The etymological origins of the word "poverty" can be traced back to the Proto-Indo-European term peh-w (little, small). In ancient Greek, the term παῦρος It also meant little or small. The etymology of the Germanic term Arm (poor, from which it derives) PovertyThe meaning of "poverty" is largely unknown, but it may be related to terms concerning loneliness or isolation from the community. These two words are complemented in modern German by a multitude of terms to define those without means, in need, or unfortunate.besitzlos, mittellos, bedürftig, beklagenswertHowever, to analyze in depth the association (or rather the difference) between poverty and failure, the use of the term in classical Latin is particularly interesting. Neither the adjective pauper nor the noun pauperitasThe term, derived from the first, was used to refer to the absolute lack of goods or resources. Despite being the origin of "poverty" and other equivalent words in most Romance languages, these terms referred more to limited means, or those that could only cover moderate needs. They defined, therefore, an "intermediate" situation, which was as different from abundance and luxury as it was from destitution. inopia (need), or the egestas (indigence). 

The definition of “poor” in the famous Castilian dictionary published by Sebastián de Covarrubias in 1611 included the following verse by Martial: “It is not poverty, Nestor, to have nothing” (Epigram. 11, 32.8). The quote from the first-century poet aptly illustrates the difference that existed in the ancient world between poverty and absolute lack. The epigram from which it comes is an ironic attack against this imaginary character, who pretends to be poor when, in reality, he has absolutely nothing: not even a bed infested with worms, a child, a key, a glass of wine, etc. Despite the changes that the concept of poverty was undergoing, in 1611 Covarrubias could still invoke that classical tradition and define poor as "needy and needy"; that is, someone who was lacking something.

El Universal dictionary André Furetière's work, published in 1690, defines the "poor" in a sharper sense, and one more similar to the current understanding, as someone "who has no possessions, who lacks the necessities to sustain their life, or who cannot maintain their condition." However, while the first two ideas confirm the expansion of the term poverty, the last indication brings us into contact with some particular uses it still maintained in the modern age. By considering poor someone who is unable to live according to the expected expenditure demands of their social standing, Furetière reflects the foundations of a stratified society, in which appearance is key to maintaining social recognition and reproducing status. In Furetière's world, poverty was not defined solely in absolute terms (lack of means for life), but also relatively (inability to "defend" social status). Furetière also noted the existence of regions (Countries) and poor communities.

The constant expansion of the term, in parallel with the rise of a commercial society, is evident in 18th-century dictionaries. For example, the two Latin terms paupertas y egestas They are concentrated as equivalents of “poverty” in the corresponding entry of the Dictionary of the Castilian language, the dictionary of authorities published by the Royal Spanish Academy between 1726 and 1739. Half a century later, the Quadrilingual dictionary Esteban Terreros y Pando's 1788 definition indicates that "poor" refers both to someone in need and to a person "without possessions," "without property," or—very significantly—someone who is "finished." The expansion of the semantic field of poverty It is refined with the whole new series of adjectives that Terreros Pando proposed as Latin equivalents of “poor”: depressus, denudatus, spoliatusThe poor person was therefore associated with the downtrodden or lowly, the dispossessed and the plundered.

Today we see a clear association between success and material wealth. This relationship is evident at many different levels, from the personal to the corporate, and also includes certain groups and communities. Numerous recent mobilizations and protests have used, for example, the dichotomy between the wealthiest 1% and the remaining 99%, and we speak daily of groups from the richest and poorest countries. Swept along by this multitude of images, the opposite association often appears, linking poverty to failure. As the use of the term "poverty" has become more widespread, encompassing areas previously reserved for destitution, it has become necessary, for example, to qualify poverty as "extreme," in an effort to more accurately understand the diverse situations we typically refer to with that single term. 

Any analysis of the term "poverty" calls into question, first and foremost, the existence of absolute antonyms. This term usually refers to more complex realities, situated along a scale of need or in concentric circles. Contemporary specialists thus distinguish between absolute poverty, defined by the lack of means for subsistence, and relative poverty, or the worsening of one's economic position or position relative to the societal average (Geremek 1997: 12). Some contemporary statistical indicators define the poverty threshold or line with an absolute amount (from $1,25 to $2 of daily income), while others use a measure relative to the typical income (median) of a household (Knight 2017: 10). As with many other terms more or less closely linked to failure, the term "poverty" is rarely used in reference to fixed or quantifiable criteria, but rather refers to external perceptions or contextual definitions. Multiple analysts agree, therefore, that the phenomenon of poverty It cannot be understood solely according to economic criteria, and they insist on highlighting the importance, and even the primacy, of social and cultural components (Geremek 1997: 2-6) in “narratives” about poverty (Knight 2017: 13-16). The link between poverty and failure is therefore the result of a long series of transformations in economic systems and social perceptions. The process of associating poverty with failure shows the importance of paying attention to the external attribution of social or cultural labels, since these mechanisms generate solid mental structures against which statistical data often inevitably clash. Reversing the association between poverty and failure, or the blaming The individual's poverty must undergo a change in those attribution dynamics.

