3
8. The Athenian state after the synoecism
Sometime between 640 and 632, Cilon, a flamboyant aristocrat famous for his sporting victories at the Olympic Games, tried to seize the acropolis with the military assistance of his father-in-law Teagene, the tyrant of Megara [a]. This is the earliest recorded event of Athenian history. The rise of ‘tyrants’ in the poleis is one of the most significant traits of Greek history in the archaic age. Originally the term ‘tyrant’ did not have a pejorative connotation, but simply referred to an individual rising to power by his own means in contrast with the established order. Quite often tyrants gained prominence in periods of political crisis by posing as defenders of the poor and dispossessed among the citizens. Political instability was the inevitable consequence of rising social tensions within the poleis. Improving life conditions resulted in a rapid growth of population, and, consequently, in the demand for social and political reforms. The most pressing problem was that of land distribution among the citizens. The situation in Attica was very serious: the Aristotelian Constitution describes Athens in the 7th and 6th centuries as a kind of feudal state, where all the land was in the hands of a few families, and the rest of the population farmed it for a rent consisting of five sixths of the produce, keeping one sixth for themselves. For this reason the tenants were called hectemoroi, ‘those who kept the sixth part [of the produce]’. When the hectemoroi were unable to pay their due, their creditors had the power to hold them in a state of self-bondage, and eventually sell them or use them as slaves in their estates.
In the second passage reported below [b], the author of the Constitution uses a very interesting expression to describe the political and social despondency of the Athenian poor: they did not partake in anything (metechein). They had no share in the management of the polis. Just as they were precluded from owning land, the Athenian poor were also barred from political representation: all major offices were assigned according to birth and wealth, and so the polis was in the hands of the members of a very restricted group of noble and wealthy families. These social tensions often led to periods of intense civic strife, which our author calls stasis. In fact, sometimes stasis was so acute that it prevented the regular appointment of magistrates and officers, dragging the polis into anarchy. Stasis is one of the overarching themes in Greek history: as we have seen, our sources describe the polis as the product of a merger of pre-existing and sometimes conflicting communities. The polis therefore was by its own nature a complex and diverse organization, where social and political tensions and differences would inevitably emerge. Stasis naturally was a source of division and acrimony within the city, but was also essential for stimulating social reforms and innovative political solutions such as the written codes of law devised by Draco and Solon. However, these did not come about overnight, but were the result of an incessant process of political transformations and reforms which had been going on since the birth of the polis.
If we are to follow the Constitution of the Athenians, the original form of government of the city was a monarchy. This is also the most elementary form of political order which a community can give to itself. As time went by, the prerogatives of monarchy were progressively eroded, and power was exercised by an ever wider number of officials, and for an ever shorter period of time, until all the major magistracies became annual. Although the Athenian constitution was still very far from being a democracy, the assumption that political power ought to be exercised on a temporary and collegiate basis was an essential premise to the successive developments of the Athenian politeia. In the second part of the passage the author gives an outline of the birth and original duties of the nine most important magistracies (archontai) of the archaic constitution. The collective name archontes referred to the holders of these important offices. The singular archon indicated the supreme magistrate. With the transition to democracy, these magistracies were not abolished. However, their role became largely ceremonial as most of their powers were taken over by the assembly, the council and the law-courts, or by other magistrates such as the generals. Every year of the Athenian calendar was called after the archon in office.
[a] Hdt. 5.71: Cilon tries to seize the acropolis
There was this man in Athens, called Cilon, who had been winner at Olympia. Now, this Cilon gave himself the airs of one who wanted to become a tyrant. So he gathered a band of men of his own age and tried to seize the acropolis. Since they could not succeed, Cilon and his men took sanctuary by the statue of Athena. The group of suppliants were then removed from their position by the presidents of the naval board, for they were the rulers of Athens at that time. Cimon and his men were subject to any penalty except death, nevertheless they were slain, and the house of the Alcmaeonids were accused of their death. All these events occurred before the time of Pisistratus.
[b] [Arist.] Ath. Const. 2–3: Civic strife in the archaic age, Athenian government before Draco
After these events, the notables and the populace remained at loggerheads for a long time. This happened because the constitution was oligarchic in every respect and the people of the poorer classes, men, women and children, were enslaved to the wealthy. They were called pelatae and hectemoroi because they cultivated the lands of the rich upon payment of a rent (for all the land belonged to a handful of men), and if the tenants failed to pay the rent, then they and their children with them were liable to arrest. In those times all loans were secured upon the debtor’s person, and this would remain common practice up to the time of Solon, who was the first to champion the people. So, the most grievous and intolerable aspect of the constitution of the time for the populace was their state of serfdom, but they were annoyed with everything else as well, because they had no share in anything at all.
