It is clear from the poems of Solon that one of the major causes of the unrest was the greed of the rich:
But the citizens themselves are willing in their stupidity to destroy this great city, believing in wealth. Unjust are the minds of the people’s leaders who are going to endure many sufferings because of their great arrogance. For they do not know how to curb their greed … but they grow rich; believing in unjust deeds; sparing neither religious nor secular possessions, they steal right and left for plunder.
(Solon fr. 4 5–13)
In order to understand part of the worsening economic situation in Athens, it is necessary to examine the nature of debt-bondage, although this too is an area of scholarly dispute. In non-monetary agrarian societies, and this can be verified from comparable near-eastern documents, the main aim of the creditor was to acquire the debtor’s labour, thus increasing his stock of dependent agricultural labour, rather than make a quick profit through the charging of interest on the loan. Many of those who needed to borrow, being well aware of the creditor’s desire and knowing the harshness of the debt law, if he defaulted (i.e. liable to seizure and to sale abroad as a slave), preferred to accept the status of debt-bondsman, by which he obligated himself and his family to work in servitude for the creditor until he worked off his debt. In other words, a man who would be unable or would find it extremely difficult to meet his obligation by payment offered his labour as alternative compensation. This put the debt-bondsmen and his family in the power of the creditor but, if it is accepted that the debt-bondage relationship was entered into at the beginning of the loan and not as a result of default, he and his family were protected from being seized and sold abroad as slaves. However, there were plenty of opportunities for abuse of this relationship by the creditor, if comparisons are made with the sufferings of Roman debt-bondsmen.
The upper class’s desire for expensive luxury goods, their lavish and competitive life-style and the erection of public buildings at their own expense required access to much greater wealth than before – thus producing the incentive for exploitation. Solon mentions the stockpiling of silver and gold, the international means of exchange before coinage, by which the rich could finance their extravagant living (Plutarch, Solon 2). Thus it would appear from Solon’s poem that the rich creditors were now taking full advantage of their position of power:
I brought back to Athens, to their divinely-built homeland, those many men who had been sold abroad, some illegally, others legally, and those who had been forced into exile through pressing debt/dire necessity [the Greek is ambiguous], no longer using the Attic tongue, as they had wandered in so many places. I also freed those at home who were in shameful slavery and trembled before their masters’ moods.
(Solon in Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 12.4)
Although Solon’s words are not explicit about the treatment of the different groups of the poor, it does seem evident that many Athenians, both defaulting hectemoroi and those who had borrowed on the security of their persons, had been enslaved and sold abroad; others had fled into exile to avoid this fate. Although this penalty was sanctioned by law and this enslavement probably reflects the increasing economic pressures of population growth and exhaustion of the land on the poor, the fact that many were sold abroad illegally shows that the rich, who controlled the law, were unscrupulously exploiting their legal power to enrich themselves. In addition, the rich appear to have either treated the debt-bondsman more harshly or worsened their terms of bondage. Thus the poor had pressing economic (and legal) reasons to look to Solon as their saviour.
It is also evident from Solon’s reforms and Aristotle’s comment about the nature of the constitution (Ath. Pol. 2) that there was also serious political disenchantment. The ‘Eupatridai’ (the Well-born), an exclusive group of aristocratic families, had reserved for themselves the top political posts and membership of the ‘Areopagus’ (the aristocratic council – see below), thus ensuring a monopoly of power and thereby excluding other wealthy men from political office. In addition, the ‘hoplite’ middle class were virtually excluded from participation in the running of the state. The possession of political sovereignty by the hoplites in other states, such as in Sparta (see Chapter 4), must have been a source of great envy and motivation.
Finally, it may have been the case that the discontent of the hectemoroi, many of whom would have been hoplites, was not caused by economic concerns, but by their feelings of shame at their inferior, dependent status which included the humiliating threat of enslavement. The one-sixth payment was not financially demanding for many of them, but the horoi (marker stones) were a daily reminder of their political, social and economic subservience to an upper class which had little to offer in the way of protection in the age of hoplites. Thus all those outside the ranks of the Eupatridai wanted a redress of their grievances.
The reforms of Solon
An account of the economic, political and legal reforms that Solon passed to deal with the crisis is given in Aristotle’s Ath. Pol. (6–12) and Plutarch’s Life of Solon (15–25).
Economic reforms
The essence of Solon’s economic reforms is stated in his own self-laudatory poetry:
Did I stop before I had achieved all of the aims for which I brought the people together? May the mighty mother of the Olympian gods in the court of Time be my best witness, the Black Earth herself, from whom I removed the marker-stones (horoi) imposed in many places: previously she was a slave, now she is free. I brought back to Athens, to their divinely-built homeland, those many men who had been sold abroad, some illegally, others legally, and those who had been forced into exile through pressing debt/dire necessity, no longer using the Attic tongue, as they had wandered in so many places. I also freed those at home who were in shameful slavery and trembled before their masters’ moods. These deeds I made happen, uniting perfectly together force and justice; and I carried them out as I had promised.
