The Laws of Solon

A New Edition with Introduction, Translation and Commentary

D F Leão, PJ Rhodes

• Publisher: I.B. Tauris
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9781784536688
• eBook ISBN: 9780857739308
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Law
• Subtopic: Ancient History
• Index: Law

Solon (c 658-558 BC) is famous as both statesman and poet but also, and above all, as the paramount lawmaker of ancient Athens. Though his works survive only in fragments, we know from the writings of Herodotus and Plutarch that his constitutional reforms against the venality, greed and political power-play of Attica's tyrants and noblemen were hugely influential-and may even be said to have laid the foundations of western democracy. Solon's legal injunctions covered the widest range of topics and issues: economics and labour; sexual morality; social issues; and society and politics. Yet despite their fame and influence (and Solon's life and work generated a lively reception history), no complete edition of these writings has yet been published. This book offers the definitive critical edition of Solon's laws that has long been needed. It comprises the original Greek fragments with English translations, commentaries, a comprehensive introduction and important comparative Latin texts. It will be enthusiastically welcomed by specialists in ancient Greek language and history.

FRAGMENTS

PRIVATE WRONGS

Homicide and wounding

Fr. 1a: Ath. Pol. 7. i

πολιτείαν δὲ κατέστησε καὶ νόμους ἔθηκεν ἄλλους, τοῖς δὲ Δράκοντος θεσμοῖς ἐπαύσαντο χρώμενοι πλὴν τῶν φονικῶν.

[Solon] established a constitution and enacted other laws, and they ceased using the ordinances of Draco except those on homicide.

Fr. 1b: Plut. Sol. 17. i

πρῶτον μὲν οὖν τοὺς Δράκοντος νόμους ἀνεῖλε πλὴν τῶν φονικῶν ἅπαντας διὰ τὴν χαλεπότητα καὶ τὸ μέγεθος τῶν ἐπιτιμίων· μία γὰρ ὀλίγου δεῖν ἅπασιν ὥριστο ζημία τοῖς ἁμαρτάνουσι, θάνατος.

First [Solon] annulled all the laws of Draco except those on homicide, because of their severity and the greatness of the penalties: for one penalty was stipulated for virtually all offenders, death.

*Fr. 1c: Ael. V.H. VIII. 10

ἐπεὶ δὲ ᾑρέθη, τά τε ἄλλα ἐκόσμησε τὴν πόλυν καὶ δὴ καὶ τοὺς νόμους τοὺς νῦν ἔτι φυλαττομένοις συνέγραψεν αὐτοῖς. καὶ τότε ἐπαύσαντο οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι χρώμενοι τοῖς Δράκοντος· ἐκαλοῦντο δὲ ἐκεῖνοι θεσμοί. μόνους δὲ ἐφύλαξαν τοὺς φονικοὺς αὐτοῦ.

When [Solon] was appointed, he adorned the city in other ways and in particular he drafted the laws which are still kept now. And then the Athenians ceased using those of Draco: these were called thesmoi [ordinances]. They kept only his homicide laws.

*Fr. 1d: Georgius Cedrenus, Historiarum Compendium (i. 145. 18–20 Bekker)

ἐν τούτοις τοῖς ἄρχουσιν ἐνομοθέτει Ἀθηναίων πρῶτος Δράκων ὀνόματι. μετ᾿ αὐτὸν δὲ Σόλων τοῦ Δράκοντος τοὺς νόμους ἠθέτει.

In the period of these archons [sc. who followed the kings] the first of the Athenians to enact laws was the man called Draco. After him Solon deleted the laws of Draco.

Since Solon is said to have retained Draco’s law on homicide, Ruschenbusch began his collection with the fragments of Draco’s homicide law.