This is how the ancient constitution was organized before the reforms of Draco. Magistrates were appointed according to birth and wealth. Originally these magistrates held office for life, and later for a period of ten years. The oldest and most important magistracies were those of the king, the polemarch, and the archon. The office of the king is the oldest, for it was established in ancestral times. The second oldest is the office of the polemearch. This magistracy was established because some of the kings had behaved cowardly in war. In fact, this is the reason why the Athenians called Ion to their aid. The most recent of the three offices is that of the archon. Most authors say that it was introduced under Medon, while others ascribe it to the time of Acastus. As a proof they cite the fact that the nine archons still swear to perform their oaths ‘as in the days of Acastus’. Therefore, they say, it was in his time that the house of Codrus withdrew from the kingship in return for the privileges attached to the office of archon. Whichever version is true, it would make little difference for the chronology of events. And here is another proof that the archonship was the last of the three offices to be introduced: the archon, unlike the king and the polemarch, is not in charge of any of the ancestral rites, but only performs duties which were added at a later time. This is also the reason why the archonship became a powerful office only recently, as a consequence of its added responsibilities. The thesmotetai, or legislators, were elected many years later, when magistrates were already appointed on a yearly basis. This new office was created to keep public records of the deliberations and to safeguard them for the trial of litigants. For this reason the archonship is the only office which has never been tenable for longer than one year.
This is the order in which the various offices were introduced. The nine archons did not reside together, but the king occupied the place which is now called Bucolium, near the prytaneium, as shown by the fact that the ceremony of the union and marriage of the king’s wife and Dionysus still takes place there; the archon had the prytaneium, and the polemarch the Epilyceum (this place used to be called polemarch’s house, but since Epilycus refurbished it when he was appointed polemarch, it was renamed after him) and the thesmothetai had the Thesmotheteium. At the time of Solon, however, all these magistrates assembled at the Thesmotheteium. They also had the authority to give final judgment in lawsuits, and not just to conduct preliminary examinations, as they do now. These were the norms concerning the supreme magistracies. The institutional role of the council of Areopagus was that of preserving the laws, but in fact the council was in charge of the most numerous and most important affairs of the polis, and had the authority to inflict penalties and fines upon the offenders without appeal. The archons were elected according to birth and wealth, and the members of the Areopagus were appointed from them. For this reason, this is the only office to have remained tenable for life up to this day.
9. Draco and the Athenian constitution
The period of Greek history between the end of the so-called ‘middle ages’ and the Persian Wars goes by the name of ‘archaic age’. This was a phase of tumultuous growth and radical changes all over the Greek world. Social and political tension in the cities led to the establishment of tyrannies, while the demand for a fairer and more accountable government inspired the creation of the earliest written codes of law. Tightly linked to these social and political innovations was the development of a new form of warfare, based on the deployment of heavy-armed infantrymen fighting in close ranks. The armoury of these infantrymen consisted in a helmet, bronze panoply, a large double-gripped circular shield and long spear. The signature piece of their equipment was the shield (hoplon), after which they were called hoplites. The emergence of hoplite warfare is often associated with the development of a new ethics of patriotic sacrifice, discipline and defence of the common good, which would inspire the values of the classical polis, and the rise of the ‘middling’ sections of the citizen body, which would give momentum to the process of social and political reforms.
The archaic age was also a time of travels, encounters and discoveries. Colonists from the most dynamic areas of the Greek world such as Euboea and Peloponnese took to the sea and created new Greek settlements from the Black Sea to the shores of Spain. These colonies were fertile ground for political and cultural experimentation: for instance, the first Greek written law code is said to have been produced by Zaleucus in the Italian city of Locris. According to Aristotle, Zaleucus was a pupil of the philosopher Thales and was himself the teacher of another renowned lawgiver, Charondas of Catana, in Sicily (Arist. Pol. 2.9.5–6).
The first written law code of Athens was drawn up in 621 by Draco. Very little is known about him and his legislation. According to the so-called Suda lexicon, a massive encyclopaedia written in Byzantium in the 10th century AD, Draco was a kind of professional travelling lawgiver-poet, who authored the law code of his native Athens as well as that of other cities such as Aegina [a]. As for his laws, all we can say is that they were severe in the extreme. Most of the Draconian legislation was later abolished by Solon, the second great lawgiver of Athens, with the sole exception of the norms concerning murder. These were the first to distinguish between voluntary and involuntary homicide [b]. The content of Draco’s laws on homicide is known from a stele dated to the year 409/408. The need to collect and republish Draco’s laws, as well as all others then in force, had arisen in 410, following the fall of the oligarchy and the restoration of democracy. To complete this task the Athenians appointed a special commission of anagrapheis (‘recorders’, or ‘inscribers’), whose job would come to completion only in 399 [c].
