Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T05:50:51.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lawgivers and Tyrants (Solon, Frr. 9–11 West)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

T. E. Rihll
T. E. Rihll
Affiliation:
University College, Swansea
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Solon's fragments 9–11 (West) are preserved in three late authors: frr. 9 and 11 by Diodoros Sikelos (fl. 60–30 B.C.), 9.20.2, Plutarch (fl. A.D. 46–127), Solon 3.6 and 30.3 respectively, and Diogenes Laertios (fl. early third century A.D.), 1.50 and 1.51 respectively; and fr. 10 by Diogenes Laertios alone, 1.49. They are all quoted in the context of Solon's reaction to Peisistratos. Stories on this theme were circulating by the time of the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (AP), and Rhodes' scepticism about them is well founded. Its author did not garnish (Rhodes' very apt term) his version of events with these poems, nor indeed with any Solonian utterance, and he explicitly states that myth-making on this subject had already resulted in two stories about Solon and Peisistratos which were chronologically impossible (17.2).

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , December 1989 , pp. 277 - 286
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Rhodes, P. J., A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (Oxford, 1981), p. 202Google Scholar. See also Andrewes, A., ‘The Growth of the Athenian State’, CAH 2, (iii) (Cambridge, 1982), p. 390Google Scholar.

2 Namely, that they were lovers, and that Peisistratos was strategos in the war for Salamis. Modern calculations, based on modern hypotheses, render both chronologically possible; Davies, J. K., Athenian Propertied Families 600–300 B.C. (Oxford, 1971), p. 445Google Scholar. But this modern chronology is obtained at the expense of methodological rigour. For example, Herodotos 1.59.4 says that Peisistratos was strategos in the war against Megara during which Nisaia was captured. He does not mention Solon in this context. AP 17.2 is an explicit denial on chronological grounds that he was strategos in the war against Megara for Salamis. AP 14.1 is just a statement that Peisistratos distinguished himself in the war against Megara. AP does not, therefore, support Herodotos. Since the author of AP had thought about the chronology of these stories, whereas there is nothing to suggest that Herodotos had, the former ought to be given the benefit of the doubt.

3 Jacoby, F., Atthis: the Local Chronicles of Ancient Athens (Oxford, 1949), p. 365 n. 70Google Scholar; Rhodes, , op. cit. (n. 1), 121f., 169f., 194–7, 199–202Google Scholar.

4 Namely, a meeting with Kroisos (Hdt. 1.29–33), who acceded to the throne of Lydia c. 560; Amasis of Egypt (Hdt. 1.30.1, 2.177.2), whose reign began c. 570/69; and Philokypros of Soli (Hdt. 5.113.2), whose son was alive in 497.

5 op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 121f.

6 Tyrant: Peisistratos, who was in any case aged 40–45 at his first attempt, and 55–60 when finally successful. Non-Greek royalty: a Persian, Cyrus, given a superior military command at 16, and a Macedonian, Alexander, made regent in Philip's absence at 16. All cited by Rhodes, , op. cit. (n. 1), 121fGoogle Scholar. to support the suggestion. The age of arkhons and areopagites is (necessarily) discussed more abstractly by Forrest, W. G. and Stockton, D. L., ‘The Athenian Archons: a Note’, Historia 36 (1987), 235–40, at 235–7Google Scholar, and Cawkwell, G. L., ‘ΝΟΜΟΦΥΛΑΚΙΑ and the Areopagus’, JHS 113 (1988), 1–12, at 4–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who argue for the age and proven ability (rather than the youth and promise) of arkhons and areopagites. Since both also correctly make allowance for an exceptional young man to precede faster than was common, and Solon was exceptional, these arguments do not bear strongly on our problem.

7 See Rhodes, , op. cit. (n. 1), p. 197Google Scholar.

8 As Rhodes, , op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 191–9Google Scholar.

9 As Andrewes, , art. cit. (n. 1), 399Google Scholar.

10 See Linforth's, I. M. commentary, Solon the Athenian, University of California Publications in Classical Philology 6 (Berkeley, 1919), p. 207 for the variantGoogle Scholar. See further point 2 and nn. 12 and 13 below.

11 We know so little of the method of appointment of arkhons at the time that the significance of Thukydides' caveat (constitutional except that the Peisistratids ensured that one of their supporters held the arkhonship) is unknown; see Cawkwell's, remarks, art. cit. (n. 6), 4fGoogle Scholar. On Herodotos' treatment of Peisistratos see Waters, K. H., Herodotos on Tyrants and Despots, Historia Einzelschriften 15 (Wiesbaden, 1971), pp. 20–3Google Scholar. On the other hand, since Peisistratos needed three separate attempts over about fifteen years to make his position secure, it is obvious that his tyranny was not popular with the effective majority of the Athenians (that is, with the majority of people who could act effectively to retain or expel him) until c. 546.

