Solon the Lawgiver in the Light of Recent Discoveries and Criticism

7/27/2019 Solon the Lawgiver in the Light of Recent Discoveries and Criticism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/solon-the-lawgiver-in-the-light-of-recent-discoveries-and-criticism 1/96

Loyola University Chicago

Loyola eCommons

Master's Teses Teses and Dissertations

1936

Solon, the Lawgiver, in the Light of RecentDiscoveries and Criticism

Charles A. Castellano Loyola University Chicago

Tis Tesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Teses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in

Master's Teses by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please [email protected].

Tis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Aribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.

Copyright © 1936 Charles A. Castellano

Recommended CitationCastellano, Charles A., "Solon, the Lawgiver, in the Light of Recent Discoveries and Criticism" (1936). Master's Teses. Paper 97.hp://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses/97

http://ecommons.luc.edu/

http://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses

http://ecommons.luc.edu/td

mailto:[email protected]

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/





mailto:[email protected]

http://ecommons.luc.edu/td

http://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses

http://ecommons.luc.edu/



SOLON, THE LAWGIVER,

IN THE IliGHr

OF RECENT DISCOVERIES

AND CRITICISM.

CHARLES A. CASTELLANO, S. J.

July 1936

A thesis submitted in par t ia l fulfillment ot

the requirements for the degree ot Master ot

Arts in Loyola University.



Chapter

Chapter I

Chapter IIChapter III

Chapter IV

Chapter V

TABLE ~ CONTENTS.

Title

Introduction and Background

The Hektemoroi

Cancellation of Debts and Changein the Monetary Standard

Poli t ical Reforms

Miscellaneous Laws andConcluding Remarks.

B1b11ograpey • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • . . • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • . • • •

Page

4-25-42

-60-83

-2 -



Vita Auctoris

Charles Anthony Castellano, s. J. vms born in New

York City, New York, June 11, 1907. He moved to New-

port , Rhode Island, where he attended St. Joseph's

Grammar and High School. He entered the University

of Detroit in 1923 and Milford Novitiate of the So-

ciety of Jesus in 1926. He received his Lit t . B.

from Xavier University, Cincinnati , in 1930; studied

at the Gregorian University in Rome and St. Louis

University, St. Louis from 1931 to 1934; taught a t

John Carroll Universi ty, Cleveland, from 1935 to

1936. He t ransferred from St. Louis University to

Loyola University in the ffrnmmer of 1935.

-3 -



CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND

-4-

That Solon was one of the t ruly great figures in Athe

nian history and that he deserves mention in every history

of democratic development no one denies. vVhy he merits

this twofold dis t inct ion is something upon which no two

authors are in complete agreement. Antiquity has, com-

paratively speaking, bequeathed us an abundance of ma-

t e r ia l but , unfortunately, antiquity does not always a

gree with i t se l f . Ancient authors question one another

and the science of archeology challenges the words of

ancient authors.

'£his thesis does not have the effrontery of claim

ing to se t t le so venerable a controversy. I ts purpose

is to endeavour to revaluate the great variety of s ta te-

ments, to trace modern changes in opinion ( i . e . those

occasioned by a more thorough study of the recent dis

covery of the Consti tut ion of Athens), to assemble and

contrast the opinions of prominent histor ians. The re

su l t , it is hoped, wil l be a fa i r ly complete summary

both of what Solon actual ly did and of what men think

he did.

So much has been writ ten, so many suggestions have



been ventured on the matter under discussion tha t lengthy

preliminary remarks would only needlessly enlarge an a l

ready sizeable subject. I t seems much more sat isfactory

to attack direct ly the problem at hand.

-5 -

The main purpose of th is introductory chapter is to

present in outline the economic and pol i t ica l background

which i s of paramount importance to any understanding of

the measures to which Solon gives his name. In addition

i t wil l be necessary to do some defining of terms which

wil l occur frequently in the course of the thesis and

to cal l at tent ion to a fundamental principle that , i f

borne in mind, wil l help to a more balanced judgment of

the value to us of Solon's reforms. Final ly, we sha l l

pointout and discuss brief ly the main sources we

possess for his l i fe and actions.

uGeographically Attica was a backwater of Greek

l i fe lying off the main l ines of comnru.nication. 11 (1) Ap-

plied to the period of the micration of nations and for

several centuries af te r , th is statement i s in every way

accurate. I ts importance, moreover, cannot be minimized.

The geographic posit ion of Attica combined with the bare

ness of i t s so i l was destined to affect in no ~ a a l l de

gree i t s socia l , pol i t ica l and economic l i f e . "Hence,

the migratory passages which aggitated the whole of Hel-



las l e f t Attica untouched, and for this reason Attic his

tory i s not divided into such marked epochs as tha t of

Peloponnesus; it possesses a superior unity, and presents

an uninterrupted development of conditions of l i fe native

in the i r origin to the land." (2)

Someone has writ ten an entire volume on the influ

ence of geography on history. I f ever such an influence

was demonstrated, i t was demonstrated in Attica. The

soi l was too poor to grow wheat in any quanti ty. Of the

staple foods barley alone could thrive and this only in a

moderate degree. Throughout a l l Athenian history there

stalked the spectre of the grain problem. Even when

Athens was at the height of her power, her statesmen

were ever harassed by the necessity of providing grain

for the population. In a country not especially noted

for the severi ty of i t s judicial penal t ies , to t r i f l e

even with the price of grain ~ e a n t death.

We shal l see how it was rather the aridi ty of the

soi l than the excessively srasping policy of the land

owners, harsh though they were, tha t forced l ibera l iz ing

policies on the nobles and ave the f i r s t impetus to demo-

cracy. For we must remember that in the period we are

t reat ing Attica was not suffer inz acutely from over-popu

la t ion. That Athens should turn to commerce was inevit-

-6 -



able; i t was ei ther that or national stagnation. Solon

deserves special credi t because he was the f i r s t to erasp

the s i tuat ion and apply the remedies. Unable to grow her

ovm food, Athens had to produce merchandise to exchange

for food. But even th is was not suff ic ient . She had to

guarantee for herself the possibi l i ty of exchange; she

-7 -

had to keep open the l ines of communication. Hence,

Athens was l i t e ra l ly forced out to sea. That she became

supreme in the Aegean may be par t ia l ly due to other causes;

that she became a great sea power was inavoidable. I t had

to be that or subjection to that nation which would give

her food.

But a land governed and controlled by lando\vners

cannot turn to commerce without profound pol i t i ca l changes.

Commerce breeds a new power in the s ta te . I t creates the

great class of m o d e r a t e ~ y wealthy men of business. Sooner

or l a te r this group wil l become conscious of i t s sterngth

and wil l refuse to play second fiddle to ar is tocrats by

bi r th . I t will demand civic privileges and the r ight of

.making i t s words fe l t in the management of the s ta te .

Solon's vision in this regard, even i f he had no other

t i t l e to fame, would be suff icient to stamp him as a man of

genius. I t is true that he l e f t the main burden of govern-

ment exactly where he found i t , on the shoulders of the

aristocracy by bir th. Yet, by a t ruly extraordinary miracle



of moderation, he opened the door to the man of commerce.

The miracle of i t was tha t the door he opened was a small

door which at the time may have appeared an almost in

s ignif icant entrance. Yet, we sha l l see how i t contained

within i t s e l f the power to widen and enlarge so as to

pass the throng that was to besiege i t . Athens, owing

to Solon's foresight , achieved democracy with the very

minimum of bloodshed. This alone would ent i t l e her to

-8 -

a uniqueness amid a l l the democracies in history.

Thus far we have viewed Attica in the large. Much

of what has been said would, for the most par t , apply

equally well to any nation with her geographical back

ground. Let us turn now to specif ic problems which con

fronted Solon when in 594 B.C. (3) a suffer ing populace

and a fear fu l governing class bestowed on him the t i t l e

of archon and granted him almost l imi t less powers to re

medy the i l l s of s ta te . Fi r s t , l e t us allow the original

sources to speak for themselves.

Plutarch in hs l i f e of Solon paints the following

picture: 11The Athenians ••••• fe l l to the i r old quarrels

about the zovernment, there being as many different

par t ies as there were divers i t i es in the country. (4)

The Hil l quarter favored democracy, the Plain oligarchy,

and those that l ived by the sea-side stood fo r a mixed



-9 -

form of government, and so hindered ei ther of the other par-

t ies from prevail ing. The dispari ty of fortune between the

r ich and the poor, also reached i t s height a t tha t time; so

that the ci ty seemed to be in a t ru ly dangerous condition;

with no other means but despotism able to free it from dis-

turbances and se t t le i t . All the people were indebted to

the r ich; and ei ther they t i l l ed thei r land for the i r cre-

di tors , paying them a sixth par t of the increase, and were,

therefore, called Hectemorii and Thetas, or they engaged

their body for the debt, and might be seized and ei ther

sent into slavery a t home, or sold to strangers . Some (for

no law forbade i t ) were forced to se l l thei r children or

f ly the country to avoid the cruel t ies of the i r creditors;

but the most part and the bravest of them began to combine

together and encourage one another to stand to it, to

choose a leader , to l iberate the condemned debtors, divide

the land and change the government." (5)

Aristot le in his Constitution of Athens gives the fol-

lowing description: "But as has been said before, the persons

of the people were mortgaged to the i r credi tors , and the land

was in the hands of the few. Now, seeing that such was the

organization of the const i tut ion, and that many were in

slavery to the few, the people rose against the upper class.

The s tr i fe was keen, and for a long time the two part ies were



-10-

face to face with one another till a t l a s t , by common con

sent , they appointed Solon to be mediator and Archon (6)

and committed the whole consti tut ion to h is handsf the

imnediate cause of his appointment was his poem (7) , which

begins with the words,--

I see, and within my hear t deep sadness has claimedi t s place

As I look on the oldest home of the ancient Ionianrace: (8)

and so he continues, f ighting and disputing on behalf of

each ·party in turn against the other, and f inal ly he ad-

vises them to come to terms and put an end for the quarrel

exis t ing between them. By bi r th {9) and reputat ion Solon

was one of the foremost men of the day, but in wealth and

posit ion he was of the middle class , as i s manifest from

many circumstances, and especially from his o?m evidence

in these poems, where he exhorts the wealthy not to be

grasping.

But ye who have s tore of goodwho are sated and overflow

Restrain your swelling soul ,and s t i l l i t and keep it low;

Let the hear t tha t is great within yoube t ra ined in a lowlier way;

Ye shal l not have a l l at your wil l ,and we wil l not forever obey.

Indeed, he constantly ascribes the origin of the confl ict

to the r ich; and accordingly a t the beginning of the poem

he says tha t he fears "the love of wealth and an overween

ing mind," evidently meaning that i t was through these



-11-tha t the quarrel arose. (10)

Economically, then, the poor were l i t e ra l ly ground

dovrn beneath the heels of the r ich. In every way the out

look must have been gloomier than it is fo r the poor in

the modern s ta te . In our industr ial ized environment, the

poverty-s tr icken worlanan has at l eas t some hope of bet ter -

ment. There i s the perennial expectat ion tha t industry

wil l11pick up", tha t somehow wages wil l advance and t imes

wil l be bet te r . Besides, there is always the ba l lo t ,

which, though it invariably issues in a disappointment,

does nevertheless t inge the future with a ros ier hue. On

the other hand, early sixth century Attica seemed to pro

mise nothing but abject slavery. for the dovmtrodden poor.

The l ibera l at t i tude on the par t of the r ich (for i t

was a l i be ra l at t i tude even to consider a change in the

status quo) and the moderate sp i r i t on the par t of the

poor, whereby both par t ies indicated t he i r will ingness to

hearken to the decision of a mediator, are a definite in

dicat ion, even a t t h i s early date, of tha t admirable senseof balance which was to be one of the outstanding t r a i t s

of Greek civ i l i za t ion . I t was a homage paid by an emo-

t ional people to the rule of reason.

We have already hinted above tha t the lower classes in

Athenian society had no say in the management of the govern

ment. We must now examine t h i s in .::;reater de ta i l , because,



otherwise, the f u l l scope and profound s ign i f icance of

Solon ' s po l i t i c a l reforms w i l l be almost meaninr, less.

Before proceeding f a r t he r , we rrru.st take note o f tvw

poin ts ; f i r s t , there i s general disagreement on the exact

po l i t i c a l arrangement before the t ime of Solon; secondly,

Solon's name became so in t imate ly connected with the l a t e r

Greek democracy t ha t there was a st rong tendency among

l a t e r wri ters to at tr• ibute nru.ch to him which may wel l have

been es tabl i shed by others long before him.

On one point there i s general unanimity o f opinion.

The main power in the s ta te vms concentrated in the hands

of the Archon. I t i s t rue t h a t , speaking s t r i c t l y , t he re

were nine archons, but;, alrer,dy many years be fore Solon 's

-12

t:LY1e, it yras in the o:ffice of the Pres ident Lrchon t ha t the

c}'.ief c i v i l author i ty res ided . Relj_gious author i ty res ted

vdth the King Archon. The 1:1ilita1.y author i ty was in the

hands of t!1e :)ole;:Ia:.c>cll. '.:Phe s ix archons names Thesmothe-

tae had mel.e ly rout ine funct ions. Of these l a t e r Aris to t le

says , "The1

1

hesmothete,e were R.l)90inted nany yenrs o.:fter-

wards, v1hen these of:E'ices ( the t h ree mentioned above) had

ali•eady become armual; and the objec t of t he i r crea t ion

v:2.s -that they might record in v1riting a l l l e ga l decis ions

!01 ·nd '"' c t " · f t ' · · · · t t · ·-d cc_, as z:uaro.lal1S o D.em Wlt:ll. a Vlew o. execl.J"lng JUde;-

ment lPlon t rans ere snors o f the lm7. 11( 11)



-13-

Conrr:1enting on th is early organization Greenidge has

th is to say, "The menbers of the board consti tuted in 683

were cal led off ic ia l ly by the i r specia l t i t l e s , and the

t i t l e11

ArchonH v ~ a s applied s t r ic t l ; r only to the president .

The executive and judgicia l powers of the president must

have been enormous a t a t ime was ":l..thens possessed by an

i l1-ore;anized assembly (probably dependent on the sur:Tinons

of the magist ra te) , no executive counci l l , no v.rritten law

but a few recorded utterances un t i l the time o f })raco,

and no audi t from the popular courts . 11 (12) Aristot le

t e l l s us tha t (luring th is period the members of th is group

of archons were chosen "according to qualif icat ions of

bir th and vreal th .11

( 13) As to the electors of th is body, .

; \ .ristotle s ta tes clear ly t ha t , a t leas t before the time of

Draco, th is function was exercised by the members of the

1.1...reopagus. "Vfuereas in early times the Cou_n.cil of Areo

p a ~ l s surnnoned sui table persons according to i t s own

judgment and appointed them fo r the year to the several

off ices . 11( 14)

Aris to t le in the fourth chapter of h is Constitution

of Athens at t r ibutes to Draco con..stitutional reforms which

have provoked a large amount o f violent discussion. This

would h'lve comparatively l i t t l e in teres t for us here did

i t not in par t involve the question of electors before the

Solonian reforms. Aristot le would have it tha t the Hfran-



chise was given to a l l who could furnish themselves with

a mili tary equipment.11

(15) Kenyon in his Greek edit ion

of the Constitution would accept Aris tot le ' s opinion

wholeheartedly and at t r ibute to Draco the character of a

const i tut ional reformer. Yet, even Kenyon must admit

-14-

tha t such a character of a const i tut ional reformer, is a t

variance with Aris tot le ' s statement in Pol . - - I I , 12 to the

effect that Draco made no change in the const i tut ion.

