Athenian Politics c800-500 BC

A Sourcebook

G. R. Stanton

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2002
• eBook ISBN: 9781134953714
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Ancient History
• Index: History

This book is designed to sharpen historical skills by a critical approach to the sources of information on ancient Athenian politics. It presents contemporary sources, later historical and biographical writings, archaeological evidence, inscriptions on stone, and papyri from Egypt. The reader has available in translation virtually all the documents on which scholars of this period base their conclusions.

The period covered embraces the reforms of Solon, the tyranny of Peisistratos and his sons, and the constitutional changes of Kleisthenes. When Athenian politics first become visible, the noble families are firmly in control. At the end of the period democracy is just beginning to emerge. Central to an understanding of the politics of the time are the conflict among aristocratic clans and the vertical ties between noble patrons and their supporters and dependants in the lower social strata. Paradoxically, democracy emerged from the actions of noble leaders who were certainly not of democratic disposition.

II SOLON

The problems confronting Attike

Early in the sixth century a crisis point was reached in Athenian society. Solon, a man who had been arkhon perhaps fifteen to twenty years previously and who commanded respect, was appointed as mediator with power to change the constitution. Our sources generally represent the major problem as a class struggle, with emphasis on the suffering of families under obligation to the rich and of others sold as slaves in Attike or abroad, or even as a dispute over the form of constitution which Athens should have. But these views of the problem do not explain the extraordinary action of the nobles, those with power in Attike, in placing Solon in a position where he could change the rules of the game. What brought the nobles to the point where they were prepared to risk a reduction in their own power? It seems to have been the fear that their lower-class retainers would be swept away from their aristocratic patrons by someone who could use them to establish a tyranny in Athens; and a tyranny would disrupt the structure of politics and destroy the power of the nobles. There are, indeed, references to the dependence of poorer people on the nobles (or at least ‘the rich’) in our sources.

Also relevant to this section are the passages on the aftermath of the Kylon affair in Chapter I, pp. 17–26. See especially note 11 on [9] and note 3 on [10].

17 Athenaion Politeia 2

2After this there was conflict between the nobles and the common people for an extended period.¹ (2) For the constitution they were under was oligarchic in every respect² and especially in that the poor, along with their wives and children, were in slavery to the rich. They were called Pelatai and Hektemoroi.³ For this was the rent they paid for working the fields belonging to the rich. All the land was in the hands of a few. And if men did not pay their rents, they themselves and their children were liable to be seized as slaves. The security for all loans was the debtor’s person up to the time of Solon. He was the first champion of the people. (3) Hence the harshest and bitterest aspect of the constitution for the masses was their enslavement. Furthermore, indeed, they were discontent on other scores. For they had, so to speak, no share in anything.

Notes

1 The author of the Athenaion Politeia sees the major problem confronting Attike as a class struggle. Political and economic power was in the hands of a relatively small group of noble families.

Does the picture presented by the ancient sources collected in this section explain the agreement of the nobles to the extraordinary appointment of Solon? Though numerically inferior, the nobles were the ones with power and each noble clan had a ‘pyramid’ of supporters extending into the lower classes (cf. Forrest 48–50 for this model). What moved the clan leaders to agree to Solon’s appointment must have been the fear that one of their number would seek to detach the lower levels of their ‘pyramids’ of support by a platform of ‘Free the debtors!’ and ‘Redistribute the land!’ (For these slogans, compare Plutarch, Solon 13.6 and 14.2 [19] and Athenaion Politeia 11.2 [47].) When Kylon had attempted to establish a tyranny, the clients had remained loyal to their aristocratic patrons. (For the political backwardness of Athens see note 6 on [5].) But in the crisis before Solon’s appointment there was a real threat that noble clans would lose their supporters; that is, that the ‘pyramids’ on which clan power was based would be disrupted. For this line of argument see J.R. Ellis and G.R.Stanton, Phoenix 22 (1968) 95–9.

2 There was an Assembly of Athenian citizens, but the lowest class (the Thetes) were not admitted and its power was effectively limited by the Areopagos, which was composed of ex-arkhons, all of whom were nobles. See Athenaion Politeia 3.6 [1].

3 Pelatai means ‘dependants, clients’. Hektemoroi means ‘sixth-parters, sixth-portion men’. The next sentence, ‘For this was the rent they paid for working…’, could be rendered ‘For this was the commission they were paid for working….’ So we have no clear evidence, apart from Plutarch’s interpretation (literally ‘paying sixths of their produce to the rich’) in Solon 13.4 [19], that the fraction one-sixth (indicated by the name Hektemoroi) was paid to the patron rather than retained by the dependant. But if the Hektemoroi voluntarily became dependants of noble families (see note 3 on [19]), they surely did not hand over five-sixths of their produce. If they were reduced to a form of servitude through inability to repay debts (whether through inefficiency as farmers or a succession of poor seasons) they could not have supported a family on one-sixth of their produce. Hence one-sixth seems to have been the rent which Hektemoroi paid for working land in the hands of the rich. Recently G.Kirk, Historia 26 (1977) 369–70, stressing the plural ‘sixths’ in Plutarch, Solon 13.4, has suggested that the landlord’s share of the produce may have varied between one-sixth and five-sixths. But there is no direct evidence for this. For a full discussion see K.von Fritz, AJP 61 (1940) 54–61 and 64 (1943) 24–43=Schriften zur griechischen und römischen Verfassungsgeschichte und Verfassungstheorie (Berlin 1976) 110–34.