12 A not insignificant technical problem is that the tradition remembered the bodyguard as, unusually, being composed of ‘club-bearers’ (κορυνηφ⋯ροι), e.g. Hdt. 1.59.5, AP 14.1, whereas ῥ⋯ματα principally signifies arrows or spears.

13 op. cit. (n. 10), 207. ῥ⋯ματα is the reading followed by most editors, including West. To Linforth's arguments for ῥ⋯ματα and against ῥ⋯ματα (concerning the plurals το⋯τουσ), we may add that it is only the Peisistratean context which can, and then with difficulty, provide a semblance of sense for the latter; it has to be understood as his bodyguard.

14 The traditional ideology of helping friends and harming enemies is attested by Solon himself, if he is the author of fr. 13.5–6 West.

15 See Tuplin, O., ‘Imperial Tyranny: some Reflections on a Classical Greek Political Metaphor’, in Crux: Essays presented to G.E.M. de Ste Croix, edd. Cartledge, P. and Harvey, F. D. (Exeter, 1985), 348–75, esp. p. 366Google Scholar. Nor is there reference to the use of force if ῥ⋯σισ is the correct reading. Contrast this with frr. 32.2 and 34.7–8, where Solon confirms that the association of tyranny with force was made in his own time.

16 See also the interesting discussion of demagogy (expanding AP's comment that Solon was the first προστ⋯τησ το⋯ δ⋯μου, 2.2; 28.2) by David, E. in his flawed (and to my mind wholly unconvincing) paper, ‘Solon's Electoral Propaganda’, Rivista Storica dell'Antichita 15 (1985), 7–22, especially pp. 13fGoogle Scholar.

17 Noticed also by Lloyd, A. B., Herodotus Book II, vol. 1. Introduction (Leiden, 1975), p. 57 and n. 233Google Scholar. Moreover, as Lloyd points out, reference to a place does not constitute evidence that the author actually went there.

18 History of the Athenian Constitution (Oxford, 1952), p. 320Google Scholar.

19 ‘Legends of the Greek Lawgivers’, GRBS 19 (1978), 199–209Google Scholar.

20 Any post-legislation travelling which is done normally leads to the story of their death.

21 Trading: Plutarch, , Solon 2.1Google Scholar. Thales: according to the otherwise unknown Pataikos, via Hermippos (of Smyrna, third century B.C., with a reputation for deliberately falsifying history), via Plutarch, , Solon 6Google Scholar. The same vagueness about trading is apparent in AP 11.1, where it is attributed, however, to his post-legislation travels.

22 Anakharsis: Plutarch, , Solon 5Google Scholar; Diog. Laert. 1.101 (via Hermippos again). Sage symposia: Plutarch, , Solon 4Google Scholar.

23 See Lloyd, , op. cit. (n. 17), pp. 55–7Google Scholar; ‘Herodotus’ tradition on the travels of Solon after 594 is highly suspect', p. 55; also pp. 52–5 on stories about Thales' travels, pp. 57f. on Pythagoras', and p. 50 on Lykourgos'. Also Waters, , op. cit. (n. 11), p. 89Google Scholar on the meeting with Kroisos. For an assessment of the intellectual relationship between the historical Solon (as revealed in his poems) and the Solon portrayed by Herodotos, see Chiasson, C. C., ‘The Herodotean Solon’, GRBS 27 (1986), 249–62Google Scholar. For a more general but more profound criticism of Herodotos as ‘historian’ (in our sense of the word) see Woodman, A. J., Rhetoric in Classical Historiography (London, 1988), pp. 1–5, esp. 3f. and n. 27Google Scholar.

24 Cornford, F. M., Thucydides Mythistoricus (London, 1907), pp. 130—2Google Scholar; Szegedy-Maszak, art. cit. (n. 19). See also Finley, M. I., ‘Myth, Memory and History’, in The Use and Abuse of History (London, 1986), 11–33, esp. pp. 15, 18, 23–6, 28–31Google Scholar. So, for example, in Diog. Laert. (1.51) the foundation of Soli story is transferred from Kypros to Kilikia. Note that this immediately precedes the brief introduction to fr. 11, and is followed by a letter from Peisistratos to Solon!

25 e.g. Fränkel, H., Early Greek Poetry and Philosophy, tr. Hadas, M. and Willis, J. (Oxford, 1975), p. 229 n. 22Google Scholar; Ferrara, G., La Politico di Solone (Naples, 1964), p. 141Google Scholar. Fr. 10 is apparently in contradiction with AP 14.2, where it is said that Solon opposed Peisistratos ‘claiming that he (Solon) was wiser than some and braver than others’, although these opposites can be reconciled with a minimum of interpretative fuss.

26 Solone (Florence, 1958), p. 243Google Scholar.

27 Stroud, R. S., Drakon's Law on Homicide, California Publications in Classical Studies 3 (Berkeley, 1968)Google Scholar; Gagarin, M., Dracon and Early Athenian Homicide Law (New Haven, 1981)Google Scholar.