The evidence on the other enactments of Draco is extremely scanty. The author of the Constitution says that the laws of Draco were the second metabole of the Athenian politeia, that is the first important reform after the synoecism of the polis. On the other hand, Aristotle in the Politics says that he did little if anything more than ratifying the constitution which was already in place [d]. The author of the Constitution also says that, by the time Draco wrote his laws, citizenship had already been extended to all those who ‘could afford to bear arms’, i.e. to serve as hoplites in the polis’ army: these citizens had the right to elect the magistrates and could be balloted for one of the four hundred seats of the newly created council (boule), or for a number of minor offices. The politeia of Draco was timocratic in nature. Access to the most important magistracies was based on income, and the vast majority of citizens were therefore excluded from them [e].
Draco, as Aristotle suggests, might have simply codified a system already in place, but the act of writing down and displaying in public the laws of the city was revolutionary in itself. Political power should not be exercised arbitrarily, but had to comply with a series of norms which were public, clear, objective and, at least in theory, applied indifferently to all the members of the community.
In the absence of other reliable evidence, we cannot tell for certain whether all the reforms which the Constitution attributes to Draco were actually carried out by him, or were rather enforced at a later stage. For instance, there are certain aspects of this constitution attributed to Draco which would later become key features of Athenian democracy, such as the assumption that all citizens should rule and be ruled in turn, and the selection by lot of the members of the boule. It is however interesting to observe how our author clearly links the emergence of the Athenian hoplite classes (the hoplite body and the citizen body coincide) and the call for a fairer and clearer organization of power.
Following Draco’s reforms, Athens remained in the hands of an entrenched minority of noble and wealthy; debt slavery was still in place and the aristocratic council of the Areopagus, held de facto control over the laws of the city. This situation would soon be conducive to another period of stasis.
[a] Suda 1495: Life and deeds of Draco
Draco, Athenian lawgiver. He travelled to Aegina to establish a code of law for that city. The Aeginetans honoured him in their city’s theatre, but threw so many hats, vests and cloaks upon his head that he suffocated and was buried in that very theatre. He lived at the time of the Seven Wise Men, or rather was slightly older. At any rate, in the year of the XXXIX Olympiad, Draco, already an old man, set up the laws of the Athenians. He wrote his Precepts in three hundred verses.
[b] Plut. Sol. 17: Solon abolishes the laws of Draco
The first act of Solon was to abolish the laws of Draco, except for those concerning homicide, because they were too cruel and their punishments too severe. In fact, the laws of Draco assigned one penalty to almost all crimes: capital punishment, so much so that even those guilty of idleness were sentenced to death, and those who had stolen some vegetables or fruits received the same punishment as the criminals guilty of sacrilege or murder. Later on, Demades gained much credit when he said that Draco’s laws were written with blood, not ink. Draco himself, as they say, when he was asked why he had assigned the death penalty for most crimes, answered that capital punishment was in his opinion an adequate penalty for the smaller crimes, but he could not find a heavier punishment for the more serious ones.
[c] IG I3 104 = Fornara 15b = SEG XXCIII.10, XXIX.15, XXX.15, XXXI.17, XXXII.14, XXXIII.15: Draco’s laws on homicide
Secretary: Diognetos of Phrearrhos; archon: Diocles.
Decree of the council and the assembly.
Tribe holding the pritany: Acamantis. Secretary: Diogenetus. President: Euthydicus
Motion proposed by: [?]
The recorders of the laws (anagrapheis) jointly with the Secretary of the boule, shall have the law of Draco on homicide inscribed on a marble stele, after they received it from the King Archon, and the stele shall be erected in front of the Stoa Basileus. The treasurers shall let the contract according to the law. The money shall be provided by the Hellenotamiai.
First Axon. When someone kills someone even without premeditation, the culprit shall be exiled. The Kings shall judge him guilty of homicide either [unreadable words] … or the man who plotted the death. The Ephetai shall give the verdict.