I,Ioreover, he admits tha t 11i t i s strange that Plutarch, who

certainly was acquainted with Aris tot le ' s work, should have

at t r ibuted the property qual i f lcat ion and the ins t i tu t ion

of the Boule to Solon." (16)

Halliday offered some sugzestions tha t cast serious

doubts on the re l i ab i l i ty of th i s chapter of the Consti

tut ions. He says, "Aris tot le 's Constitution of A t h e ~ sascribes to Draco an attempt to remodel the const i tut ion.

I t i s pret ty generally agreed however, tha t the "Consti

tut ion of Draco" is an invention drawn from the pol i t i ca l

l i tera ture of the end of the f i f th century B.C., when the

pol i t i ca l pamphleteering tended to adopt an his tor ica l

form in order to obtain an his tor ica l sanction for i t s

proposals. No other ancient author gives even a hint that

Draco anticipated Solon in an atempt a t c o ~ s t i t u t i o n a l re

form. The const i tut ion at t r ibuted to him in the Consti-



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~-15-

tution of Athens is inconsistent with Aris tot le ' s s ta te-

ments in the Poli t ics and even in some respects with

statements in the Constitution of Athens i t se l f . I ts

general character i s suspiciously similar to the pol i t ica l

p r o g r a n ~ e advocated a t the end of the f i f th century by the

"moderatesn, who posed as champions of the "consti tut ion

of our fathers11

, and in deta i l there appear to be anachron-

isms. For instance, both the property qualif icat ion and

the fines laid down in the "constitution" are stated in

terms of currency, whereas the laws of Draco are innocent

of money economy and the fines are assessed in cat t le .

Even in Solon's class if icat ion of society property quali-

f icat ions is expressed not in drachmae but in measures of

agricultural produce." (17)

At any ra te , whichever side we take, th is much is be-

yond dispute: the franchise was a rare prerogative a t

Solon's entrance on the pol i t ica l stage. I f we accept the

account of Draco's reforms, we must recognize a t once tha t

a very small number of the generality of the people could

have met his qualif icat ions. Even Kenyon, who i s en-

thusiast ic about the contents of the much-mooted chapter

four, states that "the poorest class , which was probably

also the largest , had not even the 'anagkaiotate dunamis'

which was afterwards assigned to i t by Solon." (18)

I f we reject the val idi ty of Aris tot le ' s statements,



-16-

we have an even glomnier picture . For the process of elec

t ion of Archons by the Areopagus might very easi ly have con

tinued to Solon's tume. This i s the opinion of Grennidge.

"If we decline to recognize the Drachonian const i tut ion

embodied in the Aristotelian t r ea t i se , th is system may have

continued a t the time of Solon." (19) This would mean,

for a l l pract ica l purposes, a closed circ le of pol i t ica l

control , because the Areopagus was lmost cer ta in ly com-

posed of ex-archons, who in turn could so manage affa i rs

that those only be chosen who would be interested in main

taining the existing system. (20) In th is case Solon

would e;et credi t not only by giving the lowest classes a

voice in the government (and th i s everyone admits) but

also for extending the franchise to numberless others who

were previously disqualif ied not by wealth but by bir th .

Throughout th i s paper we are constantly employing

the words consti tut ion and const i tut ional reformer. Con-

sequently, it wil l not be out of place to ca l l at tent ion

to the meaning which the Greeks gave to the word const i

tut ion. We are so accustomed to speak of living !£ a

state and under a consti tut ion that it somewhat disconcert

ing to f ind the Greeks using these two terms synomomously.

Again we have a decided tendency to think of the consti

tut ion as a l iberty-bestowing device, something tha t guaran-



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~-17-

tees our freedom. On the other hand, the Greeks conceived

i t rather as curtai l ing the i r freedom than extending i t .

One way they distinguished themselves from poorly organized

s ta tes was precisely th i s , that Greeks l ived under discip

l ine , whereas the others did not. In other words, while

the consti tution might give them l iber ty , they never forgot

that i t was a principle of order, and, consequently, tha t

even this freedom was to be exercised within the l imits

and under the res tr ic t ions of law.

Greenidge, a very important authority in th is

f ie ld , makes the following remarks on th is point . "With

respect to the f i r s t two terms "state" and "constitution", ,

i t wil l be observed that where we possess two abstract or

semi-abstract terms, the Greeks had only one. This is not

an accidental difference. To us the "state" is an as-

stract ion which should, when used in i t s s t r ic t sense, ex

press the vvhole of the national l i f e , the ' 'constitution"

expressing but a part of i t . To the Greek, the consti tution

(poli teia)is the ci ty i t se l f

(polis) froman

ass tract pointof view; i ts professes, therefore, to express the whole of

the national l i fe . " (21)

In consequence, when we say that Solon changed

the consti tution of the s ta te , we should bear in mind tha t ,

to the Greeks, his innovation involved more than a mere

change in a par t of the national l i fe . He was conceived as



-18-

having changed the whole of the national l i f e . To use Aris

to t le ' s ideas on 1pol i te ia 1 , he had changed the 'form'

(eidos) of the s tate (22), the ' l i f e ' of the s ta te . (23)

Zimmern in his contribution to Livingstone's

"The Legacy of Greece" lays dO\m a caution to be born in

mind when studying Greek pol i t ica l trends. We must always

dist inguish between what is purely national , purely Greek,

from what i s comnon to a l l government. In other words, we

must not attempt to generalize, to lay down a fundamental

principle of eovernment, from some development which was

peculiar to the individual state in which the development

occured. 11 In reading the Greek pol i t i ca l writers, then,

we must be careful to distinguish the universal from the

loca l and ephemeral, element. The l a t te r is indeed of

great in terest and value: but we shal l tend to miss the

really precious and permanent elements in the i r thought

i f we do not take pains to disentangle Thucydides, the i l -

lusioned Athenian patr iot from Thucydides the scient i f ic

histor ian and psychologist, and Plato the ar is tocrat born

out of due season from Plato the unrivalled student of human

nature and of the permanent needs of human society. 11 (24)

In concluding this introductory chapter, I will

be serviceable to indicate the chief primary and secondary

sources of the study undertaken in th is thesis .



· - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~-19-

I . Primary:

The Consti tution of Athens:-

This important document, which was discovered-at

the end of the l a s t century, has thrown much l ight on the

Solonian period and the Solonian reforms. The authorship

of th is work has occasioned much controversy. The ques

t ion i s not so much one of i t s antiquity, for the date of

i t s composition may be determined with considerable ac

curacy, but whether it

wasoriginal ly

writtenby Aristot le

himself or by one of his pupils.

We shal l outline the arguments for and against

Aris tot le ' s authorship. Our source for this information

is the ar t ic le by the Reverend Edward Newburn Walker in

the Encyclopedia Brit tanica.

1 - In general:

Of f i f ty-e ight quotations from

Aristot le ' s work found in grammarians and schol iasts , f i f ty-

five occur in the papyrus.

There i s internal evidence tha t the

t reat ise was composed during the in terval of Aris tot le ' s

second stay in Athens. This stay has been se t between 335

and 322 B.C. The Constitution was written between 329 and

322 B.c.

The date i s l a te r than the Pol i t ics .

2 - Against Aristot le 's authorship:



-20 -

1) The s tyle .

2) Statements contradict those in thePol i t ics .

3) Lack of his tor ical insight and too

easy acceptance of anecdotes.

3 - For h is authorship:

1) All ancient authors re fer the work

to Aristot le .

2) The date of i t s composition coin-

cides with Aristot le ' s second residence in Athens.

3) Similar i ty of thought with passages

in the Poli t ics .

To argument one above the reply is

maae that the Consti tution i s an his tor ica l and popular

work in contrast with the technical Poli t ics .

To argument two above, i t is repl ied

that it was writ ten l a te r and that Aristot le had changed

his views in the meantime.

For Aristot le ' s authorShip are found

Kenyon (editor of the edi t io princeps), Sandys, Wilamomitz,

Blass, Gilbert , Busolt and E. Myer. Grl..llldy refuses to ac

cept the authorship. (25) Greenidge in his monumental

Greek Constitutional History does not comrtit himself. Vrhile

he almost always mentions Aristot le ' s name when referr ing

to the Pol i t ics , he speaks simply of the Consti tution of



,

Athens without naming any author.

Standard his tor ies l ike Grote and Curtius were

written before the discovery of the Constitution; hence,

thei r treatment of certain points regarding Solon must

be compared with the information contained in th is new

document.

Plutarch's Life of Solon:

-21-

I f many of Plutarchs l ives tend to include fables

and legends rather than facts , yet so many of his sta te-

ments only corroborate the assertions of other ancient

authors that i t is safe to oonclude his sources for the

l l fe were exceptionally rel iable and his word in Solon's

regard i s more than usually trustworthy.

Poems of Solon:

A large number of the fragments which bear on our

subject are quoted in the two above works.

Other ancient authors:

Though many other ancient authors make mention of

Solon, very fel.r't have anything to offer the.t is of impor

tance for th is thesis . Of course, Aris tot le ' s Poli t ics

is of much assistance. Plato has very l i t t l e to say that

is of histor ical value. Herodotus confines his direct

statements about Solon almost exclusively to the story of



22-

Croesus. 0f occasional indirec t help are Demosthenes, Aes-

chines, I ~ y s i a s , Diogenes, Laert ius , Aeschines and Suidas.

II . Secondary sources:

Kenyon's Edit io Princeps of the Consti tut ion of

Athens offers many splendid notes and a helpful ins t ruc t ion.

Greenidge 1 s Handbook of Greek Const i tut ional His

tory i s extremely u s e ~ 1 1 , especial ly as he gives a complete

treatment of the whole of Greek const i tut ional his tory, and,

thereby, shows the relat ionship between Solon and other re

formers.

Bury's History of Greece contains a fa i r ly tho

rough treatment of the period.

Oox 1 s Lives of Greelc Statesmen, though some'\vhat

out of date , should not be dispensed with.

A great deal of usefu l information i s to be found

in Glotz 's Greek City and in Hall iday 's Growth of the City

State.

Others of less importance wi l l be found in the

ceneral bibliography.



Notes to Chapter I

1) Grundy, G.B., A History of the Greek and Roman World,p. 91

2) Curtius, Ernest, The Historx of Greece, Vol. 1 , p. 316.

3) The exact date of Solon's archonship was lone; been amatter of dispute. 'l

1he majority of authors, hm1ever,agree on 594 B.C., though there i s some evidence fo r592.

4) '11he Diacri i , the Pedieis, and the Paral i .

5) Plutarch's Solon, chap. 13.

6) Plutarch and Aristotle give various t i t l e s to Solon. Heis cal led a ' corrector ' and a ' framer of a const i tut ion '(plut . Sol. Chap. 16) ; ' reconci ler ' and 'archon' (Athe-nian Constitution, Chap. 5).

'7) Poem because Greek prose had not yet been born. Ivlany ofSolon's poems are nothing more than pol i t ica l pamphletswritten in verse.

8) This couplet is a contribution of the n e w - f o ~ t n d Consti-tution of Athens.

9) "Solon, son of Exekestides, was a Eupatrid of middlingfortune, but of the purest heroic blood, belonging tothe gens or family of the Kodrids and Neleids andt racing his origin to the god Poseidon. His father issaid to have diminished his sustance by prodigal i ty,which compelled Solon in his e ~ r l i e r years to have re-course to t rade, and in th is pursuit he visi ted manyparts of Greece and Asia." Grote, George, History ofGreece, vol. 1 , p. 577.

10) Athenian Constitution, chap. 4 and 5. Translation ofH. G. Kenyon.

1 1 ~ Ath. Const. , chap. 3.

12) Greenidge, A. H. J . , A Handbook of Greek Consti tutionalH i s t ~ r y , p. 136.

13) Ath. Const. , chap. 3.




-24-

15) Ath. Const., chap. 4.

16) Kenyon, F. G., Aristotle .2!! the Constitution of Athens,(Editio Princeps), cf. note on ch. 4 ., pp. 9 and 10.

17) Halliclay, Wm., The Growth .2.f the City State , notes to

lecture v. note 10, p. 135.

18) Kenyon, op, c i t . , note on p. 9.

19) Greenidge, op. c i t . , p. 138.

20) "For the council of ex-archons, the areopagus to whichwas entrusted the recrui t ing of magistrates, had foundi t too easy to manipulate the drawing of lots and toturn i t for a l l pract ical purposes into co-optation."

(Greek City by Glotz, p. 209.)21) Greenidge, op. c i t . , p. 4.

22) Aristot le 's Pol i t ics , i i i . 3.

23) ibid. iv . 11

24) Livingstone, R. w., The Legacy of Greece, p. 325.

25) Grundy, op. c i t . , note on PP• 93 and 94.



-25-

Chapter I I

Part I- -'rHE ·HEKTEMOROI.

Economically, as we have seen in chapter one, the

poorer classes or Athenian society round themselves in a

very sorry plight . So much we can say without rear or con

t radict ion; and only on so much and not much more are the

authori t ies in agreement. The moment one seeks inrormation

on who were poor, the exact why of the i r poverty, the pre

cise nature or the i r poverty, at thatmoment

does he leap

into a merry welter of contradictory statements. Since,

as we have a r ight to expect, a l l these opinions are but in

terpretat ions and explanations or the chier or iginal sources

i t seems only reasonable f i r s t , tha t , we bring those sources

together, study them and see what just i f icat ion there is ror

the interpretat ions which they have inspired.

No sooner does one mention the agricultural poor or

Solon's time, than he rinds himselr face to face with the

interpretat ion or the word Hektemoroi. The l i t e r a l trans

lat ion of "sixth-parter" is both obvious and simple. That

these sixth-parters formed one or the classes most hard

pressed economically is also beyond question. But who was

the sixty-parter? What does the term mean? Does he work

the r ields for a s ixth part of the increase and give f ive

sixths to the landowner? Or is the si tuat ion reversed

with the landowner receiving a s ixth and the worker five



-26-

sixths?

We have four main sources of information, Aris tot le ,

Plutarch, Photius and Pollux. Firs t of a l l , le t us see what

they have to say.

In the second chapter of the Athenian Consti tution,

Aristotle speaks as follows:" •••• but the poorer classes , men,

women and children were in absolute slavery to the r ich. They

were known as Pelatae and also as Hektemoroi, because, for

th is rental , they cultivated the lands of the r ich. The

whdle co1mtry was in the hands of a few persons, and i f the

tenants failed to pay the i r rent they were l iable to be

hauled into slavery, and thei r children with them.u

From Plutarch we have, "All the people were in debt

to the r ich; for ei ther theyt i l led

thesoi l

for them andpaid one-sixth of the produce, receiving the name Hektemoroi,

and Thetes, or they were subject to seizure by thei r cre

ditors-some were actual ly in bondage a t home, others were

being sold into foreign lands." (1)

Photius in his explanation of the word Prelatae

says, "Pelatae are men who are in a s tate of slavery for a

wage, since the word "pelasn means near, as for instance

' those approaching nearest by reason of poverty ' . In th is

he claims the authority of Aristot le . And again, "Those

working for the i r neigobors; the same men are called Thetes

and Hektemoroi, since they work the land for a sixth of the



-27-

produce."

