Athens and the Reforms of Solon

Athens up to the time of Solon

In the period following the collapse of the Mycenaean culture Attica, with Athens as its dominant city, suffered less turmoil than most other areas of Greece.

Thucydides attributed the unification of Attica under Athens to the legendary king Theseus, in a process that was traditionally known as sunoikismos, meaning “living together”. Modern historians question Thucydides's account; however, there is archaeological support for the theory that Eleusis and Marathon were incorporated into Attica after the Mycenaean period. It is probable that Attica was a unified state during the Mycenaean period, but subsequently fragmented to an extent and a process of reunification was required in the C8th BC. The city of Athens had a population of about 50,000 inhabitants, and most of the population derived their living from farming or from trades associated with it. By the C5th BC Attica had a population of c. 250,000 — 300,000.

Attica was divided into four Ionic tribes, which were the basis of military, religious and administrative organization. The tribes were in turn divided into three trittyes (“threesomes”), and each trittys into four naukrariai (meaning uncertain). The tribes also contained phratriai (“brotherhoods”) each headed by one of the noble families. The relationship between the phratriai and the trittyes is not known. The phratry had its own cult centre dedicated to a god or hero. The people were tenant farmers of one or other of the noble families and the archons together with the Areopagos ruled Athens.

There is a tradition that Athens was governed by kings for a period, and from about 700 BC onwards by an oligarchy through the Council of the Areopagus. Later classical scholars, such as Plutarch, preserved records relating to the abolition of monarchy in Athens. At some point the nobles of Athens elected a separate War-Chief, the Polemarch; then they created an Archon (meaning “regent”) to have power over the king. This Archon was in charge of administration and was the most powerful of the three. The year was named after him, so he is called the eponymous archon, or simply the Archon. The first Archon, according to legend, was named Medon and held the office for life. The Archons were originally appointed for a period of 10 years. Thereafter, six other archons were added, who were thesmothetai (“law-setters”), thought the details of their duties are not known, and the period of office was reduced to one year. They must have acted as magistrates. The archons were selected solely from the nobility, but the process by which they were selected is not known.

The king, the Basileus, held the office of the city's chief priest. Even in classical, democratic Athens the office of king survived. He was ranked second in the constitution to the Archon, with the War-Chief third. The King oversaw all religious matters and had jurisdiction over legal cases concerning religion and homicide. The king's wife was called the Queen and she participated in an annual ceremony in which she was married to the vegetation-god Dionysus, possibly embodied by the King. It was a seasonal Sacred Marriage for the benefit of the fertility of the land. By the historic period the Archon, King and War-Chief were supplemented by six Judges (Magistrates) called Layers Down of the Law, and all together they were called the Nine Archons or Rulers. There was a King who presided at the trial of Socrates.

Around 632 BC Cylon, a member of one of the Athenian noble families, and married to the daughter of Theagenes, tryant of Megara, attempted to make himself tyrant in Athens. He occupied the Acropolis but achieved no popular support and was besieged there. Cylon escaped but many of his supporters were killed despite having received assurances that they would be safe. This was done under the instructions of the eponymous archon, Megacles, who was a member of the Alcmeonid family. This was the origin of the famous curse of the Alcmeonid family, who were accused by Cylon of sacrilegious murder, since many of the people killed had taken sanctuary. The Alcmeonids were entirely banished from Athens c. 600 BC, but subsequently were allowed to return.

This story indicates that there the nobility of Athens was divided and there was feuding between factions. The Alcmeonids were particularly unpopular with other noble families. Around 621 BC Athenian law was codified by Draco (Drakon). We know nothing about Draco himself. The laws became proverbial for their harshness with their frequent imposition of the death penalty. The code is most likely to have reflected the power of the aristocracy over the people. The government was dominated by the Aeropagus, a council made up of ex-magistrates, who ran Athens in the interest of the aristocracy to which they belonged.

Under the system of hektemoriori the tenant farmers of Athens were required to pay one-sixth of the produce to the aristocracy. Many had been unable to do this and had as a consequence bound themselves and their families personally as surety for debt. The resulting discontent created a revolutionary sentiment and the aristocracy were probably aware that there was the threat that one of their leading families would seek to establish a tyranny by appealing to popular feeling. This would be why they appointed from among their class Solon to resolve the crisis. Solon was reputed to be descended from one of the kings of Athens, though his wealth was based on trade rather than land. In 594 BC Solon was archon, and he was appointed head of a commission to examine economic and political grievances in Athens. The Areopagus bound themselves to follow his proposals for a period of ten years. Solon's reforms were accepted at a special meeting of the Assembly. Following his reforms he was regarded as one of the “Seven Wise Men” of the Greek world.