Etymology and conceptual change provide a solid starting point for analyzing the erosion of the intermediate (not extreme) status that characterized poverty in antiquity and the impoverishment process inherent in modernity, linked to the semantic expansion of the term and the disappearance of the particularities and nuances it still possessed in the 17th century. The modern era witnessed a negative shift in a condition that had previously been well-accepted or even tolerated. In parallel, as Antoine Furetière's definition showed, the application of the term expanded from individuals to abstract collectives. This led to a progressive association of poverty with marginalization and an increasing criminalization of the poor. This did not, however, prevent a notable persistence of positive attitudes toward certain forms of poverty. These positive associations, constantly reformulated and adapted, reveal the enormous ambiguity of the term and the numerous contradictions present in the discourse surrounding the poor.

The thesis of Catarina Lis and Hugo Soly in their now classic Poverty and capitalism in pre-industrial Europe (1350–1850) (1979) noted that the influx of rural poor into European cities from the beginning of the 16th century—driven by population growth—led to a significant shift in perceptions of poverty. This situation steadily worsened within a context of climate crisis, agricultural decline, and inflation. The strain on resources exacerbated subsistence crises and intensified migration from rural areas to cities. Many quantitative indicators reflect a marked deterioration, in absolute terms, of living conditions during the 16th and 17th centuries (Parker 1981: 22–33; Parker 2013).

Regarding social and cultural perceptions, the association between poverty and failure was further reinforced by an increasingly clear link to destitution, marginalization, and begging. Bronislaw Geremek (1997) showed that attitudes of suspicion toward the poor can be traced back to the Middle Ages, but he also emphasized the breakdown of the medieval system of charitaswhich morally benefited the giver regardless of the truth behind the poverty that prompted the charitable act. The gradual development of government control over societies and the process of establishing and constructing a capitalist system contributed to continually exacerbating the negative associations with poverty. Increasingly, from the 16th century onward, numerous municipal ordinances and books were published that distinguished between the truly poor and a wide variety of fictitious poor who pretended to be religious figures, penitents, Jewish converts, the physically disabled, or retired soldiers (Henke 2010: 166). This distrustful and classificatory view, the basis of the relationship between the poor, the authorities, and the institutions or individuals offering alms, is an essential first step toward increasingly overt criminalization, control, and repression—positions that accelerated considerably throughout the 18th century. Moving between the poles of Piety and the gallowsThis process was not unidirectional, but rather demonstrates contradictory and hesitant attitudes. Moreover, changes in the perception of poverty do not conform to absolutely clear temporal boundaries (Geremek 1997: 7-8). The general evolution should not make us forget either the peculiarities of the perception of economic activity and profit in the modern age or the multiple positive associations with poverty, which usually had their roots in the Middle Ages and sometimes extend into the present day.  

As we have noted, this process is not unidirectional, but rather fraught with contradictory attitudes. Moreover, changes in the perception of poverty do not conform to absolutely clear temporal boundaries (Geremek 1997: 7-8). Therefore, this general evolution should not make us forget the many positive associations with poverty characteristic of the modern age, which typically had their roots in the Middle Ages and sometimes persist into the present day. 

In societies of the Old Regime, a large part of the population was more concerned with avoiding poverty and risk than with becoming rich or maximizing their profits (Thomas 2009: 110). This does not mean that there were no opportunistic individuals eager to expand their lands or possessions, but rather that the accumulation of wealth was a specialized activity that had to be solidly justified (Thomas 2009: 111). Most activities linked to financial gain and pecuniary abundance were situated in a specific sphere within a framework of thought very different from that of a market or capitalist economy. Criticism of excessive wealth, monetary accumulation, the charging of unfair interest, or usury was very common in societies with strong communal and class-based structures, where such gain was understood to be detrimental to general stability. While poverty was undesirable, it was not considered intrinsically condemnable either, as demonstrated by the following proverb, collected by Furetière in his dictionary: “Poverty is not a vice, but a kind of leprosy: everyone flees from it.” At the time, moral criticism was primarily directed at the other end of the spectrum: wealth or excessive greed. In his essay on riches, Francis Bacon summarized this attitude by stating that riches were, to virtue, like baggage (impediment) of the armies, which impeded their march and sometimes cost them a victory. This position is in line with the Aristotelian tradition, which already proposed that a certain level of wealth was necessary to lead a virtuous life, but did not portray exceeding those limits positively (Thomas 2009: 112-113).