That law is known to have occupied at least two axones (fr. 5a). Whether it was in fact Draco’s only law, or there were indeed others which were superseded by laws of Solon, continues to be debated. Ruschenbusch, Gesetzeswerk, in commenting on fr. 1 argued that there were none: (i) the entrenchment clause in fr. 22 protects only the homicide law; (ii) if there were other laws they would have been similarly protected and Solon would have breached that protection; (iii) Solon similarly protected his laws (fr. 93); (iv) by the fourth century there was no genuine tradition on Draco and Solon, and no trace of other laws of Draco survived; (v) the only other laws seriously attributed to Draco are on theft (frs. 140–1) and on idleness (fr. 66/1), both are problematic, and both invoke the death penalty, which Ruschenbusch believed was not introduced until later (arguing that Draco’s only penalty was atimia — which might in fact result in death: so too Gagarin, Drakon, 116–21). However, for the possibility at this date of execution by the authorities see on fr. 16. From the provisions for lawful homicide in Dem. XXIII. Aristocrates 22, 53, 60, fr. 19a, Dem. XXIV. Timocrates 113, he inferred that Draco’s law covered offences against the person, but except when they led to the killing of the offender (and a court had to pronounce the killing lawful) the injured party could resort to self-help without obtaining a judicial verdict.

It is certainly true that we do not have reliable evidence for other laws of Draco — which is not surprising if they were superseded after less than thirty years. But Ruschenbusch himself believed that despite the entrenchment clause the homicide law was modified later; similarly Solon’s laws were modified later; and, if Solon was given a special commission to enact new laws, that could explicitly or implicitly have overridden any entrenchment clause of Draco. Gagarin, Early Greek Law, 76, raises that question but does not answer it. We think the question whether there were other laws of Draco is better left open. For laws on idleness see fr. 66/1, on theft frs. 140–1. See also Stroud, Drakon’s Law, 77–82; Gagarin, Drakon, 116–21, ‘The Thesmothetai and the Earliest Athenian Tyranny Law’, TAPA cxi 1981, 71–7 at 73.

Later texts commonly refer to the thesmoi (‘ordinances’) of Draco and the nomoi (‘laws’) of Solon (e.g. Andoc. I Myst. 81, decree ap. 83, Ath. Pol. 4. i contr. 6. i, 7. i), but in fr. 36. 21 West ap. Ath. Pol. 12. iv Solon himself refers to his laws as thesmoi.

Altogether in classical Athens there were five categories of homicide and courts for dealing with them (fr. 4/1b cf. Dem. XXIII. Aristocrates 63–79). In Nomoi, on the basis of fr. 5a, Ruschenbusch limited his fragments of Draco’s law to unwilling homicide, with some matters which he thought applicable both to willing and to unwilling (frs. 3–18), and lawful homicide (frs. 19–21); in Gesetzeswerk he added unknown and non-human killers (frs. 21a–d), on the basis of the prytaneion’s inclusion in fr. 22/1. However, while fr. 2 shows that the Areopagus was not a homicide court in Draco’s laws, fr. 5a shows that Draco did recognise a distinction between willing and unwilling homicide, and we think it likely that all the categories and (with the exception of the Areopagus) the courts for dealing with them figured in his law (cf. Boegehold, Agora xxviii, 43–4).

Ruschenbusch had strong views on the development of Athenian homicide law, and believed that there were several changes later than Draco and Solon: the specification of penalties (including death) other than atimia and the wrath of the gods, proclamation against the killer not merely by the kin of the deceased but by the basileus, the transformation of aidesis from acceptance of blood money in all cases to an act of forgiveness for unwilling homicide, the introduction of the second pair of speeches (seen as occurring when the prosecutor’s diomosia no longer settled the factual qustion), the transfer of willing homicide from the ephetai to the Areopagus (which he dated after Solon but before 508), the development of exile from a normal consequence of atimia into a formal penalty which could be imposed, the introduction of a graphe traumatos, and the introduction of endeixis to accompany an apagoge which he saw as losing its original character of self-help (Gesetzeswerk, 20–4, with his Untersuchungen and articles reprinted in his Kleine Schriften).

However, much of that depends on assumptions about what ought to have happened rather than evidence of what did happen, and has been answered strongly by Hansen, Apagoge, Endeixis and Ephegesis, 113–8. It is credible that, as institutions were strengthened and developed, rights of self-help and the atimia of offenders were replaced by punishments fixed by law or assessed by a court and inflicted by the authorities; but fr. 16 suggests that even in the time of Draco execution by the authorities was a possible alternative to killing by an aggrieved citizen, while self-help still persisted in some circumstances in the fourth century (as in some of the sub-categories of lawful homicide, frs. 19–21/1). On our interpretation of fr. 5a Draco already prescribed different procedures, and possibly different outcomes, for willing and unwilling homicide.