Pollux is somewhat clearer . 11 Pelatae and Thetes

are the names of freemen, who, through poverty, are in a

s tate of slavery for a wage." (2) Later , he says, "Hekte

moroi, Pelatae among the Athenians." (3)

Before preceeding to an examination of the texts ,

it should be observed that , while we are constantly dealing

with English t ranslat ions , a l l words and phrases that can

throw l ight on th is subject aref i r s t

examined in the original Greek. In other words a l l arguments are based not on

the English but on the Greek.

Let us examine each text and see what i t has to of

fer us. In the Constitution we shal l find in outline the

reasons why the sixth-parters have occasioned so much dis

cussion. In the f i r s t place, the general statement i s made

that the 'poorer classes were in absolute slavery to the

r ich . ' Yet, immediately following we are told that these

people, who are in absolute slavery and cal led pelatai and

hektemoroi, receive a t least this l a t t e r name of hektemoroi

from the fact that ' for th is renta l ' (referr ing to the sixth}

they work the f ields of the r ich. Now persons, who are in

absolute slavery, can hardly be said to 'pay ren t ' to those

to whom they are enslaved. That a slaver owner may allow

his slave a certain amount of the f ru i t of his labors we

are ready to admit, but tha t he should rent out his property



-28-

to his slaves seems to d e n ~ n d an explanation of some sor t .

The word used for rental offers l i t t l e l ight be-

causa "misthosis", as far as we can learn, was used only to

express hiring and renting. We must turn, therefore, to the

word slavery. I f , l a te r , we can find other instances where

this word is sed in a broader sense, we wil l have some basis

for interpret ing Aristot le ' s word in th is place as meaning

not slavery in the s t r ic tes t sense· of the term, but slavery

ofa

special kind.

To continue, there is l i t t l e we can gather here as

to the technical meaning of hektemoroi. Aristot le says

that they were hektemoroi, because they cult ivated the land

for this rental . \Vhether this ren ta l consisted in the workers

gett ing a s ixth or paying a s ixth is s t i l l an open question.

Finally we are told tha t , i f the workers did not pay

the rent , they were l iable to slavery. Now this term ' l i ab le '

to slavery d,sserves consideration. Firs t of a l l , a person who

is already a slave (and this would seem to be what A : - : ~ i s t o t l esaid above) is not ' l i ab le ' to slavery. Yet the word t ha t i s

used means ' l iab le to s lavery ' , ' l iable to be carried away'.

'Eo sum up these remarks, we find

were l iable to

1) the people were slaves;2) these ' s laves ' paid a renta l ;3) i f they did not pay the ren t , they

slavery.



j_

j -30-

Giving slavery a s t r i c t interpretat ion, we are faced

with the diff icul ty of slaves paying rent . In th is case, they

who are already slaves, would be l iable to slavery fo r fai lure

to pay the rent . 1 ~ e only way to harmonize the texts seems

to be that this slavery was rather a state of serfdom from

which state of serfdom, the person involved vmuld become an

actual slave only i f he fai led to pay the required renta l .

This explanation can be h a 1 ~ o n i z e d even with the expression

'absolute ' slavery on the assumption that the tersm of the con

t ract were so severe tha t the s tate of the serf was the equi-

valent of that of the slave, i f not worse.

I f the workers are in such a dire state that they can

be compared to men in 'absolute ' slavery, then i t i s reason-

able to suppose the hektemoroi did not pay the ovmers of the

land one-sixth of the produce but f ive-sixths. There seems

to be no reason why the consideration of the man who pays

sixteen percent of the results of his labors as rental ehould

be compared to that of a slave. Even Peis is t ratus , who was

regarded as a mild tyrant , levied a general ten percent tax

on a l l returns from agriaulture. P.gain, an owner who obtains

a mere sixth of the f ru i t of hi:s land can scarcely be cal led

a slave master.

The f i r s t point noticeable in Plutarch 's statements is

that in his g:eneral remark as to the s ta te of the people he

does not say that they were in slavery but that they were .!!!



-31-

debt. There poor people, who are debtors of the r ich, he

tehn proceedes to divide into ~ v o classes, those who t i l l

the soi l for the r ich and those who have contracted a d e b ~

with the i r persons as security. Of these l a te r he asser ts

that they are l iable to seizure and that some are already

slaves.

At once there is a new angel to the case. The

hektemoroi are not slaves but men who finding themselves in

debt till the soi l for the i r creditors and receive in par t

a return of the produce. They are distinguislled from the

second class of debtors who have pledged the i r persons as

security and, on the i r inabi l i ty to pay the i r debt, are sub

jec t to being seized as slaves. This is in accord with our

interpretat ion of the passage from the Constitution, namely,

that the hektemoroi are not slaves in the s t r ic t sense of

the term, but only in so fa r as the i r condition is tantamount

to slavery.

A real diff icul ty i s presented by the unequivacle

statement that the hektemoroi paid one sixth of the produce

to those who controlled the land they t i l l ed . Since Aris

tot le has l e f t no direct statement to contradict th is as-

sert ion but only led us indirect ly to believe that they paid

f ix-s ixths , we must, fo r the moment at l eas t , allow Plut

arch 's words to go unchallenged. Later on, we hope to be

able so to combine Aris tot le ' s remarks with other evidence



c----------------32 -

that we wil l be jus t i f ied in claiming that in th is point

Plutarch was mistaken.

Before going on we may well ca l l attention to

the fact that the passage from Plutarch's f i r s t class of

debtors to his second class may have been extremely easy.

Due to a fai lure of the crop or same other misfortune,

the hectemoroi may have been forced to borrow to dide over

till the coming year. Having no land of the i r own and a l

ready in dis tress , the i r only recourse would be to borrow

on the security of the i r persons. 1 ~ i s , once more, offers

an indirect confirmation of our remarks of Aris tot le ' s 'ab-

solute s lavery. ' The position of the hektemoroi was so pre

carious that i t took very l i t t l e to jeopardize the i r l iber-

ty .

Photius, the next author we shal l deal with,

claims he i s quoting Aristotle in what he has to say on our

subject. Obviously, since we have no defini te grounds to

disprove th is claim, we must allow i t to stand.

The question \rlth Photius is the defini t ion of

the word pelata i , but , as he says explici t ly that these

pelatae were the same as theses and hektomorii, anything

said about them wil l also apply to the class we are study

ing. Of these pela ta i he has a combination of words which

onee again bring us back to the odd use of the word 'en-

slaved. ' He says that the pelatai were in the s tate of



-33-

slavery for ~ · In th is he seems to be saying the srume

thing as Aristotle except that he is viewing the si tuation

from a different angle. Aristot le has aclled them slaves

because they paid rent . Photius cal ls them slaves because

of the i r pay. These two statements are easi ly reconciled.

Aristot le looks a t them from the point of view of what they

paid the overlords; Photius from the viewpoint of the amount

which they are allowed to keep.

Thus, once more we are confirmed in our conclusion tha t i t was not a slavery in the s t r i c t sense of the

terra. Some species of subjection i t must have been, but not

slavery as we ordinarily understand the word. Farther along

Photius redefines the Pelatai as men working for the i r nei

f):Jbors. This would be a remarkable way of describing a

slave.

Undoubtedly, the most interest ing par t of this

quotation i s the defini t ion of the hektemoroi. "These same

men, "he says,11are thetes and hektemoroi, because theywork

the land for one six th of the produce. "The words six th

partu are in the dat ive, a clear indication that the s ixth

was the reward of thei r labors and that f ive-sixth went to

the overlord. I see no other way of t ranslat ing the ori

E·inal Greek.

Our l a s t b i t of evidence comes from Pollux I I I .

82. Recalling tha t in IV. 165 he says that hektomoroi is an



Athenian name fo r Pelatae, we find two interest ing as-

sertions:

1) Pelatae and theses are the names of freemen,

2) who through poverty are in slavery for awage.

Now, since the form of the verb 1 to be a

slave ' is a part ic iple agreeing with freemen, one inter-

pretat ion might be tha t he i s talking about men, natives of

Attica, once free but now in slavery. However, i f we ap

ply the principle we have been using throughout, that real

slaves do not receive a wage, then we must reaffirm that

slavery i s used in a borad sense to describe men who tech

nically are freemen, but , in rea l i ty , are so poverty

stricken and so dependent on the i r overlords that the i r con-

dit ion is tantamount to real slavery.

are:

Our conclusions to a l l that has been said above

(a) The hektemoroi were not slaves but freemen.

(b) But they were dependent in some special way toan overlord.

(c) They paid a fixed percentage of thei r crops tothe overlord.

(d) This percentage amounted to five-sixths of thecrop.

(e) They were in debt to the ovmer of the land.

(f) They were distinguished from a second class ofdebtors who have pledged their persona as security.

(g) Since they were debtors but distinguished from



-35-

those whose persons were mortgaged, we may suppose tha t the i r

debt was contracted with the i r land as securi ty. Perhaps this

was the very land they were working.

h) Their economic l i fe was so precarious that they

were in constant danger of having to mortgage

their persons.

i ) This would not come about throughinabili ty to

pay the i r rent , because they did not have to

surrender any fixed amount but rather f ivesixths of the produce, no matter how large or

small the crop might be.

j ) Should the crops fa i l with the resul t tha t they

had to borrow to l ive , i t may be tha t part of

thei r dependence on the overlord consisted in

th i s , tha t they were forced to borrow from him.

The securi ty for such a loan would have to be

the person of the borrower.



vVhile on the subject of the hektemoroi, there

is one question we must examine, even though s t r ic t ly speak-

ing it would seem to belong to par t two of their chapter.

Brief ly, the problem is this?~ f u a t

did Solondo

to relive themisery of the hektemoroi? We shal l t ry to outl ine the problem

involved.

In the f i r s t place, both Aristot le and Plutarch

mention the dis t ress of the hektemoroi as one of the greatest

diff icul t ies which Solon was called upon to solve. That he

did solve i t seems to be manifest from this tha t , while they

are always mentioned as those needing help before the reforms,

they are not mentioned as those dissat isf ied with the solution

he has to offer . This much seems to be established.

applied such a sat isfactory remedy to the i r d i f f icul t ies

we hear no further mention of them.

In the second place both Aristot le and Plutarch,

giving prominence to the sufferings of the Hektemoroi,

to ta lk about re l ie f in the following terms:

Aristot le says, "As soon as he was at the head

f affa i rs , Solon l iberated the people once and for a l l , by

a l l loans on the securi ty of the person of the

and a t the same time he hade laws by which he cancelled

l l debts, public and provate. (4).

Plutarch affirms, "For the f i r s t thing whcih we

was, that what debts remained should be forgiven, and



-37-

no man for the future, should engage the body of his debtor

for security. u ( 5)

Both authors cannot but have had the hektemoroi

in min,d when they wrote the passages just quoted. I t is con

ceivable that two authors should mention two classes of dis

tressed people, proceed to the measures intended for re l ie f

did affect both classes. To s ta te i t more clearly some

authori t ies would ~ o n c l u d e tha t , because Solon did not make

a new distr ibut ion of the land, the hektemoroi were not

directly benefited by Solon's provisions. They were only

benefited indirect ly in so fa r as they could not pledge

the i r persons in case they should find it necessary to borrow

money in the future.

Onthe contrary,

webelieve that

wemust seek in

the tes ts of Aristotle and Plutarch some benefi t for the hek

temoroi besides the indirect one just mentioned. Let us re-

cal l once again that thei r rea l diff icul ty resulted from the

fact tha t they received only a s ixth par t of the produce of

the land. Further, they were not in slavery in the s t r i c t

sense and they have been distingushed from those whose persons

were l iable to seizure for n o n - p a ~ e n t of debt. Yet is dis

t inct ly stated that they were in debt. Somehow, i t must have

been the cancellation of the debts which afforded them re l ie f .

The question now arises as to how they became in

volved in debt and what surey they gave for the money they



borrowed. At f i r s t glance, the problem seems insoluble.

we are told tha t the land they worked belonged to thei r

creditors . Hence, the debt they then owed could not

have been entered into with the ~ a n d as surety. In the

second place they are distinguished from those whose per

sons had been mortgaged. On what surety, then, did they

borrow the money?

A further problem is created by the fact

that Solon'sovm

words inform us tha t ,

"The mortgage-stones that covered her (the

ear th) , by me

Removed,--the land tha t was a slave is free.u

(5) Plutarch quotes these l ines in support of his s tate-

ment that i t was the taking off of debts that afforded re

l i e f . There is no need here to enter into a discussion

as to whether the stones tha t Solon removed were marks of

ownership or mortgage-pil lars. vVhatever they were, they

indicated a control over the land by the large-land-owners.

But who was rel ived by the removal of these stones? I t

was hardly the class of debtors who had irrevocably los t

thei r land and had already mortgaged thei r persons. But,

since these men were not affected by th is action and since

we must find what i t was tha t benefited the hektemoroi,

i t does not seem unreasonable tha t we seek to connect the

removal of the boundary stone with the aid rendered to the

hektemoroi.



-M -offer the following explanation. Originally, the hektemoroi

were small landowners. Through various misfortunes they

were forced to borrow on the i r lands from thei r wealthier

neighbors. Unable to pay the i r debts, the i r land wwere for

forfei t to the i r credi t rs , but , perhaps because t h ~ s land

could not be completely alienated from the t r ibe or family

to which the borrower belonged, the creditor could not as

sume complete legal control. For a l l pract ical pruposes the

land was his ; he had to use and control of i t , even though

the legal t i t l e s t i l l remained nominally with the debtor.

To indicate his control , the creditor placed on the land

some mark, the 'horoi ' of which Solon makes mention. The

borrower, deprived of his means of l ivel ihood, became a de

pendent of his wealthy neighbor, working the land for one-

sixth of the produce and faced with the constant menace of

having to borrow on the securi ty of his person and becoming

eventually a slave.

In th is way we can explain the statement tha t the

hektemoroi were debtors, since, though thei r lands were for

fe i t , the creditor could not affect a complete foreclosure.

In th is way, we can understand how Solon sided the hektemoroi

By his cancellation of debts, the lands which had never

passed under the complete control of the creditor reverted to

to the hektemoroi and gave him such a sat isfactory new s tar t

that neither Plutarch nor Aristot le found occasion to mention

this class again.



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ 4 - o - - ·Ar,ain, i t removes the di f f icul ty of having to explain the ex-

act nature of the 'horoi 1 • Suffice i t to say that they indi-

cated an almost complete control on the part of the credi tor .

While our theory may not give complete sat is fact ion,

yet , i t does compose a very great number of differences. I t

accords perfectly with the ten points we established above

from the analysis of what ancient author i t ies to say about

the hektemoroi. This in i t se l f i s no small r e c o w ~ e n d a t i o n .



- - - - - - - - - - .-41-

l ~ O ' r E S TO CHAPTER I I

1 • P1ut. Sol. Ch. 13

2 - Po1lox I I I . - 82

3 - Pollox IV. - 165

4 - Ath. Const. Ch. 6

5 - Plut . Sol. Ch. XV



CHAPTER I I I

CANCELLATION OF DEB'rS AND ~ CHANGE IN THE MONETARY STANDARD.