(Solon fr. 36 in Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 12)
The most pressing problem was the economic and social condition of the lower classes, and Solon’s overwhelming desire for social justice made this reform the centre-piece of his legislation. This part of his reform programme is explained more fully by Aristotle:
Solon, having gained full control of Athenian affairs, set the people free both in the present and for the future by making it illegal to give loans on the security of the person, and he passed laws, and he carried out a cancellation of both private and public debts, which was called the ‘Seisachtheia’ (the Shaking off of Burdens) as the people shook off their heavy load.
(Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 6.1)
Although these two sources do not give a full explanation of Solon’s economic measures, a combination of both plausibly suggests that he made three major reforms. In the first place, he abolished the class of hectemoroi by removing the marker-stones (horoi). These stones were used in the fourth century as a public symbol of land being under some constraint, and presumably at the time of Solon their function was to identify the land of the hectemoroi and therefore their obligations. Solon had now ‘freed’ the land and given them full possession of it, thus adding substantially to the class of small landowners. In fact, it would seem from the opening lines of Solon’s poem that they were the main beneficiaries of his cancellation of debts. This is not to contradict what was said above about the origins of the hectemoroi, i.e. hereditary serfdom, since ‘chreos’–the Greek word that is translated by ‘debt’–has a wider meaning than simply being in debt from borrowing: it is used to describe any situation where someone is dependent or under obligation, such as the payment of rent or taxes or other dues. Some scholars have found this difficult to accept, believing that the hectemoroi tilled the land of the rich and stressing Solon’s words (fr. 34 in Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 12.3) that he did not carry out a redistribution of land. However, if it is accepted that the conditional tenure of the land led to no clearcut identification of ownership (discussed above), then the removal of the one-sixth ob
ligation resolved the ambiguity once and for all: the newly freed former hectemoroi were now without question the legitimate owners of the land.
The second reform, although hard to imagine in practice, set about bringing back those Athenians who had either been sold abroad or fled into exile. These Athenians would have been those identified by Aristotle (Ath. Pol. 2 – see above) as agogimoi, i.e. liable to seizure: hectemoroi who had failed to pay their one-sixth and borrowers who had used their own person as security. The third reform was the cancellation of debts, thus freeing the debt-bondsmen in Attica, and the prohibition of any debt that involved the pledge of the person as security. Thus no Athenian in the future could become a debt-bondsman or be sold into slavery for debt.
Political reforms
Although Solon’s economic reforms were essential in order to remove the immediate danger of the crisis turning into revolution, he realized that the only hope for long-term stability in Athens was a reform of the constitution in which political power was shared equitably:
For I gave to the people as much privilege [‘power’ in Plutarch’s quotation in his Life of Solon 18.4] as was sufficient, neither removing nor increasing what was their right. I made sure that those who had power and were admired for their wealth suffered nothing unfair. I stood holding my mighty shield over both parties, and allowed neither side to triumph unjustly.
(Solon fr. 5 in Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 12.1)
Solon, therefore, was radical in his political reforms: whereas previously the criterion for holding political power had been nobility of birth, which thus ensured the political dominance of the aristocratic Eupatridai (the Wellborn), it was now replaced by wealth. However, Solon did not merely open up the top political posts to a wider spectrum of the rich, but re-organized the whole structure of political power which was to be shared out on the basis of economic status.
Solon divided up the whole people into four property classes, based on the number of measures of grain or oil and wine that were produced from the land: the ‘pentacosiomedimnoi’ (‘the 500 Bushellers’), i.e. those whose land produced at least 500 bushels or measures of agricultural produce; the ‘hippeis’, producing 300 bushels or more; the ‘zeugitai’, producing 200 bushels or more; and the thetes (Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 7.3–4). Although Aristotle states that these four classes predated Solon, it is more likely that only the hippeis (mounted warriors), the zeugitai (hoplites) and the thetes (below military census) had been in existence, reflecting the military organization of Athens. Solon’s innovation was to separate out the richest citizens from the hippeis as a new class, and to define precisely in economic terms the specific qualifications for each class. This precision was vital for his division of political power, as each class would have a political function within his new constitution.
The offices of state were divided among the top three classes (Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 7.3). The post of Treasurers of Athena was reserved for the ‘500 Bushellers’, presumably on the grounds that their immense personal wealth would provide less temptation to defraud the state but, if they did, they also had the means to repay. The nine ‘archons’, who were the most important public officials, probably came from the classes of the ‘500 Bushellers’ and the hippeis. The nine archons consisted of the ‘eponymous archon’, who was the top public official in civil affairs and gave his name to the year; the ‘polemarch’ (war-leader), who commanded the army; the ‘basileus’ (king-archon) who was responsible for the conduct of the state religion; and the six ‘thesmothetai’ who had judicial responsibilities. It would seem that all three top classes (but not the thetes) were eligible for the posts of ‘poletai’, who supervised public contracts and taxation and sold confiscated property; the ‘Eleven’, who were in charge of the state prison and were the public executioners; and the ‘kolakretai’, who exercised some financial functions.