The grievances

The large increase of population in the C8th BC was cited as a cause of this economic problem. The increased population led to over-farming and subsequent lower crop yield. Prior to Solon there was a system of share-cropping. In outline, poorer Athenians paid richer ones one sixth of their produce in return for the right to cultivate a plot of land. This may have been established quite early in Athenian history and was originally probably not a source of discontent. However, just when this system was introduced and why is disputed (see below). Regardless of its origin, the economic pressure caused by the population increase created hardships for many of the poorer citizens and farmers resulting in their falling into debt. In some way or other these people became bound to their creditors, and if they defaulted on payment, the creditors would seize them and sell them into slavery abroad as compensation. The situation was clearly appalling and there was widespread discontent. The precise manner in which the debt-bond and subsequent practice of enslavement came about is disputed. Solon, in his poetry, attributes one cause of the grievances to the greed of the rich.

The question of who owned the land was also an issue. Property rights had not been clearly established at that time. Thus, there was a question as to whether it was the person who farmed the land, or the local aristocrat to whom the one-sixth tax was payable who owned it. Both had some claim upon the land.

In addition to the factions within the aristocracy itself, there must have been purely political grievances. Thus another issue would have been the monopoly over power by the hereditary aristocracy, the Eupatridai (“the Well-born”), who alone could become members of the Areopagus, which at that time controlled the State. It is no contradiction that the deterioration in the conditions of one class runs hand in hand with the economic rise of another. The seventh century BC was a period of considerable economic growth throughout the Greek world of the Mediterranean. The greater trade created new wealth owning classes — manufacturers and merchants — who were potential rivals for power in the city-state and excluded from power in Athens by the oligarchy. Furthermore, since the reforms of Solon established the Assembly of the People it is probable that even some of the lower classes, who had not fallen into debt, were demanding more representation.

Who exactly were the hectemoroi?

Aristotle refers to two groups of discontented people, the peletai and the hectemoroi, but the precise identity of these two groups, and whether they are two groups or just one, is a matter of dispute. Classical authors (Plato in Euthyphro, Plutarch in Solon) thought that the term peletai designated anyone who was under some kind of bond to labour for another, and the term hectemoroi designated those who were specifically bound to pay one-sixth of their produce to a landlord.

Why the hectemoroi had to do this is not known for certain. It is possible that this was because they had fallen into debt at times of bad harvest, and their creditors placed a mortgage on their land as a consequence. This condition would be marked by the setting up of marker-stones called horoi on the mortgaged land. The horoi were disliked in their own right, but those who were now bound to pay one-sixth of their produce found it even harder to make a living, and fell into further debt, as a result of which their creditors would take their land and sell them into slavery. It has been claimed that the introduction of coinage facilitated this process, but this is disputed.

This view of the classical authors is disputed by modern authors, who believe that the hectemoroi do not designate a class of debtor, but that the system of serfdom was inherited from an earlier age. At some period in the past tenure of land was made conditional and the person who farmed the land was obliged to pay a share of his produce in return for the protection offered by the aristocracy. However, by the C7th some of these traditional land serfs had fallen into debt and were designated peletai. The interpretation by Rihll argues that only those who farmed public land were designated hectemoroi, and that the tax of one-sixth of his produce was imposed as payment in return for the use of public land and to compensate the State for not being able to use it in other ways, for example, for pasture. It is claimed that the laws of Draco made it legal to sell any hectemoroi who defaulted into slavery in order to ensure that the payment was made.

The nature of debt-bondage is also disputed. It is likely that people who could not pay the tax would offer their labour as compensation and thus create a debt-bond. However, this did not make him a slave at this time, but many creditors may have abused the situation and illegally seized the debtor and his family and sold them abroad as slaves.

The reforms of Solon

For the reforms of Solon at Athens the principle sources are (a) the poetry of Solon; (b) commentaries on the laws dating from the C4th BC which are based on survival copies of the laws themselves and so are reliable; (c) some comments in Herodotus; (d) Aristotle's Constitution of the Athenians; (e) some references in Aristotle's Politics; (f) Plutarch's Life of Solon.

Addressing grievances

1		All debts were cancelled. This was called the seisakhtheia, “shaking off of burdens”. This was paid for by the wealthy families and moneylenders, and would have been unpopular with them.
2		The markers on the land of the hektemorioi placed as a sign that the land was mortgaged were removed. He thereby resolved the ambiguity over land-ownership in favour of the farmers. He did not redistribute land
3		It was made illegal to enslave an Athenian for debt. Attempts were made to free all Athenians who had been enslaved prior to the new law.

Economic policies

1		Only olive oil could be exported; the export of all other foods was prohibited. This meant that prices for staple foods would be reduced.
2		There was probably a reform of weights and measures in line with standards adopted earlier at Corinth and in Euboea. This promoted trade with those cities.
3		Skilled labour from abroad was encouraged to settle at Athens.

To an extend these economic policies sought to address the causes of the grievances of the poor by stimulating economic growth.

Basis of the new constitution

Solon also broadened the basis of government to include families that had acquired wealth but who were of the nobility. To this effect he created four property classes at Athens.