In accordance with the procedure we have been following

thus fa r , we shal l take up the question of the cancellat ion

of debts by presenting the words of Plut:1rch and Aristot le .

In chapter 15 of his Solon Plutarch makes the follow

inG statements: "For th is was the f i r s t pol i t i ca l act of his

administration, that what debts were then in existence should

be cancelled and no man for the future should engage the body

of his debtor for securi ty . Though some, as Androtion, af-

firm tha t the debts were not cancelled, but the in teres t only

lessened, which suff ic ient ly pleased the poor; so tha t they

named th is benef i t the Seisachthea, together with the en

ln.rging of the i r measures, and raising the value of t he i r

money; for he made the mina which before r;assed fo r seventy

three drachmas, g.o fo r a hundred; so t ha t , though. the number

of pieces in the payment was equal, the value was less ; ·which

~ r o v e d a benefi t to those tha t were to discharge debts, and

no less to the creditors . But most agree tha t it was the

taking off the debts tha t was cal led seisachthea, which is

confirmed by some places in his poems in which Solon takes

honor to himself tha t from the ear th

11 he removed the boundary-stones tha t every·where encum-

bered her; from the ear th tha t was once enslaved but now is



-43-

f ree · 11,

tha t some who had been seized for the i r debts he had brought

back from other countr ies , where

--so fa r the i r lo t to roam,

They had forsot the language of the i r home;

and some he had se t a t l iber ty , - -

vVho here in shameful servitude were held."·

In chapter nineteen, v;e f ind, "-----observing tha t the

people now free from the i r debts----"

The two following quotations are from the Athenian

Consti tut ion, chapters s ix and ten.

"As soon as he was a t the head of af fa i r s , Solon l ibe

rated the people once and for a l l , by prohibi t ing a l l loans

on the securi ty of the person of the debtor: and a t the

same time he made laws by which he cancelled public and pr i

vate debts. This measure is c o m J ~ o n l y called the Seisach-

the ia , since thereby the people had the i r loads removed from

them. 11

"These seem to be the democratic features of his laws.

But, in addi t ion, before the period of his legis la t ion, he

made his abol i t ion of debts , and af te r it his increase in

the standard of weights and measures, and of the currency;

During his term of office the measures were made la rger than

those of Pheidon, and the mina, which previously contained

about seventh dracb.mas, was raised to the fu l l hundred. 11



~ 4 4 -To our mind the evidence i s too scanty to warra n t a

c lea r -cu t decis ion as to whether Solon a c t u ~ l l y cancel led

?.11 debts or whether he simply cancel led those debts which

involved as sure ty the land or persons of the debtors , of -

f e r in s , a t the same t ime, some measure of heln to others by

devaluat ing the curi 'ency. The arguments on ne i the r s ide are

strong enough to afford complete convict ion.

'ro begin with both Aris to t l e and Plutarch were en-

debted to Androtion, whom both used as a source of t he i r in -

formation. His \70rds, then , cannot be disregarded. . Yet , vie

we have l i t t l e to t e l l us of the worth of h is s ta tements .

So fevr frauaents remain of h is work, the Atth i s , t ha t it is

impossible to judge the genera l accuracy of h is asse r t ions .

Ona t l e a s t one point

inthe quota t ion

L;iven by Plut -

arch , Androtion seems to be mistaken. His claim t ha t Solon

reduced the ra te of in te res t i s cont radic ted in J.Jysias x . lB ,

r!here i s :r.1entionecl a law of Solon which permit ted any in -

t e r e s t agreed upon by the cont rac t ing par t ies . Of th i s

Glover has th i s to say:

nsolon gave the trad.er and merchant nev1 freedom; he

abolished s tupid im})ediments to incJ.l_;_str:r l i l ~ e the old c l i en t

r·v.les; he vJould have no laws fixin.c:: ~ ra tes of in te re s t .

'J.ihe use of cap i t a l i s the sec re t of ec anomie !':)rosperi ty , and

it is bes t used by those who knov1 the condi t ions . Who could

bes t f ix the prop.er in te re s t fo r a loan on bottomry, on a



-45-

voyage to the Black Sea'? Surely, the men who Jmow the sea

and the seasons and the other r i sks ; then, l e t them f ix the i r

oym ra tes of in teres t . 11( 1)

When Androtion claims th.<J_ t 11 the debts wei'e not cancel

led , but in teres t only lessened" he is di rec t ly contradict ing

Solon himself , who lays claim to the trm-fold. dis t inc t ion of

cancell ing the debts entered into with land and the debtor 's

')orson as secur i ty . Pract ica l ly , every modern a'.J.thor allows

th is claim of Solon. The rea l ar,r;ument concerns debts invol

ving other secur i t i es . I t is th is l a t t e r question which we

must examine in z:;reater de ta i l .

Plutarch admits that even in his day the quest ion was

the subject of debate; but in the quotat ion given above, he

rejects the O}Jinion of Androtion and those tha t held vlith

him. Yet, in attempting to support his statement from the

'JOem.s of Solon, he addv.ces references v.rhich jus t i fy only the

8.ss1.-unption of the cancel la t ion of debts involving land and

the debtor 's person. Since he undoubtedly had access to a l l

of Solon's poetry, th is inab i l i ty to produce sa t isfac tory

testimony would seem to argue, ult i lnately , that Plutarch had

to res t his case on t radi t ion ra ther than on direc t evidence.

Aris to t le , on the other r_,and, Y!ho nrote co:.1turiec be

:' ore ?luto.rch, is sa t i s f ied with the bald asser t ion tha t

Solon 11 cancelled c.ll debts . 11 Kenyon in his edi t io princeps

of the Const i tut ion L.:<.rJ.J.'lecitatingly acco'Jts Aris to t le ' s word



-46

t ha t a l l debts were cancel led , i r respec t ive of secur i ty .

Thus, in h is in t roduct ion he says , 11 A ll debts , rn:tblic and

:;:r•ivate, were cancel led , and fo r the fu ture the secur ing of

c'Lebts unon the :rerr.on of the debtor v.ras forbidclen. (2)

Comru=mting on chapter s ix he gives the onme unc on

r1it5_onal approval to the l e t t e r of the t ex t : - 11 I f , however,

flny doubt remained as to whether it amounted to a clean

sweep of a l l debts , Ari s to t l e ' s express def in i t ion of it as

shoul(3_ rerr1ove i t . I t v:ould ·even e . p ~ ~ - , e a r tlu:d:; it extended be-

~ r a n d de1Jts secured on. the land, since no lim.ia t t ion i s ex

~ ; r e s c 1 e d and rubl ic debts as r!el l a s ::::-'rlvate \':ere j_ncluded.

I t is ha rd l j l i ke ly tha t debts to the St? te -vvere secured

by mortr::;age, since pa:;rment of such l i a b i l i t i e s can seldom

be deferred or allowed to f a l l in to arrear•s. i ' robably, in

clealinc; v;i th the Jo.rge nur:11Jer of obligat ions secr:1.rcd on the

ncrson or Iand of the debtor , Solon found it impossible to

avoid touching the r e m c ~ i n i n g classes of debts , and W9.s Dn-

able to annul the one 171 thout also annul l in[ the other .

As the usua l secur i ty was evident ly r ea l Droperty, it i s

probably tha t the amount of debts otherwise secured wo.s

comp2.ratively smal l , so t ha t the extens ion of the

___to a l l debts a l ike ef fec ted a c rea t sim

-ol i f icat ion of the measure without any cons iderable in

crease in hD_rdship. In shor t , Solon 's econor:'1ical reform was



~ 4 7 -was a complete m ~ e a s u r e of novae tabulae." (3)

In l ike manner does Greenidge express his views--

"Solon seems to have found but one means of meeting the

c1ifficulty---the heroic measure of ·a cancell ing of a l l debts ,

whether owed to the individual 's or to the s ta te , accompanied

by a prohibition against lending on the surety of the per-

son 1( 4)

Halliday takes a middle posi t ion, holding the complete

cancelling of debts but suggesting that "changes in the currency and in the system of weights and measures may also have

benefited the lower classes. 11 ( 5)

Grote, writing of course before the discovery of t h ~Constitution and Aris tot le ' s unequivacal indorsement of the

complete cancellat ion thes i s , also inclines to take a middle

course. nHow Androtion came to maintain such an opinion we

cannot easi ly understand. For the fragments now remaining

from Solon seem direct ly to reffute i t , though, on the other

hand, they do not go so fa r as to substant iate the fu l l ex-

tent of the oppos i t.e view entertained by many ·writers-- that

a l l money contracts indiscrimately were rescinded: against

which there i s also a further reason, that i f the fac t had

been so, Solon could have had no motive to debase the money

standard. Such debasement supposes that there :r:mst have been

~ o m e debtors a t leas t whose contracts renmined valid, and whom

nevertheless, he desired par t ia l ly to ass is t . 11 (6)



-48-

Jolm Mitchell , in his ar t ic le for the Encyclopedia

Brtt tanica, af ter admitting the abolit ion of a l l debts ihvol

ving the debtor 's person, gives the following reason for dis-

agreeing with Gelbert and Busolt who maintain tha t a l l debts

were cancelled. " •••• strong reasons may, however, be advan

ced against , among others that the Greek, unlike the Roman

revolutionary, though ready to deal freely with the property

of others, did not seek to remedy f inancial dif f icul t ies by

abolishing debts." (7)

In Hellenic Civil iat ion by- Botsford and Sihler we find

this note on page 142.

"Aristot le does not say here that ht abolished a l l

debts. The only rel iable information on the subject which

he had was derived from Solon's poems quoted by him•. From

these poems we hage a r:i.ght to infer that Solon cancelled

those debts only which were based on the secuiry (1) of land

(2) of the person. I t is a pert inent fac t , too , that Andro

t ion understood that Solon l e f t some debts uncancelled."(8)

Without attempting to solve the diff icul ty, we wish to

ca l l at tent ion to several points pert inent to this question.

Firs t of a l l , in a large measure, much of the argument ul t i -

mately turns on the relat ive authority of Aristot le and

Androtion. Of Androtion we have l i t t l e information, except

that he enjoyed some reputation as an orator and was one of

a l ine of men who wrote not-too-important chronologies of



-49·

Greek his tory . His cloru i t fa l l s within the very period of

Aris to t le ' s l i f e . On the other hand, Aris to t le deservedly

is re:nked as one of the most t h o r o u g h - g o i n ~ scholars of a l l

time.

Secondly, t radi t ion, which is not to be spurned except

on very sat is factory evidence, stands in d i rec t opposition

to Androtion. Even the s tory tha t Solon 1 s friends availed

themselves of advance information on the contemplated reforms

e.nd borrowed huge sums jus t before the cancel la t ion, while

not conclusive (for they may have borrowed on land) shows how

firmly establ ished the t rad i t ion rea l ly way.

Aris tot le and Plutarch both take cognizance of these

ta les and make an effor t of discountenance them. Aristot le

does so on the grounds of Solon's general high character .(9)

Plutarch r e ta i l s the s tory t ha t the ereat refonner was a vic-

tim to h is own innovations to the extent of betv!een five and

f i f teen ta len ts from which, i t was sa id , he released his ovm

credi tors (10)

Final ly , Adnrotio 1 s case becomes s t i l l weaker when, as

'Ne shal l see , the change in the standard was i:m.perat i ve i f

Athens was to achieve the commercial :'lro:rninence which Solon

has des t inefor her . In other v1ords, i f to Plutarch 's denial

and to Aris to t le ' s si lence v1e can also addl:tce a strong motive

which wil l connect the new monentary standard to foreign

rather than domestic :r;olicy, then, Andtotion's contention be-



-50-

comes almost untenable.

CHANGE IN THE MONEY STANDARD.---

At the outset we must remember tha t we are dealing with

early Athenian his tory and must guard against introducing con-

cepts which l a t e r become corm;1onplace. For instance, we are so

accustomed to consider Corinth as the great r iva l of Athens,

that v1e may forget tha t the tv:o countries were fas t fr iends a t

this period of the i r his tory. In the same way, Aegina, which

was tobe

apol i t i ca l

footbal l inl a ter Greek his tory,

wasa t

this time a t b i t t e r enmity with Athens. I t sounds paradoxical

that Athens actual ly borrowed twenty ships from Corinth to

wage a war on the Aeginetans. (11). Moreover, Aegina was a

c:reat connnercial centre when Athens began to make her debut

in the world of commerce.

To expand her com"1ercial re la t ions Athens had to look

easy instead of west. In the east were the great centers in

Euboea and the prosperous Greek ci t ies in Ionia. In the eas t ,

too, was the r iches t source of grain to feed the increasing

population of Attica. In the west the seas were controlled

by inimical Aegina.

With these thoughts in mind it i s easy to see a profound

commercial advantage in the adoption by Solon of a new stan-

dard of currency. Thus fa r Attica had used the Aeginetan

standard, which must have hampered her free re la t ions with the

eastern centres of commerce. Consequently, though Aristotle



-51-

and Plutarch are s i len t on th is aspect of the change, i t is

not far-fetched in the l igh t of the impetus Solon gave to

coilL1'11erce, to l ink h is change in the currency with the com

mercial advantages to be drived from it •••

Up to the discovery of the Constitution of Athens, i t

was :::_enerally accepted tha t Solon's reform involved a change

with the proportion of 100 drachmas to 73. (12) In the work

of Aris to t le , however, the propertion laid down is 100:70.

Professor Percy Gardner points out tha t the f i r s t is close to

the propertion of the Aeginetan to the Attica standard, the

second tha t of the Aeginetan to the Euboic."It is becoming

very natural tha t Plutarch 's authori ty writing a t a time when

the Attic standard was in universal use , should have supposed

tha t i t was tha t which was introduced to Solon. But we have

in Aristot le a valuable record of the rea l facts of the case;

i f we may believe him, i t was not the l a t t e r Attic standard

·which Solon introduced but the rea l Et.'-boic, which was appreci

ably l ighter ." This change l inks Athens to the standard

"which was already accepted a t Challds and Eretr ia and (with

a dif ferent system of division) a t Corinth." (13)

11 Another innovation of Solon's vms destined to improve

the econor1ic condition of Athens in a much more indrect

fashion. The ci ty had dm".'ll to th is time been using money

struck on the :")1.1eidonian standards, such as circulated in

f'elopannesus or Soeotia. "Solon lTI['.de a sweeping cbE.nge by



-52-

s t r ik ing coins based, not on th is standard, but on tha t known

as t'!:le Euboic, which was employed in the great commercial

c i t ies of Challds and Eretr ia . This made the currency of

Athens interchangeable with that of her weal thy neigb.bors,

though i t somevrhat complicated exchanges with Aegina dnd

Thebes." (14)

In conclusion i t vJill be servicable to s-..1:::-xmrize the con

tents of th is portion of the thes is .

1) All debts on the securi ty of the debtor 's land and

person were cancelled.

2) By law no man could in future give his o ~ T I person

tha t of his wife, his children or unmarried s i s te r

as securi ty for debt.

3) Citizens sold as slaves in foreign lands were re -

deemed and restored to t he i r native land. We are

not told how th i s was effected.

4) Androtion 1s contention that debts were not can-

cel led but re l ie f afforded to debtors by the de-

valuation of the currency seems hard to defend.