The absence of an intrinsic critique of poverty was combined, however, with a growing effort to differentiate between the truly poor, the unprotected, and the feigned poor, engaged in deceit, crime, and activities considered immoral. Before entering the service of his third master, the squire, Lazarillo de Tormes spends about fifteen days begging in the streets of Toledo. While the wounds inflicted by his previous master remain open, Lazarillo always receives some alms, but when he ceases to show visible and obvious signs of his misfortune, everyone tells him: “You scoundrel and vagrant! Go find a master to serve!” Once healed, his requests for alms are perceived as those of a lazy and idle fellow who does not want to work. It is also worth remembering that, like those other poor people of rural origin who have been brought to light by historical research, Lazarillo's mother had been forced to migrate from the countryside to the city of Salamanca after becoming a widow. 

Alongside the picaresque novel—which simultaneously portrays the harsh living conditions of the time, the transformation of poverty into a way of life, and the growing suspicion surrounding the activities of the poor themselves (Geremek 1991)—certain intellectualized and stereotypical forms of poverty were also common subjects of artistic and literary representation. Numerous saints were depicted with an outward appearance akin to beggary, and classical tradition also offered some points of reference for understanding certain forms of poverty. The portraits of Menippus and Aesop painted by Velázquez around 1638 not only show both figures with the appearance of contemporary beggars, but also constitute a reflection on the renunciation (or lack thereof) of material possessions. This is why the laughter of the detached Aesop contrasts with the sadness of the avaricious Menippus (Portús 2007: 327). These ragged figures adorned the walls of the Torre de la Parada—the monarchs' hunting lodge in El Pardo—alongside those of Heraclitus and Parmenides, conceived by Rubens. The contrast between Heraclitus's smiling detachment from worldly concerns and Parmenides's sorrow reminds us of the cultural importance of reflecting on material poverty. 

In the Christian tradition, an essential basis for social behavior in early modern Europe, moral pressure or condemnation of poverty was generally moderate. The Bible contains numerous passages criticizing excessive wealth and some praising poverty, such as the Beatitudes (Luke 6:20–Matthew 5:3) that preface the Sermon on the Mount. These passages spurred numerous movements critical of the institutional Church and formed the basis for calls for a Christianity stripped of all ornamentation or accommodation. The mendicant orders of the Middle Ages represented a genuine social pulse, and calls for a life of religious poverty persisted into the early modern period, generating both new orders (the Discalced Carmelites, for example) and numerous forms of social protest. However, when left unchecked, poverty could become a very dangerous argument and provoked a clear response from religious authorities who felt threatened. Luther's response to the Peasants' War protests, in which he did not hesitate to call the protesters thieves, is well known. Luther also added a prologue to it in 1528 Liber vagatorumPublished for the first time in 1510, this work was highly critical of beggars, encouraging the exposure of their deceitful language and tricks (Henke 2010: 165). The target of moral criticism was therefore not poverty itself, but the false poor person, the one who did not wish to escape that situation. In contrast to literal interpretations of certain calls to poverty found in the Bible, more sophisticated reflections were promoted, focusing on the intimate relationship established with wealth. De subventione In his pauperum (1526), ​​Juan Luis Vives not only showed enormous misgivings against the false poor, but pointed out that it was the “poor in spirit” who were chosen by Jesus Christ, and not the mere “poor in money”, who were sometimes able to offend religion more than those who lived in abundance and wealth.

The importance of the Christian religion as the foundation of social order is difficult to overstate. Ecclesiastical institutions constituted the first line of action against poverty, and theologians maintained a key role in the general definition of poverty and wealth, and not only in moral terms. Theology, the apex of the hierarchy of modern knowledge, was the regulatory and referential discipline to which discussions about commercial and financial transactions, as well as the relationship with wealth, could be referred. Interest, profit, and usury were the subject of numerous treatises by theologians of the 16th and 17th centuries, including those of the second Spanish Scholasticism, who often introduced considerable innovations and expanded the permissible scope of commercial activity (Clavero 1979). Since Max Weber proposed in 1904 that the spirit of Protestantism fostered conditions for a capitalist economy, the association between the religious shift of the 16th century and the development of a capitalist mentality has been persistently debated (Lutz 2005:268-272). The political arguments of capitalism prior to its triumph have been outlined (Hirschmann 2013), and the separation between the sphere of mercy and that of wealth has been analyzed as the step that would allow for a positive appreciation of individual enrichment. A majority of authors agree, in any case, in pointing to the 18th century as the point of reconceptualization of the sphere of economics (Brunner 1976; Taylor 2004:69-71) and of labor itself as a producer of wealth (Méda 2010).

