Appraisal of Solon’s reforms (Political reforms)

Appraisal of Solon’s Reforms (Political Reforms)

Aristotle and Plutarch delineate the exigency in Attica as a class struggle 'twixt the opulent nobles and the common populace, yet there exist cogent grounds for surmising that this perspective doth not adequately expound the principal cause of Solon’s appointment as mediator.

The opulent and puissant land-owners were scarce prone to jeopardise their political dominion and personal wealth merely on account of the poor being discontented. It doth appear more probable that the nobles harboured trepidation lest some potentate should exploit the grievances of their own dependants, induct them into his faction, and employ their armed might to ascend to tyranny, thereby annihilating the nobles’ power, wealth, and privilege. It was this apprehension of tyranny that impelled the nobles to seek succour from Solon and to contemplate a diminution of their power, which was bound to ensue from his reforms. Evidence corroborating this view emanates from Cylon’s endeavour at tyranny circa 630 B.C.E., and the expulsion and execration of the aristocratic lineage of the Alcmaeonids in the aftermath, which doth reflect the veritable nature of political conflict in Athens at this juncture: rivalries 'twixt competing aristocratic-led factions. For the demarcating lines of the political divisions in Athens were not horizontal, separating rich from poor, but vertical, partitioning puissant families or groups of families, together with their dependants, from other families with their dependants. This is confirmed by the nature of the political struggles subsequent to Solon and by Peisistratus’ attempts to attain tyranny. Thus, a pure class struggle at the time of Solon, ensconced 'twixt factional struggles antecedent and subsequent, doth appear exceedingly improbable.

If this political conflict among the factions constituted the major predicament that Solon was appointed to resolve, he did fail:

Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 13.3

The first cause of dissatisfaction presumably alludes to the Eupatridai (the Well-born) who would have suffered financially from the abolition of payment of one-sixth of produce from the hectemoroi, albeit their ownership of large estates renders Aristotle’s statement concerning poverty an exaggeration. The second cause was the reduction in the political power of the Eupatridai, which unlocked the topmost political posts to affluent non-nobles. Rivalries 'twixt the competing factions constituted the third and most substantial cause of internal disorder in Athens. Subsequent to Solon’s departure from Athens, there was such political conflict that no ‘eponymous archon’ was elected in 590/89 and again in 586/5 B.C.E. Furthermore, a certain Damasias retained this post for two years and two months (582/1; 581/0 and two months of 580/79 B.C.E.), which must be regarded as another attempt to establish a tyranny (Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 13.1–2). The determination, subsequent to the deposition of the Eupatrid Damasias, to apportion the archonships 'twixt five Eupatridai, three ‘agroikoi’ (farmers) and two ‘demiourgoi’ (artisans) probably reflects a concession that was imposed upon the Eupatridai by the politically ambitious non-Eupatrids, and evinces that tension persisted amongst upper-class Athenians.

The extent of Solon’s failure in his political reforms can be discerned in the emergence of and rivalry 'twixt three puissant factions in the second quarter of the sixth century (575–550 B.C.E.): ‘The Men of the Coast’ under the leadership of the Alcmaeonid Megacles; the ‘Men of the Plain’ under Lycurgus; and ‘the Men of the Hills’ (Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 13.4) or ‘Men from beyond the Hills’ under Peisistratus (Herodotus 1.59). This doth demonstrate that the regional power-base of the aristocratic factions, sustained by their dependants, remained untouched by Solon’s measures. It was almost inevitable that political infighting 'twixt these factions would conduce to civil unrest and eventually to tyranny. Solon endeavoured desperately, yet unsuccessfully, to forewarn the Athenians concerning approaching tyranny:

Solon fr. 9 in Diodorus 9.20.2

It was not until the tribal reforms of Cleisthenes in 508 B.C.E. that the regional power of the aristocrats was finally and effectively annihilated, thus bestowing the long-term political stability that Solon so earnestly desired to achieve.