18 Athenaion Politeia 5.1–2

5Since the organisation of the constitution was such as I have described¹ and the many were in slavery to the few, the people rose against the nobles.²(2) There was fierce and protracted strife between the opposing factions until finally they agreed to the appointment of Solon as mediator and arkhon, and entrusted the constitution to him.³ He had composed the elegiac poem which begins:

I observe, and within my heart there is sadness and deep
distress
As I see the most ancient land in all the Ionian sphere Being slain….⁴

this poem he argues the case of each side in turn against the other and goes on to exhort them to join in putting an end to the quarrel that had arisen.

Notes

1 In chapter 3 [1].

2 The author scarcely distinguishes between hoi polloi (translated ‘the many’), to plethos (‘the common people’) and ho demos (‘the people’): cf. Athenaion Politeia 2.1 [17]; 5.1; 9.1 [46]; 20.1, 3 [81]; 21.1 [84]. There is a similar lack of distinction between hoi gnorimoi (‘the well-known men’, i.e. the nobles) and hoi oligoi (‘the few’).

3 Solon was eponymous arkhon of Athens in 594/3 BC (see note 5 on [19] below). Although Solon’s appointment by common consent as mediator with extra-ordinary powers (so Athenaion Politeia 5.2) or mediator and lawgiver (so Plutarch, Solon 14.3 [19]) is assigned to his arkhonship by both our sources, there are reasons for believing that his reforms should be dated later than his arkhonship. In particular, he is much more likely to have commanded respect when he had been an ex-arkhon, and member of the Areopagos, for many years. For arguments that Solon’s reforms belong to the late 570s see Hignett 316–21; for a different view see French 181–2, A.J.Holladay, G & R2 24 (1977) 40–56 at 53–4, and Rhodes 121–2.

4 The final word of the quotation (from Fragment 4a) is obscure on the papyrus; it could be klinomenen (‘made to lean, leaning, tottering’) or kainomenen (‘being slain’). M.L.West in his edition (see note 1 on [21]) prefers klinomenen, J.D.Thomas (in Rhodes 123) and M.H.Chambers kainomenen, For the other fragments in this chapter of the Athenaion Politeia see [23] below.

19 Plutarch, Solon 13.1–14.6

13 After the Kylonian trouble had ended and the accursed had been expelled, as I have described,¹ Athens was torn by the recurrent conflict about the constitution. The city was divided into as many parties as there were geographical divisions in its territory. (2) For the party of the people of the hills was most in favour of democracy, that of the people of the plain was most in favour of oligarchy, while the third group, the people of the coast, which preferred a mixed form of constitution somewhat between the other two, formed an obstruction and prevented the other groups from gaining control.² (3) At this time the inequality of the poor with respect to the rich had, as it were, reached a peak. The city was in an extremely precarious condition and it seemed that only the establishment of a tyranny could restore stability and put an end to the city’s disorders. (4) All the common people were bound by ties of obligation to the rich. For either they were farmers, paying one-sixth of their produce to the rich and called Hektemorioi and Thetes, or, contracting debts on the security of their own persons, they were liable to seizure by their creditors, some becoming slaves there, others being sold abroad.³ (5) Many were forced even to sell their own children—for no law prevented this—and to flee the city because of the harshness of their creditors. (6) But the majority, including the most determined, began to combine and encourage one another not to submit, but to choose a single trustworthy leader, free the debtors, redistribute the land⁴ and completely change the constitution.

14 Then the wisest of the Athenians saw that Solon was the only one who was above all reproach and was neither a participant with the rich in their injustices nor involved in the privations of the poor. They asked him to come forward publicly and put an end to the disputes. (2) Yet Phanias of Lesbos records that Solon on his own initiative deceived both sides to save the city, secretly promising the poor a distribution of land and the rich security for their loans. (3) But Solon himself says that it was with reluctance that he first engaged in public affairs, fearing the greed of one group and the arrogant spirit of the other. He was appointed arkhon in succession to Philombrotos,⁵ as both mediator and lawgiver. He was accepted readily by the rich because he was a wealthy man and by the poor because he was an honest one. (4) It is also said that there was in circulation before his appointment a saying of his to the effect that equality does not produce war, and this pleased both those with property and those without, the former because they expected him to achieve an equality based on worth and excellence, the latter an equality based on numerical strength. Thus there was great hope on both sides and their leaders urged Solon to let them make him tyrant.⁶ They tried to persuade him that, now that he had the city in his power, he might take control of it more boldl...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Preface
• Abbreviations
• Note on transliteration
• Introduction
• I: Attike before solon
• II: Solon
• III: From solon to peisistratos
• IV: The peisistratid tyranny
• V: Kleisthenes
• VI: The noble families
• Brief notes on authors