Pardon may be granted if the father of the victim is alive, or brothers, or sons, by all of them in agreement, but if there is one opposing it his opinion shall prevail. If none of these is alive, then pardon may be granted by the male relatives as far as the degree of cousin or cousin’s son, provided that they are all willing to grant pardon. If there is one opposing it his opinion shall prevail. If none of these relatives is alive, and the murder was involuntary, and judgement is passed by the Fifty-One and the Ephetai that it was involuntary homicide, then the man may be readmitted into the country by ten members of his phratry, if they wish. These men will be selected by the Fifty-One according to their rank. Those who have committed homicide prior to this time shall also be bound to this ordinance. The relatives of the victim as far as the degree of cousin’s son and cousin will make a proclamation against the homicide in the agora. The man responsible for homicide will be prosecuted jointly by the victim’s cousins, [sons of cousins, sons-in-law, fathers-in-law] and members of his phratry.
[…]
And if a man is repelled and killed as he is caught in the act of stealing one’s property by force, there shall be no recompense for his death […].
[d] Arist. Pol. 2.9.9: Draco and the existing constitution
Draco laid down his laws upon a constitution which was already in place, and there is nothing distinct or memorable in them except the severity and harshness of the punishments.
[e] [Arist.] Ath. Const. 4: The Athenian constitution at the time of Draco
Some time after these events, in the archonship of Aristaechmus, Draco laid down his laws. The constitution was ordained in the following manner: citizenship had already been extended to those who could afford to bear arms. These elected the nine archons and the treasurers from those who owned unencumbered property worth at least ten minae; the other minor offices from those who bore arms; the generals and masters of the cavalry from those who could prove possession of a property of at least 100 minae and sons of at least ten years of age who were born from a legitimate marriage. Incoming magistrates had to bail the outgoing prytans, generals and masters of the cavalry until the audit upon receipt of four sureties from the same class as the one to which the generals and the masters of cavalry belonged.
There was also a council, consisting of four hundred and one members, drawn by lot from the citizen body. This and other offices were drawn by lot from the citizens over thirty years of age. No citizen could hold office twice before all the others got their turn to serve, at which point lots were to be cast again afresh. The council of the Areopagus was guardian of the laws and ensured that magistrates acted in compliance with the laws. Anyone who had been unjustly treated had the right to submit a complaint to the council of the Areopagus, provided he was able to state according to which he had been injured. Loans were guaranteed on the person, as we have said, and all the land belonged to a few men.
10. Solon’s reforms: Blueprint to democracy
Draco’s reforms might have contributed to giving a more institutional structure to the Athenian politeia, but they failed to give political and social stability to the city.
Debt slavery and the unequal distribution of land were still a cause of serious social tensions; the city was still marred by stasis. The process of integration of the districts of Attica was faltering; the polis was divided between local clans contending for power: the diakroi, the inhabitants of the hilly inland of Attica, supported radical policies; the pedieis, the men of the lowlands, favoured oligarchy, and the paralioi, the citizens of the shore districts, wanted a mixed form of constitution.
This was the climate in the city when, in 594 or 591, the Athenians elected Solon to the archonship. Solon was the scion of an impoverished house of the Athenian nobility, whom the citizens knew for his morality and patriotism. He first rose to prominence as a young man, when he led a campaign to recover the island of Salamis from the Megarians. At a time of deep divide and factional strife, Solon stood out as an unbiased and respected personality, who had not been involved in the party strife [a]. The new archon had ambitious plans. Solon saw himself as an impartial umpire whose task was to restore dike, justice among the Athenians [b-e]. Dike was to be restored by means of a comprehensive revision of the politeia. Solon called the inspiring principle of this work eunomia, ‘good government’ (eu ‘well’, nomos ‘law’).
If the polis aimed to be a thriving community of hoplite-landowners, the most urgent reforms were the abolition of debt slavery and a fairer distribution of land.
Solon, as we have seen, abolished all the laws of Draco, with the exception of those on homicide. The content of Solon’s legislation is known only superficially, but what we know for certain is that he wanted to give them the highest degree of publicity. The new norms were inscribed on revolving wooden panels, the so-called kyrbeis, and displayed in the stoa basileos, the ‘royal portico’, in the north-western corner of the agora. The new laws were to remain in force for a period of one hundred years [f].
