chapter three
SOLON THE POLITICIAN AND LEGISLATOR
Solon’s poetry constitutes our oldest concrete evidence for archaic nomo- thesia “legislation”. Various literary sources cite a number of Solon’s laws, at least some of which are demonstrably authentic.1 Furthermore Solon’s name appears on the list of great legislators found in Aristotle’s Politics (b–b).2 It is thus possible, in principle, that at least the core of the ancient information we have about Solon’s legislative work is historically sound, and predates Hellenistic biographical elaborations. Many Greek cities of the classical period attributed the entire cor- pus of their laws (or at least part of it) to archaic legislators, who had served as temporarily elected tyrants, often called α-συμν:ται.Usu- ally charged with the task of resolving a crisis, they had responsibili- ties similar to those of Solon when he was named archon and διαλλα- κτς “reconciler” in Athens.3 The characterizations of the most ancient of these archaic legislators—especially Lycurgus in Sparta, Zaleucus in Locri Epizephyrii, Charondas in Catana, Pittacus in Mytilene, Andro- damas of Rhegium (among the cities of the Chalcidian peninsula)— embody a complicated blend of historical facts and invention that served to mythicize the specific legislator, but which also adhered to conven- tional biographical topoi. These topoi were formed of anecdotes provid- ing evidence of the legislator’s virtue and of his travels to learn about other societies; they told of a crisis in his city that needed resolution and described his role as mediator between factions and resolver of the crisis; often they report on criticism that surfaced in the wake of his legislative work, or his departure from the city in order to prevent changes to his laws, etc.4
1 Even without the optimism of Ruschenbusch , f., who believes that Solon’s “code”wasinnowayaltereduntilitbegantobesystematicallyupdatedinbc. On the principles underlying Ruschenbusch’s collection, see Scafuro , who adds a third category consisting of laws with a Solonian kernel to the two categories (genuine/spurious) of Ruschenbusch’s collection. 2 Hölkeskamp argues that Solon’s laws amount to a collection and not to a code. 3 Cf. Romer . 4 Cf. especially Szegedy-Maszak ; on Solon’s “theoric” departure from the city of Athens, see ad G.-P.2 =W.2 and the bibliography cited there. introduction
When confronted with these fictional reconstructions, we must pro- ceed with the utmost caution and acknowledge the possibility that the historical truth of Solon’s reforms was enriched with conventional and/or mythicizing biographical details, especially during the fourth century, when his work began to be used in a propagandistic way and he was made out to be a sort of “father” of Athenian democracy.5 Today we know that some of the laws attributed to Solon cannot have been authored by him, even if the corpus of Solonian legislation did exist in concrete and documented form until the classical period, as we can assume from the evidence provided by a set of objects known as (% νες or as κ ρεις;6 it
5 Solon was already some sort of exemplary figure in (Lys. .), and in (Andoc. I Myst. ; cf. f.). Ruschenbusch , notes that only citations of Solon’s laws occur in the speeches of Attic orators predating bc, while there are citations in the speeches dated to after bc. Cf. Mossé , and ; Hansen a; Szegedy-Maszak ; Fantuzzi (on the fortune of the “myth of Solon” in Isyllus’ paean, a fourth-century inscription from Epidauros). Hignett , – argues that the end of fifth century was the time when Solon came to be regarded as the founding hero of Athenian democracy. 6 It is a fact, as maintained by Rhodes , that Solon’s axones survived long enough for a transcription to be made. The axones seem to have been rotating wood- blocks inscribed boustrophedon on four sides, while the kyrbeis were stelae made out of stone or bronze that came to a point on top (cf. Hansen and Wyatt ). There were multiple series of axones which were numbered progressively (there were at least two axones of Draco and Solon must have produced a separate series starting with no. , since Plut. Sol. . cites his first axon); the kyrbeis were not numbered progressively (cf. Stroud , and Immerwahr , f.). The axones and the kyrbeis would have been preserved in Athens (first on the Acropolis, then on the υλευτρι ν according to Anaximenes of Lampsacus, FgrH F; first on the Acropolis then in the prytaneum and agora according to Pollux .; the kyrbeis were in the royal stoa, according to Aristot. Ath.Pol. .; cf. Robertson ), until at least the fourth century, the period during which Aristotle or his school produced a commentary on them in five books (we cannot be sure that the later commentaries, by Hermippus of Cyrene in the third century bc and then by Asclepiades of Myrlea, Didymus and Seleucus, grammarians who lived between the first century bc and the first century ad, still referred directly to the Solonian axones: cf. Ruschenbusch , –). Otherwise, the laws believed to be Solonian remained in effect until nearly the end of the fifth century, when, starting in bc,theywererecopiedontostelaeintheagora,withanumberofupdatesthatadapted them to the changed circumstances of the time. It is usually thought that Cratinus, PCG , speaking of the kyrbeis ofSolonandDracoasthose“onwhichtheynowtoastour barley”, was implying that by that time they were held in such low esteem so as to be materially or metaphorically dismantled; we should not, however, ignore the hypothesis of Robertson , –, who believes that Cratinus simply meant that barley was toasted according to the regulations about sacrifice set forth on the kyrbeis.Various theories have been advanced as to the difference between kyrbeis and axones—assuming, as we now usually do, that there was indeed a difference (Ruschenbusch , –; Andrewes , e.g., were inclined to think there was not. Rhodes , also believes that the two were different names applied to the same sets of objects). Dow –,