IV BRIESS, E. E., Zu Waddington, Inscr. grecques et latines de la Syrie, GARSTANG, J., Researches in Syria and Ethiopia Seite 259 387-389 500-503 499 258-259 . . 121-125 STEIN, E., Zum Gebrauch des prokonsularischen Titels seitens der römischen Kaiser. 392-396 126-128 125; 259-260; 503 260 504-512 1 The Source of the Solonian chapters of the Athenaion Politeia1). By F. E. Adcock. Whatever may be the truth about the origin and value of the 'Draconian constitution', it is quite certain that it is strangely placed in the narrative of the Ath. Pol. And the same may be said of the review of early Attic history which occupies the whole of Ch. III. Whereas, if these two chapters are for the moment omitted, we have a continuous historical narrative running on to the end of Ch. XII, concerned with the work of Solon and its immediate causes and consequences. It is this series Ch. I, II, V-XII, with which we are particularly concerned. When we turn to Plutarch's Life of Solon we find there also a series of chapters which cover very much the same ground, viz. cc. XII-XIX2), and XXV. The chapters between XIX and XXV are concerned with the private law for which Solon was responsible, and on this point the Ath. Pol. is, naturally enough, silent. We have then two series of passages covering the same ground. When they are placed side by side, and a comparison is instituted. it becomes clear that there are likenesses between them which call for examination, and, if possible, explanation. I propose then, first, to tabulate the results of a comparison between the two authors, so that it may be seen how far and where the likenesses exist. Those parts of the Ath. Pol. which find no corresponding passage in Plutarch I have placed in square brackets. Ath. Pol. Plut. Life of Solon. Killing of Cylonian conspirators c. XII. p. 164. 1. 30--165. l. 5. by οἱ περὶ Μεγακλέα (Heracl. Epit. 4). I. Trial of Alcmaeonids ibid. p. 165. 1. 11-18. Coming of Epimenides of Crete. ibid. p. 165. 1. 24f. 1) This article is in the main an enlargement and elaboration of a paper read in Berlin at the seminar of Prof. Lehmann - Haupt to whom I am indebted for much kind criticism. 2) To which may be added c. XX. p. 174. ll. 20-29. References to pages and lines in Plutarch are to the stereotyped Teubner edition by Sintenis. Klio, Beiträge zur alten Geschichte XII 1. 1 Ath. Pol. II. Economic troubles1). [ex. § 3. Χαλεπώτατον κ.τ.λ.] V. Solon chosen to compose the troubles of the States. He lays the blame mainly on the rich. [ex. emphasis on his μεσότης]2). Plut. Life of Solon. c. XIII. p. 166. 1. 19-20, 27-p. 167. 1. 10. c. XIV. p. 167. I. 11-17. 1. 21-26. VI. Solon forbids tò dareise iлì XV. p. 169. 1. 22-p. 170. l. 14. Tois Góμaoi. Seisachtheia. Story of friends. [exc. § 3. refutation of the scandal by appeal to Solon's character and work.] ibid. p. 170. 15 ff. VII. New laws exc. Draconian laws XVII. p. 171. l. 31, f. VIII. [exc. § 1. ×2400015 2. Pre-Solonian power of the Areopagus to appoint the magistrates. § 3. Maintenance of tribes and naucraries.] §4. Establishment of Bov2). c. XIX. p. 173. 1. 21 ff. Areopagus appointed to pro- ibid. tect the laws and punish treason. [exc. ὥσπερ ὑπῆρχε και πρότερον ἐπίσκοπος οὖσα τῆς πολιτείας . . .]. 1) As regards the question of the tuogo Aristotle seems to me to say the same as Plutarch. Whether he is right is another matter. 2) See below p. 4 and 6. § XI. § 1. Motives for Solon's journey. XXV. p. 181. 1. 10-24. These then seem to be the likenesses which exist between the two books. The next step is to consider what relation these have to the inner structure of the Ath. Pol. The Ath. Pol. begins with an objective narrative which continues unbroken until c. II. § 3. We then have the section which is clearly a corrective of what has preceded. What the masses felt most bitterly was their slave-like position. But they were also discontented by their lack of any share in the government. This reads like a comment of Aristotle's own, and is consistent with his view of the nature of Solon's work. The beginning of Chapter V follows on after Chapter II and is quite straightforward at first. But with § 3 comes a difficulty. An elegy is cited ἐν ᾗ πρὸς ἑκατέρους ὑπὲρ ἑκατέρων μάχεται. Solon is then described as ὁ μέσος πολίτης, and a poem is quoted in which he bids the rich to be less covetous. And at this point the text continues: καὶ ὅλως ἀεὶ τὴν 1) Both in Aristotle and Plutarch we find this law immediately following the reference to the Areopagus. There is here no stringent logical necessity for this order, and its occurrence in both authors is highly significant. 1* αἰτίαν τῆς στάσεως ἀνάπτει τοῖς πλουσίοις. This is rather a different standpoint from that of § 2, where Solon is impartial, fighting for each against each. At the end of the chapter we have the quotation which points to the injustices of the rich, but there is no corresponding reference to the unjust longings of the poor. What we seem to have is an account written from a democratic standpoint, worked over by Aristotle, whose view of Solon is that he was ὁ μέσος πολίτης and that he stood rather as arbiter than as champion of the poor. And this point of view is reflected in § 2 vì лo̟òẹ ἑκατέρους κ.τ.λ. . . . In Chapter VI. we have the account of the Seisachtheia, and a reference to the story of Solon's friends. Then in § 3 appears what is clearly Aristotle's own verdict on the matter, and his refutation of it by an appeal to Solon's character and actions. There we have Aristotle's view of Solon, as emphatically the man whose moderation was proof against the appeals of covetousness or ambition. In Chapter VII § 1, 2 come the legislation and the oath of the archons. This is clear enough. But with § 3 comes a difficulty. Aristotle says . . . τιμήματι διείλει εἰς τέτταρα τέλη, καθάπερ διῄρητο καὶ πρότερον, εἰς πεντακοσιομέδιμνον κ.τ.λ. That the clause καθάπερ κ.τ.λ. is highly surprising has been already seen by scholars1). There seems little doubt that it makes something very like nonsense of the preceding words. That the words are a kind of correction of the sentence as a whole is clear enough. The narrative as a whole takes no account of them. The Tuata are defined and discussed in the following section just as though they were a new ordinance of Solon's. What we have then is a narrative implying that Solon was the founder of the four property classes, and, in the middle of this, a single clause correcting the whole account. We then have the definition of the classes, including what is clearly a parenthesis by the author himself on the alleged connection between the iллɛis and iллoτoogia. And finally at the end of the chapter comes the rather sardonic comment: diò zaì rẽr ἐπειδὰν ἔρηται τὸν μέλλοντα κ.τ.λ. The chapter then seems to consist of a continuous narrative with three parentheses. Chapter VIII begins with the statement that Solon introduced zooo612 for the archonship, while before Solon the Areopagus appointed the archons. Then come references to those parts of the social framework which remained unaltered. With § 4 we have the statement that he founded the Council: τήν τε τῶν Ἀρεοπαγιτῶν ἔταξεν ἐπὶ τὸ νομοφυλακεῖν, 1) E. g. O. Seeck in Klio IV p. 270 ff. Against the theory that this clause is a mechanical interpolation may be urged the fact that if the clause is removed a strong hiatus remains tŋ... eis, and that in a passage showing distinct rhythmical composition. |