The most important reform attributed to Solon is a reorganization of the traditional property classes. His aim was to increase participation in the political life of the city. The Athenian citizenry were divided into four classes according to wealth as measured in cereal production: the wealthiest group was that of the pentakosiomedimnoi (citizens whose estate produced at least 500 measures of grain); the second was that of hippeis, or ‘knights’ (300 to 500 measures); then came the zeugitai, i.e. those who could afford a zeukos, a ‘yoke’ of oxen (200 to 300 measures); the fourth and poorest class was that of the thetes (less than 200 measures). The thetes were obviously the largest class; in general they had no property, and worked the land of others
Under the Solonian constitution, magistracies were assigned by lot from a shortlist of candidates. Only the members of the first two classes were eligible for the most important magistracies, such as the archonship. The thetes were not eligible for any magistracy, but they had the right to seat at the ekklesia, the city’s assembly, and to serve as jurors in the law-courts. Some sources also ascribe to Solon the introduction of the boule, the council of the four hundred, one hundred members for each of the four tribes of archaic Athens. The aristocratic Arepoagus maintained overall control over the laws, thus remaining the most influential body in Athenian politics.
Just like his predecessor Draco, Solon was hardly a revolutionary. In fact, Solon wanted to be a reformer, he did not want to break radically with the established social and political order, but to make it stronger and more stable, and to bring social peace to his city. Later authors, however, identified him as one of the fathers of Athenian democracy. In Aristotle’s Politics, the Solonian regime is described as a form of mixed constitution. In this system the tribunals, now open to all citizens, represented the democratic element [g]. Solon therefore expanded political participation beyond the confines of those able ‘to bear arms’; the poorest citizens had acquired a share in the politeia, however small.
Solon wanted to restore social justice in Athens. A peaceful polis, however, was not supposed to be one where political debate was silenced or suppressed. Political engagement was a right as much as a duty, and those who did not take sides with a faction in the event of stasis, were to be declared atimoi, i.e. deprived of their status (time) as citizens: there could be no polis without a degree of division and confrontation.
At the end of his term as archon, Solon left Athens and visited some of the most important centres of the Mediterranean world, from Egypt, the cradle of all civilization, to the vibrant court of Sardis. Solon thus became part of an international political and intellectual network [h, i], and under his guidance, Athens too began to gain a certain international role as an important hub for naval trades: wealthy foreigners were encouraged to settle in the city and in some cases were granted Athenian citizenship. The reform of weights and measures and the adoption of the Aeginetan standard also contributed to encouraging economic relations with other Greek cities.
If Theseus was hailed as a father of democracy because he gave a common citizen identity to the various peoples of Attica through the sinoecism, Solon began to create a civic identity which was quintessentially Athenian: the city of the ekklesia and of the Piraeus. The future of the city lay on the sea. Solon in a way was a precursor of Themistocles, Ephialtes and Pericles [j–p].
[a] Plut. Sol. 14.1-2: Solon, an impartial arbiter
At this conjuncture, the most reasonable men among the Athenians cast their eyes on Solon as the only man who was not implicated in the of errors of the time, for he was neither associated with the arrogance of the wealthy, nor was he held fast to the constraints of the poor. Therefore they implored him to come forward publicly and put an end to the strife. Phanias of Lesbos writes that Solon deliberately deceived the two contending factions in order to save the city. For he secretly promised the poor that he would redistribute the land, as they desired, and to the rich that he would confirm their securities. Solon, however, said he was reluctant to enter politics, fearing the greed of one faction and the disdain of the other. At any rate Solon was appointed to succeed Philombrotus as archon. The Athenians made him arbiter and lawgiver to bring an end to the crisis. The wealthy were happy with this choice because he was also well off, the poor because he was a good man. Before being elected, they say, Solon said that ‘equality never provokes war’. These words pleased both the wealthy and the poor, the former expecting that equality would be measured in relation to worth and virtue, the latter in relation to proportion and numbers.
[b] [Arist.] Ath. Const. 5.1–6.2: Solon freed the people
Since the party strife had been going on for quite a long time and was growing violent, they agreed to appoint Solon as arbiter and archon and committed the constitution to him. Solon was the author of an elegy which begins:
I know, and my heart is filled with pain when I see the eldest land of Ionia laying slain…1
In this poem Solon fights on behalf of each party against the other, and acts as a mediator between the two factions. He urges them to come together and stop the quarrel existing between them. He was one of the foremost citizens, both by birth and reputation, but belonged to the middle class in terms of rank and wealth, as other authors have observed. Solon himself acknowledges that in this poem where he urges the wealthy not to be contemptuous:
You, who are plunged with so many goods, calm down the strong passions of your heart and put a limit to your vast ambition; we won’t bow down, nor will you have everything at your will.2
Solon always blamed civil disturbance on the wealthy. For this reason, at the beginning of this elegy he says he fears
Greed and excessive pride,3
as though these were the causes of the hatred that prevailed in the city.