Alongside changes in the roles of interest, commerce, profit, and labor, the modern age witnessed the institutionalization of aid and assistance to the poor. Social history has debated—almost echoing the general controversies surrounding Weber—whether the origin of municipal legislation for the relief of the poor lay in the Protestant cities of Germany or in those of Catholic countries (Geremek 1997:10-12), but what is beyond doubt is that these types of measures and institutions spread with remarkable speed, and many similarities, throughout modern Europe. On the one hand, it involved coordinating charity and almsgiving through institutions such as hospitals, almshouses, and others envisioned by various authors of the period, such as the Poorhouses designed by Cristóbal Pérez de Herrera in his Speeches on the protection of the legitimate poor and the reduction of the feigned poor (1598). On the other hand, and inextricably linked, as Herrera's double endeavor shows, the aim was to control and discipline the poor, who would be increasingly subjected to conditions of forced labor and confinement. 

In general terms, this institutionalization failed in its objective of combating poverty, which continued to grow between the 16th and 18th centuries. The main causes of urban poverty (unemployment, underemployment, widowhood, old age) did not undergo significant changes throughout the period (Woolf 1984), but the distrust that arose regarding the falsely poor, along with programs of confinement and discipline, reinforced the association between poverty and failure. This process exemplifies the displacement of a problem from society as a whole—generated by pressures on the productive system and the unequal distribution of resources—to a particular group, increasingly controlled and blamed through the attribution of additional labels to their condition. The persistence of suspicion towards the poor or the assumption of poverty as a structural and inevitable characteristic of the capitalist system contribute to hindering the solution of the problem, which involves both combating economic inequality and creating explanatory frameworks that break the secular associations between poverty and individual will (expressed as a lack of initiative), or between poverty and deceptive exploitation of the aid system.

Bibliography:

Brunner, Otto (1976). «The «Big House» and the «Oeconomica» of Old Europe», in New Paths in Social and Constitutional History, 87-123. Buenos Aires: Alfa.

Clavero, Bartolomé (1979). «Interesse: Translation and Impact of a Concept in 16th Century Castile.» Yearbook of Spanish Legal History 49: 39-98.

Henke, Robert (2010). "Sincerity, Fraud, and Audience Reception in the Performance of Early Modern Poverty." Renaissance Drama, 36-37: 159-78.

Geremek, Bronisław (1991). The lineage of Cain: the image of vagrants and the poor in European literatures of the centuries XV to XVII. Barcelona: Mondadori.

Geremek, Bronisław (1997). Poverty: a history. Cambridge (Massachusetts): Blackwell.

Hirschmann, Albert O (2013). The passions and the interests: political arguments for capitalism before its triumph. Princeton: Princeton University Press. [Ed. Or. 1977.]

Knight, Barry (2017), Rethinking poverty: what makes a good society?, Bristol: Bristol University Press, Policy Press.

Lutz, Heinrich (2005). Reform and counter-reform. Madrid: Alianza. [Original ed. 1982.]

Méda, Dominique (2010). Le travail: une valeur en voie de disparition, Paris: Flammarion.

Parker, Geoffrey (1981). Europe in crisis, 1598-1648. Madrid: 21st Century.

Parker, Geoffrey (2013). Global crisis: war, climate change and catastrophe in the seventeenth century. NewHaven; London: Yale University Press.

Portús, Javier (ed.), (2007), Velázquez's Fables: Mythology and Sacred History in the Golden AgeMadrid: Prado National Museum.

Taylor, Charles (2004). Modern social imaginaries. Durham; London: Duke University Press.

Thomas, Keith (2009). The ends of life. Roads to fulfillment in early modern England. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Woolf, Stuart (1984). The poor in Western Europe in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, London: Methuen & Co.

Index of illustrations:

Fig. 1: Bartolomé Esteban Murillo, young beggar, ca. 1650, oil on canvas, Louvre Museum, public domain.

Fig. 2: Diego Velázquez, Menippus y Aesop ca. 1640, oil on canvas, Prado Museum, public domain.