-53-

Par:b i'hree

IMPETUS !Q COMMERCIAL PROGRESS

Contemporary histor ians, in contract to ear l ier wri ters ,

have placed special s t ress on the economic factors in Solon's

reforms. In common w i th the general tendency to in terpret

events in terms of economics, more emphasis is being oaid on

Solon, the economist, than on Solon, the great legis la tor .

The facts in the case give a measure of jus t i f ica t ion to the

new posi t ion, though the recognition of his work in the f ie ld

of economics must not blind us to his outstanding work in the

pol i t ica l f ie ld. The t ruth i s that Solon deserves our regard

under both these t i t l e s .

Already in the introduction we have touched upon the cir -

cumstance that Athens, i f i t was to r ise to preeminence in the

world of Grecian s ta tes , must needs do so on the plane of

industrx and not on that of agricul ture. As an ar is tocra t

Solon may never have averted to this simple t ru th . The future

of the ar is tocta t of Attica was bound up with the successrul

cult ivat ion of his landed esta tes . But Solon was not only an

aris tocrat . I t wil l be remembered tha t , for some reason or

other , the fottunes of his family had dwindled, with the re -

sul t that ar is tocrat ic Solon became also a man of commerce.

Tradit ion has i t that even a young man he had t ravel led ex

tensively in prusuance of his commercial enterprises. As a

consequence to the ar is tor ra t ic Solon were added a business



-54-

ins t inc t and vis ion which he was to use to such advantage to

advance the fortunes of Attica .

Plutarch 's remarks are extremely in teres t ing. "Observing

the c i ty to be f i l l ed with persons that flocked from a l l

parts into Attica fo r security of l iving and tha t most of

the country was barren and unfrui t ful and tha t t raders a t

sea import nothing to those tha t could give them nothing in

exchange, he turned his ci t izens to t rade, and made a law

that no son should be obliged to rel ieve a father who had not

bred him up to any cal l ing. I t is true tha t Lycurgus having

a ci ty free from a l l strangers and land, according to Euri-

pides.

'Large for large hosts , for twice theil" number sma;J..l, 11

and, above a l l , an abundance of laobrers about Sparta , who

should not be l e f t i d l e , but nmst be kept down with contin

ual t o i l and labour, did ,_vell to take off his ci t izens from

laborious and mechianical occupations, and keep them to t he i r

arms and teach them only the a r t of war. But Solon, f i t t ing

his laws to the s ta te of things and not making things to su i t

h is laws and finding the ground scarce r ich enough to main-

ta in the husbandman and al together incapable of eeding an un-

occupied and le isurely multi tude, brought trades into credi t

and ordered the Areopagites to examine how every man got his

l iving and chast ise the id le ." (15)



-55-

"He permitted only o i l to be exported and those tha t ex-·

ported any other f ru i t the archon was solemnly to curae or

else pay a hundred dracr.J:nas himself; and, th is law v.ras wri t

ten on the f i r s t table , and, therefore , le t none think i t

incredible, as some aff i rm, t ha t the exportatj_on of f i r s

was once unlawful and the informer against the delinquents

called a sychophant.n (16)

"The law concerning the natural izat ion of foreigners of-

fers some dif fucul ty , because i t allows cit izenship only to

t11ose who were in p e r p ~ t u a l exi le from the i r whole family

for the sake of exercising some manual t rade. This he did,

not to discourage s trangers , but ra ther to invi te them to a

permanent par t ic ipa t ion in the privi leges of the government;

ond besides, he t.hought those wou.ld prove the more fa i th fu l

ci t izens who had been forced from the i r own country or vol

untari ly forsook i t , (17)

Plutarch therefore , assigns three reasons to motivate

Solon's encouragement of t rade: -

1) I m ~ i z r a t i o n into Attica was increasing;2) the country was barren and unfrui t ful ;3) t raders import nothing to those who can give nothihg

in exchange.

'rhe f i r s t reason must be read in conjunction ·with the

passage relat ing to irrnnigration, where Plutarch speaks of the

natural izat ion of irrnnigrants. In the f i r s t ci ta t ion the im-

plicat ion is tha t manufacturing had to be extended in order to



-56-

provide food fo r the immigrants; in the th i rd we see that the

opposite was the case. Solon saw in the im .rnigrants not so

much men to be fed as men who could help the Athenians to

feed themselves. The immigrants who caught his eye were

those who came to stay, those that came with a t r ade . There

can be no doubt of the t ruth of th is interpretat ion because

i t is scarcely possible that agr icul tura l labourers would

come to Attica for "security of l iving" when Attica 's most

serious di ff icu l t ies were arising precisely from the unhappy

s i tuat ion of the agr icul tura l i s t s . In describing the causes

of Attica 's unsettled economic condition neither Aris tot le

nor Plutarch make mention of the ar t isan or the tradesman.

They seemed to be sat is f ied a t l eas t vdth the i r economic sta-

tus , even i f they were not so welll sat isf ied with the i r po-

l i t i c a l posit ion.

Str ic t ly sepaking, then, the increase of immigration i s

not to be taken closely with the ~ ~ o reasons tha t follow,

Plutarch is simply lupming together the whole s i tuat ion

that faces Solon and giving a l l the motives a t once without

distinguishing the ultimate reasons for his policy from the

remedy tha t he recognized.

The second and th ird reasons assigned by Plutarch may be

otherwise expressed by the phrase 11need of money." Someway,

somehow, Athens had to have money and industry seemed to give

the answer. Given something to se l l , then money would begin



.-57-

to flow in and, with money, food and power and even more in

dustry. Perhaps in his t ravels Solon had learned the lessons

of Miletus and Naul.rratis, the story of the i r Egyptian trade

and thei r speedy r ise to epulence.

And thus, i t was that with a firm hand he took control of

the s i tuat ion. No longer might the nobles seek a higher

price outside of Attica for the f ie ld produce of the relucant

soi l . Food grown in Attica had to be sold in Attica; sold

where the price could be controlled and profi teering discour-aged. Only the f ru i t of the olive might be placed on the for-

eign market. The more of th is there was to see l , the bet ter .

I f Solon might have visi ted f i f th century Attica, he could

reasonably have been proud of the numerous olive groves to

the encouragement of which he had given the f i r s t impetus.

Sparta with i t s r ich lands and with a subject race in i t s

very bosom might well t ra in her citizenw to despise the t i l l

ing of the f ields and the business marts of the world. But,

Attica was to be different . No son was obliged to support a

father who had not t rained him iether in the a r t of agricul

ture or f i t ted him out with a trade for the new l i fe of in-

dustry. To the duties of the Areopagites was added that of

examining into each man's means of support. Parasites on the

new order of things were to be chastised.

Grecian sta tes just emerging from the narrow seclusion

of the t r ibe and clan were reluctant indeed to share the c i t i -



-58-

zenship with outsiders . I t needed a strong hand to sweep away

this re luctance. With character is t ic courage and fores ight ,

Solon extended the ci t izenship to a l l who were in ;1erpetual

exile from the i r native land ·and to those vdllin;:.:: to se t t l e

}>ormanently y:Ji th the i r families and ~ ) l y the i r t rades. In re -

cent years someone has coined the ~ J h r a s e tl1at "no rn..:.qn ·will

f:L:;ht to defend his boarding house 11• Long ago Solon under-

stood the meaning contained in this sayin.c; and took the ·worth-

vr:"lite outsider in to the family bosom. 1.Phis policy must have

!'cad a marked success , for i t was continued un t i l the days of

Peric les . !I b i . f ' • l • t •••• y g Vlng ~ a c l I lOS fo r foreigner to oet t le

in Attica in order to exercise some ski l led cra f t , he encour-

ac;es thA r ise of industry, which was to prove, in the long

run, the salvation of the poor, and to rescue them f inal ly from

the d ~ J o n d e n c e and misery of a purely ac;rarian regime. 11( 18)

Of course, we mD.st not imagine tha t Solon l i t e ra l l y

"stood Athens on i t s head." Olive groves cannot be Imlled l ike

rabbi ts fro:rn a hat . Trade must be fouc;.ht fo r and does not come

from the :mere wish to have i t . Ye t , i t is rer!".s.rlcable tha t one

mRn should, as i t nere , have turned an ent i re s ta te into a new

direct ion; that nne man should have solved an in ternal problem

of misery, recognized the need of industry, provided the means

.for at ta in ing i t , even descending to the de ta i l of direct ing

what was to be exported and what was not. Small wonder tha t

the Greekx invested the character of thei r 2;reat lawgivers withan element of the divine.



-59-

Notes .:!12 Chapter Three

1) Glover, rr.R., D e m ~ c r a c y in the Ancient World, pp. 46 and 47.

2) Ath. Const. , Editio Princeps of Kenyon, introd. p. XXV.

3) Ib id . , note on p. 15.

4) Greenidge, op. c i t . , p. 150.

5) Halliday, op. c i t . , p. 186.

6) Grote, George., History o f _ ~ r e e c e , Vol. 1 , p. 584.

7) Encyclopedia Bri t tanica , 14th edi t ion , vol. 20. , p. 954-6.

8) Glover in his Democracy in the Ancient World takes a firmhand against the idea of complete cancel la t ion.


0) Plut. Sol, chap. 15.

1) Thucydides, bk. ~ . XL. 2.

2) Plut. Solon, chap. 15.

3) Gardner Percy (History of A n c i e n ~ C o i ~ ~ ~ , ) pp. 143-153, asquoted in Hall iday 's Growht of the i ty State .

4) Om.qn, C. W., I i istory of Grer3ce in t h ~ History of NationsSeries , Vol. 2, p. 104.

5) Plut . Sol . , chap. 22.

6) Ibid . , chap. 24.

7) Ib id . , chap. 24.

8) Barket, E ., Greek Pol i t ica l Theor.z, p. 43.



CHAPTER IV

POLITICAL REFORMS.

Part I--The Solonian Census.

-60-

"But, even af te r the ancient evidence has been s i f ted wit

every care, any account of Solon's const i tut ional reforms 1m1s

contc.in judgments which are subjective and deductions which

are hazardous, and no synthesis can claim with confidence to

be t rue in every part ." (1) With th is dis t ress ing statement

does Professor Adcock enter into his treatment of the Solonia

const i tu t ional reforms. And Professor Adcock is substant ia l l

correct in his asser t ion. "vYe have already touched upon the

fact that l a te r t rad i t ion , in i t s effor t to honor Athen's

greatest lawgiver, constantly tended to a t t r ibu te to his laws

and reforms of every descr ipt ion, which ei ther already exis

ted before his time or v.rere added af te r his work was done. Yet

in spi te of the fac t that vve cannot claim with confidence

to be r5.ght in "every par t" , there is much which can be put

forward without fear of serious contradiction.

As is frequent in dealing with th is period, the basis of

the di f f icul ty l i es in the fact that Solon is the f i r s t l i fe

and blood f igure we possess of ear ly Greek his tory. Others,

whether as classes or individuals , we may know by name and

even, to a cer ta in degree, by achievement, but in the l a s t

analysis , t he i r forr.1s are shadowy and uncerta' ln. The same,

to a large degree, may be said not only of persons but also



-51-

of ins t i tut ions . As a consequence, we are constantly faced

with the prospect of dealing with a reformer, when we have

scant knowledge of who or what there was to reform.

We shal l divide th is section of our thesis into four

parts , a) the classes of cit izens; b) the Areopagus; c) the

Council; d) the Assembly. Each of these points wil l be sub-

divided fur ther into two par ts , namely, the s i tuat ion as

Solon found i t and the changes which he made in i t .

Let us e«amine into the question of the four classes in-to which Solon is supposed to have placed the ci t izens of

Attica. Of this Aristot le speaks as follows. "He made a

division of a l l ra t iable property into four classes , just as

i t had been divided before, namely, Pentacosiomedimni,

Knights, Zeugitae and Thetes • . . • • To thowe who ranked as

Thetes he gave nothine but a place in the assmbly and in

the jur ies. A man had to rank as a Pentacosiomedimns i f he

made, from hiw ovm land, five hundred measures, whether

l iquid or sol id. Those ranked a Zeugitae who made two hun-

dred measures, l iquid or solid. Those ranked as Knights who

made three hundred measures, or, as some, say, those who were

able to m ~ i n t a i n a horse •••• . • Those ranked a Zeugitae who

made two hundred measures, l iquid or sol id . The res t ranked

as Thetes and were not l ig ib le for any off ice." (2)

Plutarch r s word.s are, "Next Solon, being will ing to con-

t inue the magistracies in the hands of the r ich man and yet



. .-62-

receive the people into the other part of the government,

took an account of the c i t izens ' estates , and thos·e tha t

were worth five hundred measures of f ru i t s , dry and l iquid ,

he placed in the f i r s t rank, cal l ing them Pentacosiomedimni;

those that could keep a horse, or were v10rth three hundred

measures, were named Hippada Teluntes and formed the second

class ; the Zeugitae; that had two hundred measures, were in

the th i rd; and a l l the others were called Thetes, who were

not adm_itted to any off ice but could came to the assembly

and act as jurors . At f i r s t , th is l a t t e r point seemed no

th ins , but was afterwards found to be an enormous privi lege.n

(3)

Did, then, these classes exis t before the time of Soion?

Plutarchdefini te ly

assigns the division to Solon; Aristot leon the other hand, describes the classes as pr ior to Solon.

The question is fur ther complicated by the fact tha t Harpoc

ra ion in two instances expressly ci tes .1. r i s to t le 's very con

stit"L:tion of Athens for h is authori ty tha t the divion was

m ~ d e by Solon. To add s t i l l more to the confusion the Con

s t i tu t ion of Athens, in the much-disputed fourth chapter,

1vhich we referred to in chapter one, makes mention of f ines

which varied in size dependent upon whether the culpr i t was

a Pentacosiomedi1nnis, a F ~ i g h t or a Zeugites. An addi t ional

complication is the fact tha t the papyris on which the Con

s t i tu t ion was found cer ta inly antedates the work of Harpo-



..63-

crat ion.

rrhe s i tuat ion, then, is as follows:- Aristot le twice de

clares that the classes existed before Solon's t ime; Plut

arch defini te ly assigns t he i r creation to Solon; Harpocration

on two occasions claims Aristot le as his authori ty tha t Solon

·was responsible fol'' the i f formation. Obviously the :9roblem

cannot be resolved on the basis of authori t ies . Any ef for t

towards composing these differences must be made relying

ei ther on external evidence of some sor t or through the ap

pl ica t ion of some hypothesis tha t v:il l , a t most, give only a

presumptive cert i tude.

The Cambridge Ancient History (4) in one place a t leas t

would.seem to draw from the external evidence of a known

mil i ta ry reorganization.before the time of Solon and suppose

tha t , in th is regard, a property qualif icat ion was establishec

the pur:9ose of which was m i l i t a r ~ r ra ther than f i sca l . For

some reason not stated only three classes would be asigned

to the pre-Solonian period. 11Hippeis, those who serve as

horeemen; Zeugitae, those who could equip themcelves fo r the

hopl i e. phlaiL"C; and Thetes, or laborers . 11However, the in

formation vouchsafed us by the author is so meagre tha t i t

is impossible to determine the grounds for his asser t ions .