After Draco willing homicide was transferred to the Areopagus, and where one change is certain other changes are possible: for instance, the killing of metics (fr. 5/e) cannot have been added to the list of cases tried at the Palladium until a distinct category of metics was created (perhaps not until the mid fifth century: J. Watson, ‘The Origin of Metic Status at Athens’, CCJ lvi 2010, 259–78), and some of the sub-categories of lawful homicide may be later additions. However, we agree with Hansen that there is no justification for postulating as many and as great changes as were postulated by Ruschenbusch. We have accordingly added to Ruschenbusch’s list of fragments 4/1a–b (willing homicide), 5/e (Ath. Pol. on trials at the Palladium), 16b (endeixis), 21/1 (Ath. Pol. on trials at the Delphinium) and 21/2a–b (trials at Phreatto).

Fr. 2: Plut. Sol. 19. iii

οἱ μὲν οὖν πλεῖστοι τήν ἐξ Ἀρείου πάγου βουλὴν, ὥσπερ εἴρηται, Σόλωνα συστήσασθαί φασι, καὶ μαρτυρεῖν αὐτοῖς δοκεῖ μάλιστα τὸ μηδαμοῦ τὸν Δράκοντα λέγειν μηδ’ ὀνομάζειν Ἀρεοπαγίτας, ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἐφέταις ἀεὶ διαλέγεσθαι περὶ τῶν φονικῶν.

Most people say that it was Solon who instituted the council of the Areopagus, as I have stated (19. i), and it seems particularly to be evidence in support of this that Draco never mentions the Areopagites by name, but always in matters of homicide refers to the ephetai.

Plutarch goes on to cite Solon’s amnesty law (fr. 22/1), which does mention the Areopagus by name, and he suggests that perhaps Solon was referring to cases which would have been tried by the Areopagus under his own laws, but leaves the problem unsolved. The best solution is that the Areopagus did exist before Solon, but was then concerned with major offences against the state, not with homicide (see on fr. 22/1).

Fr. 3: Phot. α 1753 Theodoridis

ΑΝΔΡΑΦΟΝΩΝ· οὕτως Σόλων ἐν τοῖς ἄξοσιν <ἀντὶ> τῶν ἀνδροφόνων ἀεί φησιν.

Perhaps ΑΝΔΡΟΚΟΝΟΙ, cf. Hesych. α 4753 Latte et al. ἀνδροκόνοι, Theodoridis. <ἀντὶ> Reizenstein.

ANDRAPHONON [‘killers’]: This form is always used in the axones by Solon rather than androphonon.

Ruschenbusch assumed this to be derived from a work on the axones, and remarks that the form androphonos is used in frs. 16–18 but that the form with alpha must have been used several times in the axones to have prompted this comment. He does not consider what we believe to be a possiblity, that the documents inserted in Dem. XXIII. Aristocrates have not preserved Solon’s spelling.

Fr. 4a: Diog. Laert. I. 59

ἐρωτηθεὶς διὰ τί κατὰ πατροκτόνου νόμον οὐκ ἔθηκε, διὰ τὸ ἀπελπίσαι ἔφη.

On being asked why he had not enacted a law against patricide, [Solon] replied, because he had not expected [sc. the deed to occur].

Fr. 4b: Cic. Rosc. Am. 70

Eius porro civitatis sapientissimum Solonem dicunt fuisse, eum qui leges quibus hodie quoque utuntur scripserit. Is, cum interrogaretur cur nullum supplicium constituisset in eum qui parentem necasset, respondit se id neminem facturum putasse.

They say that the wisest man in that state [sc. Athens] was Solon, who wrote the laws which they still use today. When he was asked why he had not fixed any punishment for one who kil...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• Guide for the user
• Introduction
• Fragments: Private wrongs
• Offences against the community
• Procedure
• Family law
• Unidentifiable content (fr. 59)
• Neighbours
• Economic matters
• Sumptuary laws
• Constitution, institutions
• Religion
• Entrenchment of the laws (fr. 93)
• Unusable, doubtful, spurious
• Bibliography