Ath. Pol.

II. Economic troubles 1).

[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]).

Plut. Life of Solon.

c. XIII. p. 166. 1. 19-20,

27-p. 167. 1. 10. c. XIV. p. 167. I. 11–17. I. 21–26.

VI. Solon forbids tò daveizer ¿лì XV. p. 169. 1. 22—p. 170. l. 14.

VII. New laws exc. Draconian laws XVII. p. 171. l. 31, f.

§4. Establishment of Bor2. c. XIX. p. 173. l. 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 thuogo Aristotle seems to me to say the same as Plutarch. Whether he is right is another matter.

2) See below p. 4 and 6.

Ath. Pol.

Plut. Life of Solon.

§ 5. Law against political 1) c. XX. p. 174. 1. 20 ff.

indifference.

Ch. IX. Democratic points of the new XVIII. p. 172. 1. 22-27.

§ XI. § 1. Motives for Solon's journey. XXV. p. 181. l. 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 ο 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 Ο μέσος πολίτης and that he stood rather as arbiter than as champion of the poor. And this point of view is reflected in § 2 ✈ лọòc

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 διεῖλεν εἰς τέτταρα τέλη, καθάπερ διῄρητο καὶ πρότερον, εἰς πεντακοσιομέδιμνον κ.τ.λ. That the clause zadáñɛg z.t.2. 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 Tuiuata 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 irrɛis and irroтoogia. 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 zowõt: 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 . . . ɛis, and that in a passage showing distinct rhythmical composition.

...

ὥσπερ ὑπῆρχε καὶ πρότερον ἐπίσκοπος οὖσα τῆς πολιτείας κ.τ.λ. There again we have a surprising correction of the narrative as a whole in the form of a parenthesis, closely resembling the correction in the previous chapter. The chapter ends with the account of the law against political indifference. The ninth chapter contains the enumeration of those points of the Solonian constitution which were regarded as democratie. Aristotle says the first and most important was τὸ μὴ δανείζειν ἐπὶ τοῖς σώμασι. Then follow the well-known points about the law courts. Is is clear that the general opinion laid most emphasis on this latter point1). The political effect of the power of the dicasteries was obvious to everyone; the political effect of the economic growth of Attica was not so easily seen). Aristotle then mentions the fact that the laws were in some points obscure and so gave scope for the growth of the dicast's prerogatives. But he rejects the theory that Solon planned this, and we have a clear sign of Aristotle himself in the last lines of the chapter 3).

Chapter X has long been recognised to be polemic against Androtion: Aristotle has already set down his own view of the Seisachtheia; he now gives an account of the coinage reform, which, if true, would make Androtion's theory untenable. The position of the chapter suggests that we have here either the result of research by Aristotle later than the writing of Chapter VI or the use of some source also later.

With Chapter XI we pass on to the results of Solon's work. The first section describes Solon's departure as due to his laws in general. Just as the wise Lycurgus leaves Sparta, so the wise Solon leaves Athens, so that his laws may not be altered but obeyed. The second section paints the discontent of the rich who had lost the money they had lent, and the disappointment of the poor who had hoped for a 7 áradaouòs. It then concludes with praise of Solon.

He is above all casting his stout emphasis is laid

Chapter XII is an expansion of this theme, with quotations from Solon's poems to prove its truth. If then we take this whole section (XI § 2 and XII.) it becomes clear that it is a coherent whole mainly concerned with the character of Solon as a statesman. ὁ μέσος πολίτης. He stands between the two parties shield over both'. The part of his work on which the is his economic reforms, the freeing of his fellow citizens from their bondage. His moderation is shown by his refusal to gratify the greed whether of poor or of rich.

1) Cf. Lycurg. in Leocr. §§ 3, 4. τρία γάρ ἐστι τὰ μέγιστα, ἃ διαφυλάττει καὶ διασώσει τὴν δημοκρατίαν . . . πρῶτον μὲν ἡ τῶν νόμων τάξις, δεύτερον δ ̓ ἡ τῶν δικαστών ψῆφος, τρίτον δὲ ἡ τούτοις τἀδικήματα παραδιδούσα κρίσις.

2) Cf. Arist. Polit. VI (IV): c. 6, p. 1293 a.

3) Cf. Sandys note ad loc.

This picture then seems to be Aristotle's own verdict on Solon and his work, and is of the nature of an excursus 1).

We have thus in the Ath. Pol. first a continuous narrative and, second, passages which seem to contain Aristotle's own criticisms and comments which are sometimes at variance with the narrative as a whole. The points where we have these comments seem to be II § 3, VI § 3. VII § 3 τὸ ἱππικὸν τέλος and διὸ καὶ νῦν κ.τ.λ. ΙΧ § 2 οὐ μὴν εἰκὸς . . . Besides this there ore apparent corrections inserted in the narrative. These are in particular VII § 3, VIII § 4. We have also passages where is clearly reflected an idea of Solon as ὁ μέσος πολίτης, the champion of moderation. This we know to have been Aristotle's ideal statesman. But there is also this fact to be considered, that the narrative generally suggests that Solon is the orthodox founder of the democracy, the champion of the poor acting with a set purpose towards popular government. This then suggests that we have Aristotle, using a democratic source, but putting into it his own point of view. Let us now look at the passages where there seem to be inserted corrections.

The general tradition seems to have been that Solon entrusted the Areopagus with political powers which they had not before, and that Solon founded the Tunuara. How is it then that we have these two sudden corrections of the popular view? The answer seems to be that they were found in the 'Draconian' Constitution, which gave to the Areopagus the guardianship of the laws 2) and contained the thuara3). These two corrections then seem to come from Aristotle himself and correct the general narrative.

But these is another point to be considered here. The general tradition of the Fourth Cent. undoubtedly regarded the archons as aigetoi both before and after Solon4). In that case the first two sections of

1) The whole of this section shows resemblances to those earlier clauses where we seem to have Aristotle's own criticism: cf. XI § 2 with. VI, 3 (Keil. Sol. Verf. p. 185) XII § 1 with V § 3. On the uέoos nolitng as Aristotle's ideal statesman see Keil. Sol. Verf. p. 204 ff.

2) Ath. Pol. IV § 4. 3) ibid. § 3.

4) In Arist. Polit. II 12 it seems accepted by Aristotle and by those who either blame or praise Solon that the archons both before and after Solon were αἱρετοί. It is true that ἡ αἵρεσις τῶν ἀρχόντων can be used generally for any form of election (so in c. XXVI. cf. Wilamowitz Ar. u. Athen. I pp. 72-3) but τὰς ἀρχῆς αἱρετάς είναι is much more definite. The argument of the passage in the Politics depends on the belief that the archons were aipɛtoi. Those who blame Solon say λύσαι γὰρ θάτερον κύριον ποιήσαντα τὸ δικαστήριον, κληρωτὸν ὄν. These last two words surely imply that the other two institutions were not governed by κλήρωσις. So too Solon gives the people the right τὰς ἀρχὰς aigɛio9α, which would be a strange way of expressing the fact that they had merely the power of πρόκρισις before κλήρωσις. So too in Pol. III. 11. p. 1281 6.