So much for the external evidence. As fo r thehypothesis

to reconcile the confl ict ing renarks, ·we wish to offer the

following, which several authors seer.1 to imply in the i r



-64-

t rea tment of the quest ion. The names Hippeis , Zeugitae and

Thetes are a l l ·what vre may conveniently ca l l 11uncoined 11 names

or , in other l ' tords, ns.mes Vlhich have a place in a lan,?;U.age

apar t frcrn the teci1nlcal sense to vvh:tch, fo r ins tance , Solon

' " - ! : ) P ~ 5 c d them.. Per::u:tps, it vii l l be c l e a re r if . we compare them

with the four th name in the group, Pentacosiomedilrni, which i s

obviously a coined word, one de l ibe ra te ly formed to ex:9ress a

t echn ica l :rneaninc.

1.'.'h8.t v1e sh01).ld sny, t hen , i s t ha t t ~ J . e no.mes I·Ii:n:0eis,

Zeu,::-;i tae and Thetes existed before Solon 1 s t ime, \Vi thout havinr;

hor1ever, any connect ion with a : Jo l i t ica l sic;nif icance or with

t.he :rJrecise number of bushels of s ra in which would en t i t l e a

nerson to be l abe l led with one of them. In th i s case Solon

YJ01J.ld s imr;ly have adopted th ree names already used as soc ia l

tac;s (rrn1cl1. as the modern I t a l i an 11 8avagl iere 11 Cor Y.nic;ht) and

invested them with a pecuniary and ::->olit i c a l meaning. Fj_nding

t h ~ : 1 . t the croup loosely d8signated as ~ I i p p e i s contained men of

varying decrees of weal th , Solon simply divided o ff the

' : 'ea.ltb.iest and r;ave them the naqe rrllic1.1 vms the bas is of h is

rHvis ion, namely, PentacosiomedimnL

At any r a te , th i s much is certs . in , t ha t Solon s t r ipped

the ar i s tocra t s of t he i r automatic qua l i f i ca t ion for of f ices

:tn the s t a t e . For the fu tu re , b i r th vrould not suff ice fo r e l i -

c : ib i l i ty to perform the highes t funct ions of c;overnment. On

the other hand, men who previously hr,d to be content vli th



-65-

minor of f i ces , o r , pcri1aps, with no off ice a t a l l , but v7ho,

because of t he i r f inanc ia l s tanding, f e l t j us tL ' : ed in cla im

ing sone -orominence in the state · , ·;vro nO\'! not only elic;F)le

:fo::::> off ice but also vested with as much e l i , : , ib i l i ty as the

~ ~ i s t o c r a c y by b i r th .

rr1:'w bas i s ot di s t inc t ion bet1"leen the. classes and tl'..e con

sequent Y)Olitical privilerc;es bestovJed on each c.re s\.:;_fficientl:T

J n ~ l i c s , t e d L1 the quoto..tions and need no fu r the r a r . ~ p l i f i c a t i o nhere .

Severa l poin t s , hmJever, may be of i n t e re s t . In the

f i r s t :9lace, the nedimnus, the measure employed fo r gra in t

conta ined about one c.nd o. 7:1alf bushels ; the ~ " ' . e t r e t r e s , used

fo r vrine and o i l , contained a little :r1ore the.n eigh t and one

' Ja lf e;al lons. I t i s notevwrthy the.t in Solon 1 s day a metre tes

of o i l and a med5_mnus of r ~ ; r a i n VI ere considered eq_uivalen t in

value . In the f i f t h c m1tury, hoviever, a r1etr•etew of o i l h2.d·

abo-,.lt the fo·,Irtimew the value of a medir:mus of gro.in. I t

fol lows, t he re fore , t h a t gra in a t the t ime of the reform cos t

a t l eas t four t imes as rmch a s it did in the day sof :Pericles .

I t also ind ica tes the riisdom of Sol0!1 1 s i:o1s iotonce on the cu l -

t iva io:v1 of t:::·.e o l i vo. I f in J?ericlem:1 Ath,:ms, o i l :n•oduced

a t h o ~ e had four t i ~ o s the value of : rP in , ~ ~ i c h , to a la rge

t0cm the '1:'1.11 ·who had ::-1one somuch to st l11ulate the product ion

of suc!.'l o. l uc ra t ive C0,..:1.rJOdity.

Later on we sha l l take up the i:::;;.portance to the Thetes



-66-

of the r igh t which Solon gave them of taking t he i r places in

the assembly. For the present we shal l close th is q u e s t ~ o nwith a quotat ion from Halliday which admirably S l l i ~ S up the

sisnif icance of the Solonian census.

"The new arrangements are clear ly very im:portant and \ r l l l

have far-reaching ef fec ts , for it introduces an ent i re ly new

into the const i tu t ion . I t is quite :probably tha t ,

a t the time of 5.ts introduction, i t s fu l l sic;nificance vms

hardly appreciated for no doubt the m ~ j o r i t y of the already

rul ing class were also the r ich. But in rea l i ty it provides

fo r the pol i t i ca l re:prescntation of wealth. I f the r ich noble

is archon, he is now e l i s ib le fo r that off ice not because he

is noble but because he is r ich , and any member of the nww

merchant class , whose income reaches the prescribed amount,

wil l have a const i tut ional rit;l:ct, whatever his or ig in , to

hold the h i < ~ e s t office in the s ta te . Previously to the

Solonian c lass i f ica t ion : : ;ol i t ical privilege had been the -:Jrivi

lese of bir th ; Solon rnade i t the privi lege of wealth and in

trodv.ccd the principle · of determininG the ci t izen r s obl i

:.::;utions and ]!rivilcr;cs in :r-reps.rat:to:1 to hs i "stake in the

country 11 .(5)

The ATIEOPAGUS.

I t vlil l be i:::>:.possible here to t race the his tory of the

AreoiJac;aus. So many are the conf l ic t ing opinions tnat con-



-67-

jectures as to i t s origin and powers before Solon tha t a whole

thesis could easi ly be written from the l i te ra ture on the sub

ject . We shal l be sat isf ied with a summary of what seems to

us to be a reasonable view of i t s nature and development. A

two-fold question :rrt.1.st be c onsfdered. Was the Areophagus ori -

: ina l ly a deliberat ive body and thus, the direct progenitor of

the l a te r Boule or was the Boule already constituted before the

Solonfan period.

Pract ical ly a l l the Grecian s ta tes passed through a

period of const i tut ional development in which a kine or su

preme magistrate of some sor t was supported by a council of

nobles which acted in an advisory capacity and, in varying

degrees, l imited the power of the ruler . From analogy i t

seems reasonable tha t Athens passed through such a s ta te of

development. We know tha t a t Athens even before the time

of Solon there existed an executive body of some kind, tho '

even ancient authori t ies cannot agree on whether i t was what

was l a te r called the Areopagus or i\'hether i t consisted of a

separate deliberat ive body recruited from the nobi l i ty .

In this regard, Herodotus connects vdth the conspiracy of'

Colon certain s ta te officers called 11 Prytaneis of the N a u c r a r i ~Some authors have t r ied to prove tha t these Prytaneis were com-

mittee members of a Boule just as the Prytaneis of l a te r

Athenian his tory. However, Herodotus seemB clear ly to indi

cate tha t these Prytaneis were an executive, not a del ibera-



-68-

t ive body, a point which should be suff ic ient to distinguish

them from the Pryteneis of l a ter centuries. Again, Athenian

t radi t ion is consistent in at t r ibut ing the Boule to Soloh.

I t ispointed out , moreover, that the

l a t e rBoule, unlike

other very ancient bodies, observed no archaic r i tuals or ce

remonies. Furthermore, i t was convened, not by the archons

whose office is of admitted ant iqui ty, but by a committee of

Pr.:rtaneis, the ear l i es t traces of which are found in the s ixth

century.

Eliminating an early Boule, such as tha t founded by Solon

there remains the Areopagus for which the evidence as a de

l ibera t ive and judic ia l body is bohh extensive and convincing.

I t is true tha t there was current in l a t e r Athenian history a

t ra i t ion that the Areopagus was the creation of Solon, but the

arr;t'!.ments on the other side are two weighty to acL'TI.it of much

dispute.

Frrs t of a l l , concurrently with the above mentioned

t radi t ion, even as early as the beginning of the f i f th cen

tury there was always a feeling of respect, veneration and

even awe connected with the Athenian's view of the Areopagus.

This can hardly be explained as aris ing from that council 's

duty of adjudicating cases of homicide. Again, Plutarch (6)

expressly mentions a decree of Solon in which the Areopagus

is expressly credited vrith having already sent persons into

exi le . Besides, there is the convincing circumstance tha t



-69- ...

in the t i ~ : 1 e of Aris to t l e , the Areopas-us !11e t in the King's

Porch under the pres id(mcy of the King }.I•cho:t:., v;ho was the

d i r e c t successor of the or ig ina l Att ic kings . Add to t h i s

t: 'lat the Areopagus is 8.1\JVf:l,ys design8.ted not as a cour t but as

a Boule OI' counci l o.nd r:e can sc"fel::,r c..ssert (1) tho.c the Areo-

:>c.t;us v:as in exis tence before Solon; (2) t1:u:.,.t. i t i'.'8.2 t ; ~ : . c de l i -

r-)ers.tive as well as a jud ic ia l assembly (7)

!:.r:Lstot1e 1 s v;ords c onfirlil th i s tvJO-fcld conch;.sion.

"'l'he Council ::..eel o.s i t s as::li.:_;ned duty the : ; ro tect ion of the

la...-:s, but in point of fac t it o . c 1 Y : i l : . . i s t e r ~ d the cre£>tcst and

~ o s t imnortant nar t of the- - - - r"OVei'Y"''ent !!""! .... • ( 8) And l abe r t a l l ~ -ing about Solon 's reforms he s 87f8, "0ut ~ ' l e still ass igned to

t inued , as before , to be the [)J.e.rdian of the co:nsti t u t ion in

: ;encral . ( 9)

\ll.:..at changes, then_, did Solon nuke in .Jcb.e . ! ~ r e o ~ J a G u s ?

A.s vre saw in our introd.uctory clJ.apter, the Areopac:us vms, be-

fo re , Solon, composed of ex-archons. This Solon l e f t un-

chanc;cd. But Yre also saw t ha t the archons a t t h a t t ime were

chosen by the Are ~ ; o . g u s and only f r o ~ , n · ~ , 1 e n t}Ualified by b i r t h .

rr:1is Solon d id change. From no\Y on the Archons vrere chosen by

the people and weatth ra the r than :J ir th vras the bas is of

t he i r qua l i f i ca t ion . In th i s way, h t ebroke the closed

c i rc le of po l i t i c a l cont ro l tb.a;!; ex is ted in both the Areo-

:)agus., the m.ost i n f luen t i a l body in the s t a t e , and in the



-70-

archonsJ.lip, the r1ost i n f luen t i a l inclivid"Lml off ices in the

body :POlitic. Thus, in c. very roa l sense , the Areopagus of

the fu ture wc..s to represen t i nd i rec t ly the choice of the

~ " ) G o p l e a t lccrge.

The BOUJJE.

Having de}.Jrived the Areopagus of i t s f\:mctiom as a

del ibera t ive body 9.nd boinc; on the po in t of es te .bl i shing a

de l ibe ra t ive body composed of a l l the c i t i zens , Solon had to

make iJrov5.sion to prevent th i s ~ ~ o ~ 1 u l a r assembly from fa l l ing

from the complete control of the archons, the hie;J:-.test ad

minis t ra t ive of f i c i a l s of the s ta te . To 1-:-tcet the s i tua t ion ,

Solon crea ted whs.t v.re.s to become one of the most c ~ l a r a c t e r i s -t i c and ')OrJ'Orful bodies in. the po l i t i c a l machinery of Athens.

~ C h i s body, ca l led the Boule, 178.S formed ~ 1 r i r 1 o . r i l y to arrange

and d i r ec t the work of the assembl;sr. I t s funct ion vras pro

boulcut ic in charac ter in so much as it decided on the mat ter

and the ordering of the business of the assembled body of the

c :tt i zens . At th i s t ime, it VJould seem t ha t i t s pm·:ers v1ere

1i:rnited to the 1-:erformo.nce of th i s : function n.nd. t ha t the

i : : - ~ p o r t a n t du t i e s , li].lich l a t e r fe 11 tc ~ - - ; ~ , \7ere not included

in the plan of the founder.

11iJill1en he had cons t i tu ted the ~ ~ r e 0 ) 2 . Q ; u s of those who

had been year ly archons , of which }:e him:::; e l f , the re fore , was

al ' r ! G ~ : ' ' b c r ,

obs ervins tha. t the people , now f ree from t h e i r

debts , were u_nsettled and imperious, he formed another coun-



c i l of four hundred,· se l ec t ing a hundred out of each of the

four t r ibes . - I t was the duty of the counci l to inspec t a l l

matters before they were propounded to the r>eople and to

tal:::e care t ha t nothing but vvhat had been f i r s t assembled

should be brought before the o;eneral asse:nbly. 11( 10)

Several deta i l s meri t our cons idera t ion . As we saw

above, off ices in the s ta te were not open to the Thetes and,

consequent ly, th is counci l nru.st have consis ted of men who

could , a t l e a s t , ncct the qual i f i ca t ion of Zeugitae. Since

th i s i s the case , it i s hard to understand hov; wri te rs use

the in s t i tu t ion of th i s body to bulr;Hrk t h e i r content ion

t ha t Solon formed it del iberate ly as a movement towards de-

1-:10cracy. Plutarch indica tes express ly t ha t it was to a.ct

as a check on the general assembly and keep in bounds people

who were now "unse t t led and :j_mperius. 11

As to the method of e lec t ion to th i s body or the

leng th of time i t s members re:c:1.ained in off ice we hc..ve no

def in i t e knowledge whatever. The f i r s t counci l , i f the vrord

ing of the t ex t i s to be taken l i t e r a l l y , was chosen by Solon

personal ly . In the lQter democracy the members were chosen

by I o t , but we hc.ve no def in i t e asnurance of i7hs..t the pro-

cedure was during the l ;oriod fol lowing in11nedia t e ly upon

Solon.

This par t of the thes i s would laclc completeness i f we

did not mention Solon's concept t ha t the Areopagus and the



-72

Council or Boule vrere to ac t as rr anchors 11 and thus nthe com

monwealth would be less l i ab l e to be tossed by tumults and

the people be J'10re quiet . " (11) Jus t how fa r the Council

served i t s purpose as an "anchorn of the s t a t e , it i s not our

in tent ion to discuss . Never theless , i t s ingenuity nm.s t be

a c ~ m o v v l e d s e d . Situated as it was between the large and un-

vdeldy body of the popular assembly and the imi)Ortant of

f i c i a l s of the Areopagus and archonship, it cannot but have

civen a fee l ing of secur i ty and protec t ion to the genera l i ty

of Athenians. The w e a l t ~ y may readi ly have conceiv-ed it r'. S

a safeg-u.ard fo r thesmeves by reason of i t s exclusion of the

1m7est class in the Athenian census. The poor, regarding the

1o.rc;e nv..:mber the.t formed the Council r s membership, may eas i ly

have deemedit

as a guarantee agains t a re turn to the harsh

condit ions from which t h e i r l ibera t ions had so recent ly been

ef fec ted .

The ASSEMBLY.

Of Solon r s achievement ' :!ith respect to the genera l

assembly, very l i t t l e d i rec t evidence is given us . Both

Aris to t le and Plutarch a re content vri th the unelaborated

asser t ions t ha t Solon opened the ecc les ia to a l l Athenian

freemen. vVhether nn ecclesia of some kind was already in

exis tence v1e cannot know with cer t a in ty . I f such a group

did e x i s t , we can be cer t a in tha t i t s power was severe ly



. . ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,-'!73•

l imited. Perhaps it was convened only to gain the support

of the comrnons in the event of war or some other such event

of national importance.

