes (ranging from building town walls or ships for the navy to maintaining gymnasiums and from supporting gladiator shows to distribution of corn and oil) and took care of the administration. In turn, they received honor and respect – and sometimes even amnesty for their illegal acts (Millet, 1998).

Hands (1968: 62–65, 74) argues that there was a certain hierarchy in supportive gift giving. The basic principle required that only the “worthy” (idonei) should be supported. This thinking was evident in distinction between a poor person and a beggar. A poor person was not actually a poor person, but a person who had to work for his living. It was commonly seen as a synonym for Greek demos and Latin populus. In other words, a poor person was the one who was not a member of the elite. A beggar (Gr. aergos, Lat. iners) was someone who did not have anything. Basic meaning of both words is revealing: they suppose, “not the lack of opportunity, but the lack of will to work” (p. 65). Consequently, contrary to Jewish practice, the attitude towards beggars was pitiless and harsh. Hands also notes that Homer saw beggars as pandemios, plague.

Hiketes-relationship, in turn, is an example of hierarchical reciprocity. In the case of those who could not pay back the benevolence of a donor, there emerged a status of dependency until the gift or favor was repaid. Hands (1968: 28) notes that, for example, Latin word damnatus refers to this kind of dependent condition. Thus, the English word “to be damned” actually means “to lose one’s liberty.” Hiketes, or Latin clientus were those who were under the protection of some wealthy and/or influential citizen. Kyrios or patron gave protection and often financial help and suppliants gave their loyalty and obedience. Freed slaves were automatically in hiketes/clientus – relationship with their former kyrios/patron.

Thus, there were basically two frames of philia relations in Greco-Roman world. The first one was gifts and assistance given to peers. This was required to be repaid in kind. The other type was between a superior and suppliants who could not repay the gift in kind. In these cases they gave their loyalty and obedience. The legacy of these practices are submitted to later eras via Christianity and, especially, via Byzantion.

Demetrios Constantelos (1991: 25–32) notes that the word philanthropy – God’s love to man – suited better to the idea of imitatio Christi than the New Testament concept of agape. “The ideal Christ is the Pantocrator Philanthropos [men loving ruler of the world] or the Eleemon [reliever], depicted as the prototype whose philanthropy men are expected to imitate” (31). In Byzantine thought concepts of eros, agape, and philanthropia overlap and came to mean both God’s love and Christian charity.

Like Oriental kings, this philanthropy was expected from the emperor. Constantelos (1991: 33–42, 89–103) argues that since the emperor received his power from God, he should be “the projection of the archetype, God the Universal King” (34). Like God was the source of good, so the emperor was expected to be a source of light and blessed acts. The emperor should show philanthropy in his attitudes, in practical deeds and in legislation like the ancient Oriental kings. When the emperor was a philanthropist by duty, this led the court to practice charity as well. Along with almsgiving and supporting philanthropic institutions, “it was customary for Byzantines of all classes to designate the poor, orphans, or charitable institutions as beneficiaries in their wills (107).”

One of the first European welfare reforms occurred in Byzantium where the state canceled the panem et circences-type subsidies based on citizenship and adopted the Oriental model of giving the aid to the very poor – irrespective of citizenship.