Once he became master of the situation, Solon set the people free for the present and for the future, and banned the loans guaranteed on the debtor’s person, and established laws and ratified cancellations of public and private debts. These measures were called seisactheia, or ‘shaking-off of burdens’, for the people had shaken off a heavy load from their shoulders.
[c] [Arist.] Ath. Const. 12.1 = Plut. Sol. 18.5 = Solon, fragment 5 Bergk: Solon as an arbiter between the rich and the poor
I have given the people as much power as was sufficient; I have not deprived them of their dignity nor given too much. Those who had power and splendid wealth, I made sure that they would not suffer harm either. I stood up between them, holding a mighty shield, and let neither party triumph unjustly.
[d] [Arist.] Ath. Const. 12.2 = Solon, fragment 4 Bergk
In this way the people will pursue the best under the guidance of their leaders, and discipline will be neither too lax nor tight. Satiety breeds impudence when people of unsound mind become wealthy.
[e] [Arist.] Ath. Const. 12.4 = Solon, fragment 31 (Bergk): Solon on his archonship, successes and failures
Of all the aims for which I united the people, what have I left unachieved? The Black Earth, the almighty mother of the Olympian gods will best bear witness before the tribunal of Time: I have removed many a boundary-marks which had been planted on her. She was a slave then, and now she’s free. Many who had been sold off as slaves, some justly, some unjustly, I have brought them back to god-built Attica, their fatherland. I set free those whom dire necessity had made exiles and were wandering so far from home that they could not use their Attic tongue anymore, and those who had endured dire slavery here, and were trembling before their masters.
I made these principles prevail by balancing might and justice, and I have achieved what I promised. I have written laws that apply equally to the commoners and the well-born, fitting justice into each case. If another man, foolish and ravenous, had taken the ox-goad instead of me, he would have been unable to hold back the people. If I had been obliged to the interests of one faction, and then to any countermeasure of the other, the city would have been bereaved of many men. For this reason I have stood on guard on every side, like a wolf surrounded by a pack of hounds.
[f] [Arist.] Ath. Const. 7–10: A summary of Solon’s constitution
Solon established a constitution and passed other laws; so the Athenians abolished the laws of Draco except those on homicide. They wrote up the new laws on wooden boards called ‘kurbeis’ and placed them in the royal portico, and they all had to swear to obey them. The nine archons used to swear under oath at the Stone that if they would contravene any of the laws, they would dedicate a life-size statue of a man in gold. For this reason they are still sworn in with this oath. Solon fixed the laws for a period of one hundred years and arranged the constitution of the polis as follows: the citizens were divided into four classes, based on income, as they had been divided before: the pentacosiomedimni, or owners of 500 grain measures, the knights, the zeugites, or owners of a yoke of oxen, and the thetes, or labourers. Solon distributed all the other magistracies between the pentacosiomedimni, knights and zeugites — the nine archons, the treasurers, the sellers, the eleven and paymasters — assigning them to each class in accordance with their income. Those who belonged to the class of thetes he only entitled to serve in the juries and to sit at the assembly. The property qualification to be ranked with pentacosiomedimni was a produce of 500 dry or liquid measures,4 counted together, three hundred measures for the knight, or, as they say, to be able to keep a horse: this they say is demonstrated by the name of the class and the offerings that the knights used to present in ancient times. For instance, there is a statue of Diphilus in the acropolis, whose inscription reads as follows:
Anthemion, son of Diphilus, dedicated this statue to the gods, […], having exchanged the rank of zeugite for that of knight.
And a horse stands at his side, proving that ‘knight’ meant ‘able to keep a horse’. At any rate, it is more plausible that the knights were classified in accordance to produce, as the pentacosiomedimni were.
Men with a revenue of 200 measures of dry and liquid produce combined were ranked with the zeugites; all the others belonged to the thetes, and were not entitled to hold any office. Hence it still happens that when a candidate for a magistracy is asked which class he belongs to before the drawing of lots, nobody would think of saying that he belongs to the thetes. Solon established that all public magistrates were to be appointed by lot from a shortlist of candidates chosen by the tribes. For the election of the nine archons each tribe had to submit a shortlist of ten candidates and a lot would be cast from these. Hence, the tribes have maintained a system whereby each of them chooses by lot ten candidates from whom the magistrates are drawn by lot. A proof that Solon made magistrates eligible by lot on the basis of income is the law on the treasurers which is still in place. For this law requires the treasurers to be drawn by lot from the pentacosiomedimni.