1		Pentakosiomedimnoi, “500 measure men”. These were families that produced 500 or more medimnoi, which was a measure used for both dry and liquid goods and equivalent to about 38 kilograms or 50 litres of produced. This output would have been sufficient to feed about 40 to 50 people, or about 15 families. This property class therefore included both the very rich and the moderately well-off. It was broad enough to include the lesser dependants and sons of aristocratic families, but also families that were not aristocratic.
2		Hippeis, “horsemen, knights”, with wealth amounting to 300 — 500 medimnoi. These would have been able to provide their own horse and therefore be enrolled into the cavalry at times of war.
3		Zeugitai, “yoke-men” referring to the practice of their being yoked in pairs in the infantry; men, therefore, who could supply their own armour and serve as hoplites. They had output of 200 — 300 medimnoi.
4		Thetes, originally meaning “serf”, but subsequently meaning any hired labourer. Anyone with produce less than 200 medimnoi per annum, comprising half or more of the population of Attica.

The new constitution

Solon established an Assembly for the people as a whole, the precise workings of which are not known; however, the monopoly over power of the Aeropagus was brought to an end. The Assembly became the final court of appeal.

The nine archons were retained, but anyone in the first property class was made eligible for election to an archonship, thus enabling non-nobles to obtain the highest political office. As ex-archons were automatically admitted to the Areopagus, this council would, over time, lose its predominantly aristocratic bias. Solon also said to have established another Council (Boule) of 400, with members drawn equally from each of the four tribes. Its function was probouletic, preparing legislation for the Assembly, and as such it acted as a check on the power of the Areopagus. It is not known how members of this Council were selected, but it appears that anyone from the first three property classes could be a member. It appears that this Council prepared the agenda for the Assembly, membership of which was now open to all four property classes. However, the powers of the Assembly remained restricted. Jurors were drawn from all four property classes, and new courts were established and the right of appeal against a judgement of one of the archons to one of these new courts was granted. The Areopagos remained the sole court with the authority to try someone for homicide, and was appointed to supervise the laws and constitution.

Reform of the legal code

Solon established the Ecclesia (Assembly) as the highest court of the state and that any citizen had a right of appeal to it. As a court it was known as the Heliaea (“The People's Court”). It is not agreed on how the system of appeal worked, and whether the citizen had a right of appeal in all cases. The view of Plutarch is most likely, namely that, except for minor cases, the right of appeal was general.

He also codified the laws, with provisions for criminal law (eg homicide), political law (eg. treason, banishment, amnesty), laws governing morality (eg. adultery, prostitution, blasphemy), family law (eg. inheritance, marriage), land law (eg, use of public land) and commercial law (eg. loans, exports). He established that there was a class of crime that affected the public interest, and that in such cases anyone could bring a prosecution on behalf of the state. He would do this by depositing a graphe {“written charge”) with a magistrate.

Appraisal

There seems to be a tendency of modern scholars to emphasize the inadequacies of the reforms of Solon rather than their achievements.

1		It is noted that Solon's reforms did not solve the economic problems that made them necessary in the first place. Poorer citizens could still fall into debt, and in fact obtaining credit was probably harder after the reforms than before it, since the creditors had no surety.
2		It did not bring an end to the rivalry among the nobles, nor did it remove the power-bases for these. Secondly, whilst debts were cancelled, it did not bring an end to debt or to the economic conditions that caused it.
3		It gave rise to further contention between the aristocracy and “the People”. The aristocracy (the Eupatriaai) would have acquired additional grievances as a result of the loss of wealth from the cancellation of debts and the loss of political power from the effective curtailment of the power of the Areopagus.

There is evidence that political unrest continued. No eponymous archon was elected in the year 590/89 BC or in the year 586/5 BC. A certain Damasias held the post for two years and two months 582 — 579 BC, which was probably another attempt at establishing a tyranny. Following Solon, according to Aristotle, Athens was divided into three factions

1		The coast party (south-west coast of Attica) headed by the Alcmeonids. (Presumably it is some time after Solon's reforms the Alcmeonids were allowed to return to Athens.)
2		The plains party (Athens and the plains to the north) headed by the Boutadai family
3		The “beyond the hills” party (east coast of Attica) headed by Peisistratos, whose estate was at Brauron.

Nonetheless, this rather negative assessment of the reforms seems imbalanced when set against Solon's enormous achievement of getting passed such widespread changes in the constitution that laid the basis of a new power-sharing relation within Athens between the aristocracy and the “People”. It is not reasonable to expect Solon to have achieved a permanent resolution of the political problems of Athens at the time — that was reserved to later under the reforms of Cleisthenes and required a further transition period under the tyranny of Peisistratos (see subsequent chapters). Solon's transfer of power to the Assembly in its twin functions as Ecclesia and Heliaea laid the foundations of Athenian democracy.

Furthermore, Solon's economic policy of encouraging Athenians to invest in the production of olive-oil and his incentives to trade and manufacture may be regarded as long-sighted. It is disputed whether Solon did reform the weights and measures, but it is probable that Solon did adopt the Euboean and Corinthian standards thus making Athenian produce conformable to those and hence stimulating trade. Eventually, Athenian pottery was able to out-compete Corinthian. He certainly did not reform the coinage, as coinage was not introduced into Athens until later.