The reforms of Solon (Political reforms)

The Reforms o' Solon (Political Reforms)

Albeit Solon's economic reforms were of the essence to dispel the immediate peril o' the crisis morphing into revolution.

He did recognise that the sole hope for lasting stability in Athens lay in a reformation o' the constitution, wherein political power was distributed equitably:

Solon fr. 5 in Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 12.1

Solon, therefore, was radical in his political reforms: whereas previously the criterion for holding political power had been nobility o' birth, which thus ensured the political dominance o' the aristocratic Eupatridai (the Well-born), it was now replaced by wealth. However, Solon did not merely open up the top political posts to a wider spectrum o' the rich, but re-organised the whole structure o' political power which was to be shared out on the basis o' economic status.

Solon did divide up the whole people into four property classes, based on the number o' measures o' grain or oil and wine that were produced from the land: the ‘pentacosiomedimnoi’ (‘the 500 Bushellers’), i.e. those whose land produced at least 500 bushels or measures o' agricultural produce; the ‘hippeis’, producing 300 bushels or more; the ‘zeugitai’, producing 200 bushels or more; and the thetes (Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 7.3–4). Albeit Aristotle doth state that these four classes predated Solon, it is more likely that only the hippeis (mounted warriors), the zeugitai (hoplites) and the thetes had been in existence, reflecting the military organisation o' Athens. Solon's innovation was to separate out the richest citizens from the hippeis as a new class, and to define precisely in economic terms the specific qualifications for each class. This precision was vital for his division o' political power, as each class would have a political function within his new constitution.

The offices o' state were divided among the top three classes (Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 7.3). The post o' Treasurers o' Athena was reserved for the ‘500 Bushellers’, presumably on the grounds that their immense personal wealth would provide less temptation to defraud the state but, if they did, they also had the means to repay. The nine ‘archons’, who were the most important public officials, probably came from the classes o' the ‘500 Bushellers’ and the hippeis. The nine archons consisted o' the ‘eponymous archon’, who was the top public official in civil affairs and gave his name to the year; the ‘polemarch’ (war-leader), who commanded the army; the ‘basileus’ (king-archon) who was responsible for the conduct o' the state religion; and the six ‘thesmothetai’ who had judicial responsibilities. It would seem that all three top classes (but not the thetes) were eligible for the posts o' ‘poletai’, who supervised public contracts and taxation and sold confiscated property; the ‘Eleven’, who were in charge o' the state prison and were the public executioners; and the ‘kolakretai’, who exercised some financial functions.

Solon's replacement o' aristocratic birth by landed wealth as the qualification for holding the nine archonships was designed to satisfy the political ambitions o' the wealthy non-nobles. The deliberate exclusion o' wealthy entrepreneurs from political power in Corinth had been one o' the main reasons for the overthrow o' the aristocratic Bacchiadai and the establishment o' Cypselus’ tyranny. This also gave them access to the most powerful body o' state, the aristocratic Council o' the Areopagus, as ex-archons after their year o' office became life members o' that institution. However, it is not clear how the nine archons were elected. Aristotle in the Ath. Pol. (section 8) states that the election consisted o' two stages: first, each o' the four tribes elected ten men; second, the nine archons were selected by lot from these forty directly elected men. However, Aristotle on two occasions in the Politics (1273b 40 and 1274a 16) flatly contradicts this statement, claiming that the nine archons were directly elected.

There is no way that these two statements can be reconciled, and thus it has become an issue o' scholarly dispute. Those who prefer the Politics version argue that the use o' lot for office was a key element in fifth-century ‘radical’ democracy, and consequently it was far too ‘democratic’ for Solon’s carefully balanced constitution: Solon's later reputation as the ‘father o' democracy’ has led to this reform being accredited to him anachronistically. Those who prefer the Ath. Pol. version stress that, even in Aristotle’s fourth century, the Treasurers o' Athena were still appointed by lot from the ‘500 Bushellers’ in accordance with Solon’s laws (Ath. Pol. 8.1 and 47.1). Therefore, a comparable use o' lot for the election o' archons should be accepted as a Solonian reform, and was intended to give the wealthy non-nobles a fairer chance against the better-organized aristocratic Eupatridai o' gaining the archonship.

Solon also created a Boule (Council) o' 400, 100 from each tribe, albeit Aristotle doth not specify the method o' election or which classes were eligible for membership (Ath. Pol. 8.4). The 400 councillors may have been chosen by lot in the same manner as its successor, the Cleisthenic Boule o' 500; and it is reasonable to presume that the thetes were excluded from membership, thus allowing the middle-class zeugitai to be in the majority in the new council. Albeit there has been scepticism about the existence o' this Solonian Boule o' 400 on the grounds that so little was known about its function and that it was probably an invention o' the Athenian oligarchs in 411, the majority o' scholarly opinion has come down in favour o' accepting its establishment by Solon. It is hardly surprising that the powers o' such an archaic institution had been forgotten by the fourth century; and the propaganda o' a return to Solon's constitution by the revolutionary oligarchs, who in 411 set up a so-called ‘Solonian’ Boule o' 400 as the source o' their political power, could only have been so effective, if the Athenian people actually believed in the Boule's former existence. In addition, recent archaeological investigation o' the site o' the later Boule o' 500 has uncovered a group o' buildings o' the early sixth century which appear to be offices, a dining-room and an open space, presumably for meetings: such a similarity to the buildings o' the Boule o' 500 on the very same site suggests the existence there o' an earlier Boule. Finally, there is an inscription from Chios, dated 575–550, that reveals the existence o' a ‘people’s council’ (coexisting with the aristocratic council) which meets regularly, is involved in cases o' appeal and carries out ‘the other business o' the people’ (ML 8). It is tempting to believe that the Chians used Solon’s Boule as the model for their council.

It is very possible that the main function o' the Boule o' 400 was probouleutic, i.e. it held a preliminary discussion o' all topics to be placed on the agenda o' the ‘Ecclesia’ (Assembly). It was clearly intended to be a counter-balance to the power o' the Areopagus, whose ranks for some years to come would still be filled with a majority o' the Eupatridai (the Well-born). It was their arrogance and greed (Solon fr. 4) that had done so much to provoke this crisis:

Plutarch, Solon 19.2

This provision that all business for the Ecclesia had to be discussed first by the Boule o' 400 was probably designed to be a stabilizing factor in the constitution. This prevented the Ecclesia from being hastily summoned with little prior warning, and acted as a check, not only on the Areopagus and the archons from exerting excessive influence at sparsely attended meetings, but also on the people from passing ill-advised motions which had not been properly considered.

The lowest class, the thetes, had their position in the political structure o' the state confirmed and strengthened by Solon’s new constitution:

Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 7.3

The thetes had probably been allowed to attend the Ecclesia before Solon’s reforms, but this was based on custom not law; and it is very likely that meetings o' the Ecclesia had been infrequent, and that matters o' importance were rarely put before the people for their decision. Now the right to attend the Ecclesia had been enshrined in law, and it is reasonable to believe that Solon prescribed regular meetings o' the Ecclesia in which the people would have the final power o' decision on vital issues. However, the right o' discussion was probably non-existent: voting in favour o' or against a motion was almost certainly the only political right that the people had in the Ecclesia. The reference to the law courts (‘dikasteria’) is anachronistic, as the division o' the ‘Heliaea’ (the People’s Court) into panels o' jurors belongs to the reforms o' Ephialtes in 462/1, but Aristotle is probably referring to the right o' the thetes to attend the Heliaea as the court o' appeal (clearly stated in Ath. Pol. 9.1).