This is the system created by Solon for the appointment of the nine archons. Under the previous arrangement, it was the council of the Areopagus that summoned and chose those whom they considered suitable for each magistracy, and dispatched them to hold office for one year. Under the Solonian constitution there were four tribes and four tribal kings as before. Each tribe was divided into three trytties, or ‘third parts’. Each tribe had twelve naurcraries, or ‘ship-boards’, and each naucrary had a board of commissioners, who were in charge of levies and expenditures. Solon also created a council of four hundred members, one hundred from each tribe, and made the council of the Areopagus guardian of the laws, just as in earlier times it had served as the custodian of the constitution. The Areopagus was in control of the majority of public matters, and of the most important of them; it had the power to inflict penalties and other punishments for the correction of offenders. Also, the members of the Areopagus were entitled to claim returns for their expenditures to the Acropolis without providing a justification of their claims; they were in charge of the trials for conspiracy against the democratic regime in accordance with the impeachment procedure established by Solon. Seeing that the state was often in a state of civic discord, Solon laid down a law to deal with such situations, stating that any private citizen who did not join either party when the city was in strife was to be deprived of political rights and should no longer be held as a member of the city community.
This was the nature of Solon’s measures concerning the magistracies of the state. The following seem to have been the three most democratic measures taken by Solon: the first and most remarkable was the ban on loans granted upon the person; the second was the right for all to seek compensation on behalf of offended parties; the third was the right to appeal to the jury-courts. This measure, as they say, was essential to give power to the populace, because the people, having become master of the vote, also became master of the constitution. Furthermore, the law-courts became the arbiter of all matters, public and private, because the laws had not been written in a clear and straightforward manner, but like those concerning inheritances and heiresses, and this resulted in a quantity of legal disputes.
Some people believe that Solon deliberately made the laws unclear and ambiguous, so that the people could be sovereign, but this seems unlikely. In fact, this probably happened because Solon was unable to achieve perfection when framing the general principles of his laws. For it would be unfair to judge Solon on the basis of the present situation without taking into consideration the wider outlook of his constitution.
These seem to have been the democratic principles of Solon’s laws. Before passing this legislation, Solon had already passed the cancellation of the debts and after it he raised the standards of currency, measure and weight. For it was under Solon that the measures were made larger than those of Pheidon, and the weight of the mina was increased from 70 to 100 drachmae. In previous times, the standard coin was the two-drachma piece. Solon also established weights corresponding to the currency: the 63 minae talent, and the odd three minae were added to the stater and the other weights.
[g] Arist. Pol. 2.9.2-4: An appraisal of Solon, precursor of radical democracy
Some people consider Solon to have been an excellent lawgiver because he brought oligarchy to an end once it had lost all its authoritativeness; he released the people from slavery and restored the ancestral form of democracy by skilfully blending different kinds of constitution: the council of Areopagus was the oligarchic part, the elective magistracies the aristocratic, and the law-courts the democratic. In fact, Solon seems to have simply restrained from dismantling institutions which were already in place, such as the Areopagus and the elective magistracies, and to have established democracy by instituting the law-courts drawn from all citizens. For this reason, some accuse him of having destroyed the other institutions by having given sovereignty to a body drawn by lot from all the citizens such as the law-courts. For once the law-courts were gaining power, politicians began to court the favour of the populace, as they would have done with a tyrant, and this contributed to transforming the constitution into the type of democracy which is now in place. Ephialtes and Pericles curtailed the authority of the Areopagus; the latter also instituted payment for serving in the law-courts, and in this way, each of the successive popular leaders increased the power of the populace, until the constitution became the democracy which it is now. This however happened more by chance than according to a precise plan of Solon: for it so happened that at the time of the Persian invasion, having been the cause of the naval victories against the barbarians, the populace became bold, and began to choose despicable individuals as their leaders, while the wiser men were opposing their policies. As for Solon himself, he seems to have given the people just as much power as was necessary, allowing them to elect the magistrates, and by requiring the magistrates to give account for their office (even if they were not under control of the people). Still he chose all the magistrates from the notable and the well-off, the pentakosiomedimni, and the zeugitai and a third class called the knights, while the fourth class, the thetes, were not admitted to any office.
[h] Hdt. 1.29–30.1: Solon the traveller, from Egypt to Sardis
At that time Sardis was at the peak of its wealth and all the wise men of that age would travel there from all over the Greek world. Solon the Athenian was one of them. After establishing new laws for the citizens at their request, he spent ten years travelling abroad, admittedly because he wanted to see the world, but in fact because he did not want to be forced to revoke any of his laws, since the Athenians themselves could not do that, as they had solemnly sworn they would obey for ten years whatever laws Solon should make. For these reasons, as well as to see the world, Solon visited Amasis in Egypt and Croesus in Sardis. Once he came there, Solon was entertained by Croesus in his palace. On the third or fourth day, Croesus told his attendants to show Solon around his treasures, and they pointed out everything that was great and splendid.