Solon’s replacement of aristocratic birth by landed wealth as the qualification for holding the nine archonships was designed to satisfy the political ambitions of the wealthy non-nobles. The deliberate exclusion of wealthy entrepreneurs from political power in Corinth had been one of the main reasons for the overthrow of the aristocratic Bacchiadai and the establishment of Cypselus’ tyranny (see Chapter 3). This also gave them access to the most powerful body of state, the aristocratic Council of the Areopagus, as ex-archons after their year of office became life members of that institution. However, it is not clear how the nine archons were elected. Aristotle in the Ath. Pol. (section 8) states that the election consisted of two stages: first, each of the four tribes elected ten men; second, the nine archons were selected by lot from these forty directly elected men. However, Aristotle on two occasions in the Politics (1273b 40 and 1274a 16) flatly contradicts this statement, claiming that the nine archons were directly elected.
There is no way that these two statements can be reconciled, and thus it has become an issue of scholarly dispute. Those who prefer the Politics version argue that the use of lot for office was a key element in fifth-century ‘radical’ democracy, and consequently it was far too ‘democratic’ for Solon’s carefully balanced constitution: Solon’s later reputation as the ‘father of democracy’ has led to this reform being accredited to him anachronistically. Those who prefer the Ath. Pol. version stress that, even in Aristotle’s fourth century, the Treasurers of Athena were still appointed by lot from the ‘500 Bushellers’ in accordance with Solon’slaws(Ath. Pol. 8.1 and 47.1). Therefore, a comparable use of lot for the election of archons should be accepted as a Solonian reform, and was intended to give the wealthy non-nobles a fairer chance against the better-organized aristocratic Eupatridai of gaining the archonship.
Solon also created a Boule (Council) of 400, 100 from each tribe, although Aristotle does not specify the method of election or which classes were eligible for membership (Ath. Pol. 8.4). The 400 councillors may have been chosen by lot in the same manner as its successor, the Cleisthenic Boule of 500; and it is reasonable to presume that the thetes were excluded from membership, thus allowing the middle-class zeugitai to be in the majority in the new council. Although there has been scepticism about the existence of this Solonian Boule of 400 on the grounds that so little was known about its function and that it was probably an invention of the Athenian oligarchs in 411 (see Chapter 23), the majority of scholarly opinion has come down in favour of accepting its establishment by Solon. It is hardly surprising that the powers of such an archaic institution had been forgotten by the fourth century; and the propaganda of a return to Solon’s constitution by the revolutionary oligarchs, who in 411 set up a so-called ‘Solonian’ Boule of 400 as the source of their political power, could only have been so effective, if the Athenian people actually believed in the Boule’s former existence. In addition, recent archaeological investigation of the site of the later Boule of 500 has uncovered a group of buildings of the early sixth century which appear to be offices, a dining-room and an open space, presumably for meetings: such a similarity to the buildings of the Boule of 500 on the very same site suggests the existence there of an earlier Boule. Finally, there is an inscription from Chios, dated 575–550, that reveals the existence of a ‘people’s council’ (coexisting with the aristocratic council) which meets regularly, is involved in cases of appeal and carries out ‘the other business of the people’ (ML 8). It is tempting to believe that the Chians used Solon’s Boule as the model for their council.
It is very possible that the main function of the Boule of 400 was pro-bouleutic, i.e. it held a preliminary discussion of all topics to be placed on the agenda of the ‘Ecclesia’ (Assembly). It was clearly intended to be a counter-balance to the power of the Areopagus, whose ranks for some years to come would still be filled with a majority of the Eupatridai (the Well-born). It was their arrogance and greed (Solon fr. 4) that had done so much to provoke this crisis:
He thought that the city with its two councils, moored so to speak like a ship with two anchors, would be less tossed about on the sea.
; (Plutarch, Solon 19.2)
This provision that all business for the Ecclesia had to be discussed first by the Boule of 400 was probably designed to be a stabilizing factor in the constitution. This prevented the Ecclesia from being hastily summoned with little prior warning, and acted as a check, not only on the Areopagus and the archons from exerting excessive influence at sparsely attended meetings, but also on the people from passing ill-advised motions which had not been properly considered.
The lowest class, the thetes, had their position in the political structure of the state confirmed and strengthened by Solon’s new constitution:
To those of the class of thetes he only gave a share in the Assembly (Ecclesia) and the law-courts (dikasteria).
(Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 7.3)
The thetes had probably been allowed to attend the Ecclesia before Solon’s reforms, but this was based on custom not law; and it is very likely that meetings of the Ecclesia had been infrequent, and that matters of importance were rarely put before the people for their decision. Now the right to attend the Ecclesia had been enshrined in law, and it is reasonable to believe that Solon prescribed regular meetings of the Ecclesia in which the people would have the final power of decision on vital issues. However, the right of discussion was probably non-existent: voting in favour of or against a motion was almost certainly the only political right that the people had in the Ecclesia. The reference to the law courts (‘dikasteria’) is anachronistic, as the division of the ‘Heliaea’ (the People’s Court) into panels of jurors belongs to the reforms of Ephialtes in 462/1, but Aristotle is probably referring to the right of the thetes to attend the Heliaea as the court of appeal (clearly stated in Ath. Pol. 9.1).
Aspects of Greek History (750–323BC) Page 15