A suggestion, ho·wever, is found in the comparison Plu-tarch makes between Poplicola and Solon. rrThe remission of

debts was peculiar to Solon; i t was his great means for con-

firming the c i t izens ' l iber ty; for a mere law to t,ive a l l men

equal r ights is useless , i f the poor must sacr i f ice these

r ights to the i r debts and be more than a n ~ ~ h e r e at the beck

and bidding of the rich in the very seats and sanctuaries

of equali ty, the courts of jus t ice , the offices of s ta te

and the public discussions.u(l2)

The i ~ o l i c a t i o n is clear that Solon together with his

cancellation of debts , added a law 11 to give a l l men equal

r ights . t These equal r ights were exercised in three ways,

by a part icipat ion in the courts , in the election of magis-

t ra tes and in the public discussions. These public discus-

sions would be, of course, the meetings of the ecclesia .

We can be certain that the ecclesia , i f i t ex1.sted at

a l l before the reforms, had l i t t l e or no influence in the

management of the govern.111ent. We have all"'eady shovm that up

to that time control was vested in the Areopagus and the

archons. Besides, an inf luent ia l assembly might by i t se l f

have forced action to ameliorate the grevious conditions of

the masses. Yet, af te r the time of Solon we hear no men-



-74-

t ion of·· anyone as founder of a new ecclesia . Surely, such

a momentous step would have cal led for considerable corrnnent.

We can, therefore, assume that the ecclesia, as an important

deliberat ive body, came into being under the guiding hand

of Solon.

I t is a temptation, of course, to credi t Solon with

the authority of a l l the powers which that body la te r came

to exercise. We can feel confident, however, tha t these

powers were of slow accretion. Indications of th is are

found in la te r Athenian history where we see how the balance

of power shif ted from one arm of the government to the other.

A long time was s t i l l to elapse before the assembly deve

loped i t s technique even to the point of making i t knovmto

the Boule t ~ ~ t certain matters might agreeable be included

in :the·assembly's agenda. At leas t Solon can take credi t for

giving a tremendous iwpetus to the collect ive importance of t e

Athenian commons. This step l ike so many for which Solon was

responsible was to assume i t s fu l l significance only in the

days when Athens reachedi t s fu l l

s ta ture as a real demo-cracy.

The HELIAEA.

In the Wasps of Aristophanes, Philocleon enters the

. Heliaea and cries out, "Is not my :;::>ower as great as that of

any king?(l3) This remark intended though i t is as a j ibe



• '75-

a t the Athenians' passion for the give and take of the law

court , i t pregant with meaning. Underlying i t is the solemn

t ru th that a t Athens the law court , nowithstanding numerous

abuses connected with i t , :h..a.d become the very cornerstone

ofAthenian democracy. Aristot le, the keenest mind that

Athens was to give to the world, saw i t tha t way and with his

usual pit iness sums up the content of his vision with the

words, · "for when the connnons is master of the juryman's

bal lo t , i t is mater of the s ta te ." (14) To Solon nru.st go the

credit for leading the way to th is characterist ic of Athenian

nat ional l i f e . Men of his day could s t i l l recal l the time

when laws were expounded and just ice rendered by a clique of

aris tocra t ic magistrates whose decisions were not only f inal

but also basedon

laws of which they alone had theknowledge

and over which they alone held the mastery. Men could s t i l l

recal l the momentous work of a Draco whose t i t l e to fame

rested chiefly on his having la id open to the masses those

principles of justice under which they might receive an un

merciful chastisement. Draco's work was rather a gesture

that a movement in the r ight direct ion. The administration

of just ice remained where i t had been and the r ight of appeal

was s t i l l a matter of dreanw.

We cannot but have noticed tha t the pol i t ica l reforms

of Solon were more j_n the direct ion of timocracy than demo-

cracy. Wealth was the key to off ice and poverty gave access



·, '

only to the l imi ted funct ions of an i n e x p e r ~ e n c e d assembly.

I t was a t most a caut ious s tep .in the way of univer sa l equal

i t y . But , if th e po l i t i ca l reforms were but a cautious s t ep ,

the j ud ic ia l reforms s ta red democracy in the face .

Let us se t down the words of Ari.stotlG and l ' l , " t c . r c ~ J . .

"rrhere s re three :Doints in the c.onstitl-'.tion of Solon 17hich app

ear to ~ t s nost d c ~ o c r ~ t i c fea tures ; f i r s t and most impor-

t an t , the prohibi t ion of loans on the securit7r of the debtors

2.'erson, secondly, the ri,:sht of every person who so wil led to

bring an act ion in behalf of n.n-yone to YJllOm Y:rong 17as being

done; thLxU:;•, the j_nst i tu. t ion of the ap:)eal to the lav;

cour t s ; and it i s by nouns of th i s l a s t t ha t the:;• ~ a y the

masses have sained s t rength noat of a l l , nince , when the com-

rnons is . - ~ a s t e r of the jurynanrs b a l l o ~ . : ; , it i s ' ~ ? s . s t e r of . the

s ta te . " (15)

"Solon sppears to :lD.vo r ; s t c . l J l i s ~ e d t ~ : : c C:.c:rocrac;y- by com-

TiOS ing the jury courts out of a l l the c i t i zens .11

(H i )

nsolon seems . • . • to havo ra i sed the r·eOI)le to E;reCl.t con-

s ide ra t ion in the s t ~ t e by al lot t inG thG s u ~ r e m e - j u d i c i a l

done v;:hat vrould soon overtt1..rn th8.t l ) r ~ l c , n c e of power he inten-

cled to es tab l i sh , c ince by tr:sdne; a l l c a ~ e:::. ':rl.i.r. t::: oover before

tJ::.e 2 ; e o : ~ · J _ e who ·were cl1osen by 1ot to determine ther.1 1 it vms

necessary to f l a t t e r a t y r a n n ~ c a l p o ~ ' u l a c e \'JllO had got th i s

povrer, whlch c o n t : . . ~ 5 . b u t o d to brine; tb.e covern::::J.ent to tha t pure



dm .locracy it is novl." (17)

".li.J.J.d a l l the others were ca l led Thetes , who were not ad.-

mJ . tteCl to a n ~ r off ice but could cmne to the assembly and ac t as

jurors . This r i gh t to s i t as a juryman as t i f r . s t seemed

noth:tng, but aftcrv:E..r'ds i t turned out to be c..n enorl'lot:s : . ~ r i v i -

lo ;o , rrs al1:1ost 0very m.at t e r of ctis:;ute ca:::.c b0:C'orc them in

th i s co..:r:aclty. Even in the cases Which he ass isned to the

nrchon 's cot,".l.izance, he r ~ l l o y ; e d an nr:;;eal to the cour ts .n( l8)

"r!e, Solon t}:ou::{J':'.tit

intieed mont necessary to ent rus t the

=:;eo1)le v7i th the cll.oice of t he i r ~ ~ ' 8 . 2 : ; i 3 t r a t os and the :r:ower of

call: tne t21en to account ." ( l9)

Let us take up in order the j ud ic ia l r ights which Solon

eave to the 9eople. F i r s t of a l l , he l a id the foundat ion

fo r t ha t extreme ind ividuo.lisnJ. ::'.n tlle a d : : , 1 i n ~ . s t : ~ • c . t i o n of jus-

t ico ' tLdch D . ~ : : . , o ~ J . r s so stril::ing to onr eyes. ~ ' \ . s Glotz puts it 1

11 jus t ice never tool: the ~ . n i t i a t i v e a:c:"ong the !•.thenj_ans, even

in cr iminal cases . 11 (20) In other words, there exis ted in

Athens no ymblic 9rosecutor , no orc;anizod pol i t ce force. The

o t ~ e r s of these was occupied by every indiv idual c i t i zen of

Athens. The inves t iga t ion o.nd )'Lmishxnent of 17rongdoing vms

not regarded as the business of a pol ice d o r ~ r t ~ e n t , u i t ~ the

ci t izens looking on o . ~ ' c . . thet ico, l ly , c..lrnost o.s i f tb.e funct ion

in;::; of such a d e ~ ; a r t m e : 1 t absolved thcr1 fr•o:-n a l l i n t e re s t and

res] : ;onsibi l i ty . Crime 1vas not considered so 1m1ch a violo.t ion

of an abs t rac t code of laws as a viola t ion of the r igh t s of



',

' -.-;'78- '

the c itj_zens l?.:nd in t h i s vio la t ion each indiv idual f e J t c.

:oersonal cone ern.

Thr011,2;hout th i s considerat ion we must not fo rget t ha t the

Heliaert was OlJCn to a l l c i t izens including those :!.n. the

lo,•rest cens-c.s. 'JitJ1 t : . ~ _ i s in mind, ne shEl l consider the im-

portance of the legislD.t ion vrhich com.:?elJ.od a l l nac i s t r a te s ,

a t the t e l - . ~ n i r r a t j _ o n of t he i r tenure of of f i ce , to render em

r.ccount of t he i r nde",lirristro.t:i_oD. Of t tds Grote rer1o.rks, "To

j_:;1:nose u ~ ) O D the Ru:n.::.trid Archon the necess i ty of being

elec ted to :nut 11210n th i s t r i a l of a f t e r - a c c o u n t a b i l ~ t y by the

rabble o:L freemen (such would be the phrase in Eupatr id

socie ty ) would be a b i t t e r 1-rc•.n5.lintion to those a:mong whom it

'.Ve,s f i r s t int roduced; for rre l"'V.st reco l lec t t ha t th i s was the·

most extensive scheme of cons t i tu t iona l refor::n ye t propounded

in Greece, and t ha t despots and olig2.rchies shc.red bet·ween

them a t tha t time the whole Grecian vrorld.n (21) 1.7hite th i s

examination befol"'e c. lo.rc;e body of ·che CO'!T::1ons 1:1ay not have

assuned th e iml!Orto.nce rti:J.icb. flirJ. in the f i f t h century , ·Jet

~ ~ - tca

.

nrrot buth ~ v e

been a r>ovrerful deter rent fro,,, any f l ag -

nm t abuse of pov1er. Examinetin:1 by a popul2.r boc.y before

which any c i t i zen :r1i,sht lay his , ·] ievnnces Cf:l.1121ot have been

a pleccsant experience a t e.ny t ime.

In th i s connection vre must not f a i l to mention the a l l -

i:tT!}orto.nt quest ion of c onst i t1..1tion.o.lity. Gi ve:n the r i gh t

to t ry cases of every c .escr i r t ion , the co-r:ll';',Ons v1ere, thereby 1



-'79

with the right of interpreting the consti tution. For,

or la te r , cases were bound to arise the adjudication of

would depend upon the jurists • understanding of the

of the law involved. Thus , Solon, perhaps unlmowingly

ad in i t ia ted a most star t l ing democratic trend. In the las t

the commons, through the i r courts of law, when a t

they become conscious of their preogatives, were to ex

a control over the very constitution to which they owed

judicial powers. Greenidge's remarks are to the point.function o:f the courts here charactel .ized as democratic

s that of the audit of magistrates, and the judgment is but an

of the maxim that the character of the consti

wil l never correspond to the character of the nominal

i f judicial functions (including pol i t ica l jur is

are given to another body for the sta te will always

e swayed by the classes represented in the judicial body."

No doubt many nations of antiquity gave a subject the

of appealing from the decision of a lesser off ic ia l

o the judgment of a higher, perhaps even to that of the chief

or king. However, as far as we know, not even th is

in Attica a t the time of Solon's archonship.

i t is amaxing to find Solon laying down the principle

of appeal but actually of appeal to general courts

even the lowest class in Attica was admitted to par t i -



-89·

cipation. Plutarch expressly states that this privilege in

cluded even decisions rendered by the Archon. I t is hard to

believe that Solon himself understood the ful l import of this

momentous step which was to culminate in a judicial proced

ure in Which the archons would do no more than preside a t a

preliminary t r i a l while competence in the case was entirely

in the hands of the popular c ou.rts. I t is not an exager

ation t o cal l this a t rue revolution in the judicial proce

dure of the western world. I f Solon did not fully grasp whatthe f inal issue of his measure would be, yet , that issue was

inevitable and inherent in the original provision which he

made.

Finally, we liDlSt notice that this judicature was a body

separate in every way from every other department of the

state . I t was not the assembly for this l a t ter body was not

chosen by lo t as were the courts. (23) In the second place

the members of the assembly did not take the Heliastic oath

to Which the jurors bound themselves. Besides, the courts

could exercise jurisdiction over and decide the constitution

al i ty of the very decrees of the assembly.

I t wil l be interesting at the close of th is chapter to

quote several very pointed observations of Greenidge. "That

state only is a pure democracy in which no other principle

but that of equal representation c l a ~ s legal recognition.

As a mater of fact such a pure democracy did not exis t in



-81-

Greecei in a l l we see certain aristocratic or oligarchic ele

preserved. Yet, the state was democratic Where the t rue

character of such elements was modified by subordination to

the popular wil l , which could cr i t ic ise and punish a l l holders

of office. This is indeed the practical meaning of democracy

1n the Greek world; i t is a power of fearless criticism which

can at any moment issue 1n action" (24) "Democracy, as we

saw means practically though not ideally the power of cr i t i -

cism and punishment by the masses; this power was exercised

at Athens through the popular courts, and by their inst i-

tution Solon was (perhaps unwittingly) responsible for a

star t l ing democracit reform." (25)



Notes to Chapter Four

1) Adcock, F. E., Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 4, P• 47


3) Plut. Sol. , chap. 18.

4) Cambridge Ancient Historz, vol. 3 , p. 594.

5) Halliday, op. c i t . , pp. 121 and 122.


7) This summary is drawn from the treatment given to thisquestion in the Cambridge Ancient History.

8) Ath. Const., chap. 3

9) Ath. Const., chap. a.


1) Ibid.

2) Plut . , Comparison of Solon and Poplicola, chap. 3.

Aristoph., Wasps, 549.


5) Ibid.

6) Arist. Pol. , i i . 12.

7) Arist. Pol. i i . 12

8) Plut. Sol. , chap. 18

9) Arist. Pol. , 11. 12.

0) Glotz, G., !a! Greek Citz, P• 233.

1) Grote, History of Greece, Vol. 1 , p. 596.

2) Greenidge, op. c i t . , P• 153.

3) Arist. Pol. , i i . 12.

4) Greenidge, op. ci t . P• 123

5) Ibid. • 154

-82



-83-

CHAPTER FIVE

... ..S;;..;C=E=LL-.ANE---......,0...-U....,S ~ . ! @ CONCLUDING REMARKS

Sedition Laws:-

I t is not our intention here to quarrel over

the genuineness of the so-called Sedition Law. SUffice i t to

say that both Aristotle {1) and Plutarch (2) makes mention of

i t and that this points to a well-established t radit ion. More

over, the very simplicity of i ts provisions gives_, is a So

lonian colouring. The eidence is satisfactory enough, and, inl ieu of any testimony contradicting i t , we can proceed to a

discussion of this interesting b i t of legislat ion.