[i] Hdt.2.177: Solon in Egypt
Under the reign of Amasis, as they say, Egypt reached the height of its prosperity, owing to what the river did to the land, and the land to the people: the number of the inhabited cities in the territory was twenty thousand. Amasis also enacted a law whereby all the Egyptians had to declare all their substances to the governor of their province every year. Those who failed to do so or to show evidence of a legitimate source of income were subject to capital punishment. Solon imported this law from Egypt and established it in Athens. May the Athenians maintain this perfect law forever!
[j] Paus. 1.16.1: The statue of Solon in the agora
In front of the Portico there stands a bronze statue of Solon, who wrote the laws for the Athenians.
[k] Paus. 1.18.1: The Pritanaeum and the laws of Solon
Nearby is the Pritanaeum, where the laws of Solon are inscribed.
[l] Ar. Clouds 1177–1200: Solon on stage, the friend of the people
PHIDIPPIDES: What are you afraid of?
STREPSIADES: Of the Old and New.
PHID: Why? Is there any day both old and new?
STREP: Of course. That’s the day when they said they would make their deposits against me.
PHID: Well, in that case they’ll lose them, because one day can’t be two days at the same time.
STREP: Can’t it?
PHID: Of course it can’t, unless the same woman can be old and young at the same time.
STREP: What about the law then?
PHID: Well, I think they don’t understand the meaning of the law.
STREP: What does the law mean?
PHID: Our ancient Solon was by nature a friend of the people.
STREP: But this has nothing to do with old and new!
PHID: That man also established the summons in two days, the old and the new, so that meetings could take place on the day of the new moon.
STREP: So, why did he establish the old day as well?
PHID: My dear, so that the defendants could appear one day early, and settle out of court. And if they did not, they’ll get there on the morning of the new moon.
STREP: So, how come the magistrates do not accept guarantees on the day of the new moon, but only on the old day or the new day?
PHID: I think they do what the food inspectors do before a festival: they want to cheat on the guarantees, and so they have a taste of them one day early.
[m] Lys. Ag. Nic. 2: Republishing Solon’s laws [I]
When Nicomachus was made commissioner for the transcription of the laws, he perpetrated outrages against the city which are well known to everyone. For while he had been instructed to publish the laws of Solon within four months, he usurped the title of lawgiver from Solon, and kept his office for six years instead of four months, and every day he took bribes to insert some laws and rub out others.
[n] Lys. Ag. Nic. 27–8: Republishing Solon’s laws [II]
Nicomachus was a slave and now he has become a citizen, he was poor and now he is wealthy, he was a simple under-clerk, and now has become a lawgiver! Some might blame this on you, because your ancestors chose as their lawgivers the likes of Solon, Themistocles and Pericles, confident as they were that the laws would mirror the spirit of their architects. And you? You have chosen Teisamenus, Mechanion and Nichomacus, who were under-clerks.
[o] Dem. Crown 5–7: Solon, a lawgiver and a democrat
Athenians: I believe you should all agree that I am just as much concerned in this trial as Ctesiphon, and that I should give it no less consideration than he does. In fact, any loss arising from a private quarrel is painful and hard to bear, but nothing compares to the loss of your favour and benevolence, which are the most precious possessions of all, and this is exactly what this trial is about. Therefore, I pray and urge you all to listen to my defence against these accusations with a fair mind, as the laws prescribe you to do. Solon, the man who first established them, was a friend of the people and a genuine democrat: he thought that the laws should be sovereign because they were written and because the jurors had to swear on them. For Solon, I think, trusted you, but he was also aware that no defendant could possibly prevail against the charges and false accusations which a prosecutor puts forward as he speaks first unless you jurors keep to your vow of piety to the gods and lend a favourable ear to the arguments of the second speaker, reaching no final conclusion on the whole matter without having listened to both parties with a fair and impartial mind.
[p] Hyp. Ag. Ath. 21–2: Solon, a most democratic man
I think that you are all liable. However, if we don’t agree on this point, let the law be our judge, I mean the law established not by some lovers or by people craving for someone else’s possessions, but by Solon, that most democratic man. For Solon saw that many sales were taking place in the city and so he passed a law, which we all consider just, stating that all the offences or crimes perpetrated by slaves should be considered the responsibility of the masters who currently own them. This is just reasonable, because whenever a slave does well in anything, or brings in a profit, it is the owner who enjoys the benefit.