28 34 years between Solon's arkhonship and Peisistratos' first coup, 27 years between it and Drakon's office.

29 Hammond, N. G. L., ‘The Seisachtheia and the Nomothesia of Solon’, JHS 60 (1940), 72–83, at 82CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 For example, ‘[Pittakos] was scarcely more a tyrant in the later accepted sense of the word than was Solon in Athens, who held similar power for the year of his arkhonship’, White, M., ‘Greek Tyranny’, Phoenix 9 (1955), 1–18, at 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The Greeks themselves distinguished between different types of monarchical position more carefully than we do through terms such as, in White's example, aisumnetes and diallaktes (I wish to thank the referee for drawing my attention to this point). Andrewes', A. description of a tyrant as ‘a man who obtained sole power in the state and held it in defiance of any constitution that had existed previously’ (Greek Tyranny [1956], p. 7)Google Scholar is even more true of a lawgiver. See also Waters, , op. cit. (n. 11), pp. 6, 11Google Scholar.

31 See Nagy, G., ‘Theognis and Megara’, in Theognis of Megara: Poetry and the Polis, edd. Figueira, T. J. and Nagy, G. (Baltimore and London, 1985), pp. 33f., 41, 51Google Scholar.

32 See Nagy (last note) 42f. on the similar generalised situation envisaged in Theognidea vv. 39–52. Note also Nagy's, observation that ‘the description of the emerging tyrant [the term actually used is μο⋯ναρχοι] is expressed in words that would be appropriate for describing the Athenian lawgiver Solon’, p. 43Google Scholar. The distinction between tyrant and lawgiver has vanished here, rightly so: ‘monarch’ is an admirable description of either.

33 Excepting the death by smothering story in Suda s.v. Drakon.

34 Philo, , de opificio mundi, 104Google Scholar; Clement of Alexandria, , Stromateis 6.144.3Google Scholar; and Anatolius, περ⋯ δεκ⋯δοσ, p. 37 Heiberg, all in West, M. L.Iambi et Elegi Graeci, II (Oxford, 1972), pp. 135–7Google Scholar.

35 Apostolius 14.94.

36 Most scholars assume it to be so, though there is, as usual, a minority opinion: West believes that the first and last lines are missing, but see Adkins, A. W. H., Poetic Craft in the Early Greek Elegists (London, 1985), pp. 128, 131fGoogle Scholar.

37 See Rhodes, , op. cit. (n. 1), p. 498 for detailsGoogle Scholar.

38 Hansen, M. H., The Athenian Assembly (Oxford, 1987), p. 91 and n. 581Google Scholar.

39 Whether or not he was legislator during his arkhonship is irrelevant; the double age group has an error margin of ± 7 years, which is adequate for any such gap between his arkhonship and his extraordinary office.

40 Szegedy-Maszak, , art. cit. (n. 19), 207Google Scholar.

41 See Rhodes, , op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 111f.Google Scholar; Sinclair, R. K., Democracy and Participation in Athens (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 68, 83fCrossRefGoogle Scholar. Plutarch, says (Lyk. 13.3)Google Scholar that Lykourgos prohibited written laws so that they could be changed as circumstances changed. Irrespective of whether the reasoning was contemporary or later (probably later), the laws were unwritten, and Spartan conservatism was nevertheless legendary.

42 See Rhodes, , op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 110f.Google Scholar; Gagarin, M., op. cit. (n. 27), pp. 73, 116–21Google Scholar; id.Early Greek Law (London, 1986), p. 66 and n. 64; Andrewes, A., art. cit. (n. 1), 371Google Scholar.

43 On the social construction of discourse, and the variability of access to valid participation, see Foucault, M., The Archaeology of Knowledge, tr. Smith, A. M. Sheridan (London, 1974), chapters 3 and 6, esp. p. 68Google Scholar.

44 This obvious inference from the Athenians' appointment of a second lawgiver so soon after the first and their consignment of the first and his laws to near oblivion is noticed also by Andrewes, , art. cit. (n. 1), 371Google Scholar.

45 In the context of law the plural ‘men’ is not a problem; it obviously refers to those who administered and executed the law. Similarly, as μον⋯ρχου was appropriate for Drakon in fr. 9.3, so in fr. 36.14 δεσποτ⋯ων is appropriate for the post-Drakon law officers.

46 AP says that he forbade the giving of security on the person (6.1). ῥ⋯σια can mean more specifically ‘hostages’. This is not the place to enter on a detailed discussion of Solon's reforms and the crisis which necessitated them. See T. E. Rihll, ‘EKTHMOPOI: Partners in crime?’ (to appear).

47 My thanks to Steve Hodkinson, D. M. Lewis, Anthony Snodgrass, the Editors and the anonymous referee for their helpful comments, criticisms and corrections; any errors of fact or interpretation which remain are my own.