What was the Sedition Law? Aristotle will t e l l

us. "Further, since he saw the state often engaged in internal

disputes, while many of the citizens from sheer indifferencewaited to see what would happen, he made a few laws with ex

press reference to such persons, enacting that anyone who in

time of civ i l faction did not take up arms with either party

should lose his rights as a cit izen and cease to have any part

in the s t a t ~ . " {3)

We realize at the outset that th is law could

scarcely have been enfor.med without grave injustice. I t

gave the victorious party too favorable an opportunity of tak

ing revenge under the cover of legitimate judiciary procedure.

Yet, the spi r i t behind such an enactment, the crit icism of the

apathy or the masses together with the implication that loyalt



-84-

to the existing government had not assumed the character of a

national virtue 1 a l l these just ify us 1n lingering on what

Plutarch calls a "peculiar and surprising" piece of legis

lat ion.

Solon, l ike a l l great lawgivers understood the ut ter

necessity of the rule of' order in the sta te . This order was

more essential than the supremacy of' any part icular form of

government over another. Better a tyranny with order than a

democracy with disorder. Now, Solon, perhaps better than

anyone else, realized tha t his legis lat ion, while i t had ef

fected a cure of' the pressing i l l s of' state , had far from

cured these i l l s premanently. or this he te l l s us himself'.

He foresaw that the dissatisfaction of both the commons and

the nobles presaged a recurrence of internal dissentions.Already, he had given the Athenians not the best laws but "the

best they could receive." Contention he could not forestall .

At most he would attempt to impose a measure by which the

period of' contention and i t s conquest disorder might, a t

least , be shortened. At l eas t , he would make a remote pro

vision to insure a speedy return to the most fundamental re

quirement of civic well being, the reign of disorder.

Thus i t was that he legislated against the spi r i t of

laissez faire. His good ci t izen was not to be the men who

kept aloof' from the poli t ical concerns of' the state but one

who was so conscious of membership in the body poli t ic tha t ,



-as

given a "time of civi l faction", he would feel constrained not

only to study the issues, but actually choose a side, even to

the extent of "tbe taking up of arms". In this way the :f'ull

strength of contending part ies might quickly be estimated, so

quickly, i t might be, as to a void a l l bloodshed by indicating

the overwhelming advantage of one over the other.

Myers makes an observation which is much to the point.

"I t is interesting to note that among the measures urged by

modern reformers to correct the evils of modern democracy is

found one, compulsory voting, which in principle is wholly

like the Sedition Law of the Athenian statesman." (4}

One start l ing feature of this law cannot f a i l to impress

us. We should expect that the worthwhile cit izen he urged to

take his stand with the established govermnent, especial ly,when we recal l that , in la ter Athens, cit izens thought them

selves deserving of special consideration in the law courts

i f they could prove that they opposed·the rule of the Thirty

Tyrants. Instead, as Grote puts i t , the existing government

ranked simply as one of the contending parties. (5) The fact

of the matter is that in Solon's day there wasno form of

government which might be accounted the norm for Athenian so-

ciety. Many years had s t i l l to elapse before Athenians con-

sidered themselves as the embodiment of the highest ideal of

democracy.



-86-

Lesser Laws:

Since i t wil l be impossible to give even a summary

of a l l the laws attr ibuted to Solon, we shal l be content with

the enumeration of a few of his legislat ive enactments, w h i c h ~though, of less importance than those we have already dis

cussed, are nevertheless sufficiently interesting to merit at

least passing attention.

To afford a larger measure of personal l iberty to

the individual Solon is said to have abrogated the law accord

ing to which the property of a man who died without offspring

passed automatically into the hands of his family. Under the

new enactment such a man obtained the r ight to bestow his

property on whomsoever he wished. This law, then, while pre

serving the rights of the immediate members of the f a m i l y ~established on a broader basis the individual 's control over

his own possessions.

Extravagant tuneral expenses were expressly for

bidden. The exaggerated practices of women mourners were dis

countenances. The general deportment of women in public was

regulated. Provisions were made to insure an adquate water

supply to the small farmer. Fixed rewards were alloted to

victors a t the Isthmian and Olympic games. A bounty was of

fered for the kill ing of wolves. Men were forbidden to speak

evil of the dead and no one might speak evil of the living 1n

the t e ~ l e s , the courts of just ice, the public offices are a t



-87-

the games.

Occupied as we have been with the individual accomplish

ments of Solon, we have had l i t t le opportunity to view his

achievements in their larger aspect, to interprettheir

mean-ing with reference to subsequent Athenian history; more than

that we have been so ingrossed in the works that we have a l l

but forgotten the man. To supply these deficiencies will be

the purpose of these concluding remarks.

I t

was no populace in a gentlemood

that Solon faced whenhe assumed the duties and powers of his office. On the one

hand the wealthy, realizing that their power was seriously

threatened, were willing to make some reasonable concessions,

but, doubtless, their concept of reasonable hardly coincided

with that of the poor. Against these were ranged the poor,

confident in their knowledge of their oppressors fear . We

know that the poorer classes hoped even to r an equal dis t r i -

bution of a l l the country's land. Solon speaks ot them as

follows:

"So theY' came in search of plunder, and their

cravings knew no bounds,Everyone among them deeming endless wealth

would here be found.Fondly then and vainly dreamt they; now they

raise an angry dinAnd they glare askance in anger and the l ight

within their eyesBurns with hostile flames with me." (6)

To face this si tuation required courage. Small wonder that

Solon says,



"Therefore, I took rn:y strength from every sideAnd turned a t bay l ike wolf among the hounds." (7)

A lesser man might have chosen one of two simple and ob

vious courses. He might have aroused ln the rich an unreason

able fear for the security of their persons and the i r property

and st i r red them to crush tne poorly-organized andalmost help

less commons. Followers he would not have lacked and riches

might bave been his for the asking. On the other hand, the

poor were ripe for revolt . Given a leader who would raise

aloft the standard of "stasis" and success was practically

assured. Solon bad within his grasp the power to take into

his own hands the complete control of the state . No one can

contest his words:

nBut had another held the goal as IOne in

whose heart was guile and greediness,He bad kept the people back from s t r i fe ." (8)

He himself describes for us the opinion of his contemporaries

"Solon surely was a dreamer and a man of simple mind;When the gods would give him fortune, he of his own

will declinedWhen the net was fu l l of fishes, over-heavy thinking

i t ,He declined to haul i t up, through want of heart and

want of wit.Had but I the. t chance of riches and of kingship to r

one day ,I would give rrry skin for f i o ~ g i n g and 11'13 house to

die away. (9)

The Cambridge Ancient History offers some interesting

comments on this renunciation. "This, almost the greatest

sacrif ice a Greek could make, crowns the moral dignity of



-89-

is career. But i t may well be doubted i f i t was not really

he "great refusal" , an act which did not serve the best in

of Athens. I t was 1n his own words Solon bad stretched

his stout shield over both parties 1n the state; now the arm

which held the shield was w1 thdrawn. His economic and legal

persisted by their inherent merit: his constitutional

too tentative to do more than make men able to be con·

1 f they were willing. Neither the executive nor the

bad power enough to defend the constitution

a resolute ambition. I t was Athens' fate to try both

to see a tyrant make a strong executive, and a democrat,

i f a nwly converted one, make Athens in practice a democracy.

t was to make two generations and Peisistratus and Cleis

to complete Solon's poli t ical work, andin

those twothere was much loss as well as much gain. That

he gain outweighed the loss was due to the personality of

Athens was fortunate: i t may have lain in

power to make her need no such good fortune. But

great services are certain, his failure hypothetical.His claim to fame rests on his bold ecoomic settlement and

his code which gave the Athenians that respect for law that

steadied them even in the days of their extreme democracy.

Athen's neighbor, Megara, faced such an eco.minic cr is is ,

failed to find a Solon, and the result was f i r s t a red terror

and then a generation of cigio s t r i fe . I f anyone would



-90·

cr i t ic ize Solon, le t him read Theognis on Megara. (10}

Glover calls Solon tbe greatest and f i r s t of Greek econo

mists. (11) The t ruth of th is statement goes unchallenged.

No great acumen is needed to point out post factum that in

following Solon's lead, Athens had acted in the only reason

able manner by which she could care herself a place of pro

minence in the economic l i fe of the Mediterranean. I t was

quite another matter to mold the economic future of a people

that was torn by dissention and harassed by hunger from with-

out and without, was held of twoo l i t t l e account to merit

recognition in the marts of the world of which i t formed a

part . Glover's praise then is tu l ly merited. For Solon

l e f t his impress on the whole of Athen 1s future ecomomic

l i fe .

But Solon's greatest t i t l e to fame l ies in his consti

tutional reforms. Doubtlessly he would have d i s c l a ~ e d the

plaudits of la ter orators and statesmen Who acclaimed htm as

a founder of the democracy. The real democracy began with

Cleisthenes. But, we may seriously question whether Gleis

thenes could ever have achieved success had i t not been for

the accomplishments and even mistakes of his distinguished

predecessor. We mention mistakes advertently, for a t leas t

several of the la ter reformer's most important measures are

directed to correcting defects which Solon's provisions had

failed adequately to take care of. The vote of ostracism i s ,



-91-

af ter a l l , but a more drastic cure for what Solon had failed

to heal with his Sedition Law. The principle underlying both

enactments is the same and Solon must have credit for recog

nizing i t f i rs t ; but, could a tyro assembly have been en-

trusted with the power of ostracism? The ingenious division

into ten tr ibes aimed at sweeping away the narrow dis

t inctions of clan and gens and local i ty. Yet, the barriers

were f i r s t borken down by the substitution of wealth for

bir th in the selection of the officers of state . Let us re

cal l once more the remark of Solon that he had not given

the people the best laws that he could give but the ~ ~they dDuld receive.

Plutarch 1n his comparison between Solon and Poplicola

ranks Solon above the l a t te r in so far as nthe beginning of

his government was more glorious, for he was entirely

original and followed no man's example" but nevertheless "the

close of Poplicola's l i fe was more happy and desirable, for

Solon saw the dissolution of his own commonwealth." And,

t ruly, i f any man has ever seen what. seemed to be a com-plete nullif ication of his labours, that man was Solon. Be

fore his death he witnessed the advent of tyranny against

which he had :rm.de such valiant efforts and which, when i t

was in his grasp, he had refused to take for himself. I t is

impossible to guagehow

far Solon influenced Peiaistratua 1n

the mildness of his policy. At any ra te , Peisistratua gave to



-92-

Solon a magnanimous token of his veneration. When the aging

lawgiver denounced the tyrant and urged the people to vigorous

opposition, Peisistratus repaid his antagonist by so honoring

him, obliging him and sending to see him "that Solon gave him

his advise and approved many of his actions". And we are told

that Peisistratus "retained most of Solon's laws, observed

them himsel.f and compelled his .friends to obey." {11)

In. conclusion, le t us quote a passage from a History of

Poli t ical Ideas. "There have, no doubt, ben times when for ashort period great men and great governments have come near

to being sovereign in that sense--when the people have fe l t

in their hearts that this man or this government was for the

time securing to them something so in.finitely valuable that

he ori t

must be obeyed and maintained in power at almost any

cost, and seeing things in the l ight or that in.finite value,

they recognized that they aught to follow that person or those

persons through thick and thin; so .far and .for that time the

pol i t ica l prlblem is solved •• " (13) Indubitably Solon occu

pied such a position. In his own words:

"Wer 1 t not .for me, the people ne 'er had setTheir eyes upon these blessings e'en in dreams."(l4)



Notes To Chapter £_

1- Ath. Const., chap. 8

2- Plut. Sol. , chap.20.

3- Ath. Const., chap. 8

4 - Meyers, Phill ip Van Ness, The Eastern N a t i o n s ~"Greece, p. 172.

5- Grote, op. c i t . , p. 605

6 - Ath. Const. , chap. 12

7 - Ib id .

8 - Ib id .

9 - Plut. Sol. chap. 14.

10- Cambridge Ancient Historx, vol. 4. p. 58.

11- Glover, T. R., Greek Byways, P• 52.

12--Plut. Sol. , chap. 31

-93-

13--Morris, c. R., and Mary, a History o:r Poli t ical Ideas,P• l57. -

14--Ath. Comst., chap. 12



Barker, Ernest

Bury, J . B .,

Cambridge Ancient History

Cox, George w.

Curtius, Ernest

Mitchell, J . Malcom

Glotz, G.,

Glover, T. R.,

Glover, T. R.,

Greenidge, A. H. J . ,

Grote, George

Grundy, G. B.,

BffiLIOGRAPHY

*****-if-

-94-

Greek Poli t ical T h e o ~ , London,Methuen and Co., Lt . , 1918.

A History of Greece, New York,- Macmi!anand Co., 1931.

New York, Macmillan and Co.,vol. 3 , 1925; vol. 4, 1926.

Lives of Greek Statesman, New

York:-Harper and Brothers,1885.

!a! H i s t o r y ~ Greece, translated by Adolphus WilliamWard, New York, CharlesScribner's Sons, 1886.

Encyclopedia Brit tanica, col.20, 14th ed. , s . v. Solon,New York, Encyclopaedia Britanica, Inc. , 1929.

Greek City, London, Kegan Paul,Trench, Trubner and Co. , Ltd.1929.

Greek Byways, Cambridge, theUniversity-press, 1932.

Democracy in the Ancient World,Cambridge, the UniversityPress, 1927.

A Handbook of Greek Constitu- t iona! His to1 , New York,

Macmillanand o ., 1896.

History of Greece, Chicago,M. A. Donahue Company.

A History of the Greek and Ro- man World," New York, ~ v : -~ e m a n ,

National Book BuyersService, 1925.



Halliday 1 William R.

Kenyon, F. G. 1

Kenyon, F. G.,

Livingstone 1 R. w.

Morris, C. R. and M. M.

Myers, Philip Van Ness,

Oman, c. w.l

Sintenis 1 Carolus

Smith, c. Foster,

-95-

The G r o w t h ~ ~ ~ t y State1

Boston, Small, ynard andCompany, 1923.

Aristotle on the Constitutionof A t h e n s ~ d i t i o Princeps),

New York, Longmans and Co.,1891.

Aristotle on the Constitution~ Athens 1-r t ranslat lon) ,Library of Original Sources,Milwaukee 1 Wisconsin 1 University Research ExtensionCompany, 1911.

The Legan! of Greece, Oxford,Clare on Press, 1923.

A History of Poli t ical Ideas,- London,-christophers, 1924.

The Eastern Nations and Greece,---Boston, Ginn and C07, 1904.

Greece, Histoy: ~ Nations

Series,Vo

•I I , New York,

F. P. Collier and Son Co.,1928.

Plutarch's Solon, PlutarchiiParallelae, Sumptibus etTypis B. G. Tuebneri, Lypsiae, 1864.

Thucydides, Bk. I , Loeb Edition,New York, G. P. Putnam's Son1919.

* * *-lfo * * *

*



The thesis ffSolon, The Lawgiver, in the Light

of Recent Discoveries and C r i t i o i s ~ , " written by Charles

A. Castellano,S.J., has been accepted by the Graduate

School with reference to form, and by the readers whose

names appear below with reference to content. It is

therefore accepted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of Master of Arts.

Rev. Joseph A. Walsh,S.J.

Allan P. Farrell ,S.J.

July 10,1936

July 11,1936

Solon the Lawgiver in the Light of Recent Discoveries and Criticism

Documents

Transcript of Solon the Lawgiver in the Light of Recent Discoveries and Criticism