“although he could have become a tyrant by joining whichever side he chose he preferred to antagonise both sides by saving his native land and passing the best laws” An assessment of Solon’s work as a reformer, taking into account both the conditions prevailing at Athens in late 6th century and the general reaction of the people to Solon’s laws.
When Kylon had set the scene. When his failed attempt at tyranny had been put down by Athenian notables and the troops of the city, his attempt and life ended. This cleared the way for Dracon and his law codes. Solon himself describes these laws. “Dracon had written these laws not in ink, but in blood.” (Plut. Solon 17.2). Which is an accurate summation of the harshness of these laws. These were widely seen as harsh, and disliked. This led the way to the next reformer. It is important to understand how Solon came into the picture. He was chosen as a mediator between two striving sides. He was seen as a good compromise by both sides, namely the notables and the citizens themselves. It is with this in mind I will argue that Solon was aware of his ability to become a tyrant if he so wished. But that ultimately, he preferred to do what was both good and just. Kylon’s attempt had failed perhaps because the plight of the citizens was either not as desperate as to place a tyrant in power, or simply dislike for a Megarian backed coup, as suggested by T. Buckley[1]. What is important however is that Solon was chosen to lead the reforms as someone who was genuinely concerned with the evils that he saw in the Athens of his day. So his concern for the opposing factions was therefore not his primary concern, his primary concern was to reform the wrongs he saw in his city.
One of the clearest examples of his lack of concern for the interest of the opposing sides and his determination to do what was right, and not popular with everyone can be seen in his economic reforms. He entitles these reforms as seisactheia which translates as the shaking off of burdens, appropriate. Solon lays the heavy hand of blame for the political and economic crisis firmly with the wealthy and their greed and general disregard for the welfare of anyone outside of their rank and station namely the common citizenry of Athens. In his reforms he struck out at the wealthy, undermining their over lofty place in society. He cancelled the outstanding debts which many citizens were being held to, banned acquisition of loans with personal freedom as guarantee, arranged for the return of Athenians who had been sold abroad to pay these loans, and set a limit to the land owned by any individual, and prevented the export of Athenian agricultural products to prevent famine conditions for a time. (Solon in Ath. Pol. 12.4). When reading this information it strikes you. The relentlessness and all embracing aspects of his reforms, he was determined to root out the evils he saw in society. Also by passing these reforms, he was able to avoid the immediate threat of revolt. Furthermore, he took considerable influence and power away from the aristocrats of Athens and divided the land among the common citizenry, playing their emotions off each other. This calmed them and with danger averted, and peace in gentle control of the city, Solon turned his attention elsewhere.
When he had avoided the immediate threat of danger, he saw the need to secure the long-term security of the state. It was at this point he turned his attention to the Athenian constitution. As Buckley describes, his political reforms were radical, the criterion for the holding of power moved from aristocratic status to the wealth a person held. Which opened up the system to all.[2] With Political power now being shared out on the basis of economic status, he was again antagonising both sides. The aristocrats, who had lost land and in this new system and power also as result of these reforms were suffering. The common citizenry were also in smaller numbers discontented with the new political structure as their land ownership was still less then that of higher classes, and therefore less influence over the city. Solon justifies these reforms as follows. “For I gave to the people as much privilege as was sufficient, neither removing nor increasing what was their right” (Solon fr. 5 in Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 12.1). This piece displays for us, how Solon continued to do what was right, and that even at this stage tyranny was never an option for him, this is a pivotal point. With reforming political structure, and the Athenian constitution he easily could have manipulated them both to make himself the Tyrant of Athens. However he did not. But Solon’s logic was solid, and most could find little fault with it. In its simplest terms, the more land you owned the more say you had in the running of the state, it was generally accepted to be fair, especially to the wealthy emerging merchant class of the day who had, had their ambitions for political power satisfied.
His next turn up the steep hill of his reforms were his changes to the legal system, and which essentially superseded those of Dracon. As aforementioned he banned loans, with personal freedom of borrower as the guarantee. “Secondly, that it was possible for anyone who wanted to prosecute on behalf of those who were wronged; and thirdly, which is said to be the chief power of the people, there was appeal to the ‘dikasterion’”(Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 9.1). This was a radical change to the legal system of Athens. Solon had established set certain crimes above others. These were those he felt affected not only personal individuals but also the welfare of the state. “For Solon also gave to all those who wanted it the right of appeal to the people’s court, even the in the cases which he had assigned to the magistrates for them to judge” (Plut. Solon. 18.3). In his legal reforms Solon now made the judges themselves accountable to the state and the citizenry for whatever legal decision they made, and heralded the beginning of Athenian citizen control of the legal system. As a lasting testament to his greatest achievements were his laws, recorded on stone, in public view for many centuries as a testament to his ideal of justice for all citizens, perhaps in his reforms he was least antagonistic to the two sides, as these epitomised his ideals for fairness.
Solon at all times presented himself as the mediator, he makes reference to himself, that what he did he felt was right. “For what I said, I achieved with the gods’ help, But did nothing in vain, nor with the force of tyranny Did I choose to act, nor that the rich earth of our native land should be equally shared by base and good” (Ath. Pol. 12.3-5. This shows us that he was conscious of how easily he could have descended into tyranny, and how he resisted, doing what was right, and in this case, correctly distributing the land to those who deserved it. Solon’s economic reforms had a foresight to them, it set up a system with the potential to succeed, but if not nurtured correctly the system would again descend into pre-reform crisis. His laws, encouraged farmers to increase the production of valuable exports especially olive oil. Encouraged craftsmen into the city, establishing an industrial base, for employment who lived on less then subsistent agriculture. Solon can be then praised for the success of the future Athenian enterprise in the coming centuries.
His political reforms had less of an impact then was desired, the class struggle which occurred in the first place and created a need for someone like Solon was never effectively solved as it still left unresolved issues between the sides. Society remained fractionalised, into wealthy aristocrats, wealthy non-nobles, and the common citizenry. It was a fear of tyranny that made the nobles turn towards someone like Solon as mediator, appointed from their ranks he was expected to preserve and maintain their interests, their fear of tyranny was greater then a slight diminution in their existing power base. The fact that in the second quarter of the sixth century society fractionalised, and ultimately led to the tyranny of Peisistratus, means that Solon’s reforms did not permeate to regional divisions. It was not until Cleisthenese reforms did these regional differences which still remained get the attention necessary to resolve the problem. As a reformer in this capacity he failed to prevent further civil unrest.
As already discussed his legal reforms were unmatched and highly respected by his peers, and generations after, here his triumph was obvious, his laws, tackled all aspects of peoples life experiences. Ultimately he succeeded in preventing civil unrest in his time, but failed to prevent it in the future. He played all the factions off each other and made what he saw as the best choices for the state of Athens. He did not restrain the common citizenry nor did he stop before his reforms affected the upper echelons of society. His own success is best catalogued in his own words.
“While all those who are greater and more powerful
Should praise me and should make me their friend;’ for if another man, he says,
Had achieved this posistion:
“He would not have restrained the people or stopped
Before he had stirred up the milk and taken off the cream.
But I stood between them on neutral ground
Stood like a marker.” (Ath. Pol. 12.5.5-10)
Bibliography:
- Buckley, T. (1996), Aspects of Greek History 750 – 323 BC, A source based approach. Oxon.
- Plutarch’s Life of Solon in Scott-Kilvert, I. (1967), The rise and fall of Athens, London.
- Murray, O., (1993) Early Greece, 2nd Edition, London.
- Rhodes, P.J., (1981) A Commentary on the Aristotelian ‘Athenaion Politeia’, Oxford.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment