This chapter draws on both historical accounts and contemporary reports about begging to point to a remarkable continuity in attitudes towards begging. It asks the question – why is it that begging gives offence? Drawing upon an initial analysis of data from a study of attitudes to begging (for more detail, see Chapter Eleven), it concludes by speculating that what we call the ‘begging encounter’ is problematic for the donor, because it involves making a moral judgement (cf Chapters Eight and Thirteen in this volume). Making such a judgement in a public place and instantaneously is difficult because it involves either the acceptance of the proffered interpretation of the encounter or the construction of an alternative one. Second, it is also problematic for the supplicant because, while at the same time as he or she creates the encounter, it also involves presenting him or herself as helpless and powerless.

We suggest that because poverty is usually understood as being a passive state, the creation of the interaction by the supplicant in a begging encounter raises a question mark over their claim to be poor. People who are poor are caught in a double bind. If a person is ‘genuinely’ poor they are not expected to be active. Yet, paradoxically, someone who is ‘genuinely’ poor is expected to do something about it – to be active. This contradiction may account for the consistency of the accounts of begging and attitudes towards it across centuries. This chapter stresses the continuities in accounts of begging in history. Of course, it is the case that at different times begging has been perceived differently, but this chapter concentrates upon the continuities.

The continuity of accounts

When former Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, gave the injunction in her 1987 Women's Own interview: “It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbour”, she was probably unconsciously returning to an old tradition and debate. Rufinus, writing in the 12th century, cited St Ambrose to argue that it was a person's duty “to love first God, then his parents, then his children, then those of his own household and finally strangers” (Tierney, 1958/59).