Pass 1 ■ . >•. .■ 
 Book^Sjl._L. 
 
 xO o,. 
 
 .-,•^ ■/:/ 
 
 
 ^^-^ ^c. 
 
 
 v^" 
 
 / 
 
1% , 
 
 
 \ %y:^^.' 
 
 OO' 
 
 v*" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 '% 
 
 %,^^' 
 .S^ %. 
 
 
 
 ^'^^ .-^<^r.^o'-' ,0-^ 
 
 *; ^. I k-"-. ^ o jO^. >■ ^^ 
 
 ^v /'^..^^^^r^:^ 
 
 
 \'<W^S ^^ 
 
 
 1 ' X V*' 
 
 
 •n?- 
 
 
 -^. ,,^ 
 
 
 
 
 ,A 
 
 
 c 
 
 -0 
 
 -x\^ 
 
 ^.-"o. 
 
 ^^^^1^''. '-^ 
 
 \^ ^. 
 
 o. » 
 
 
 a5 '^.- 
 
 /. -»•- .\\' .S-. 
 
 ci^^ * 
 
 /^^ 
 
 
 V, ^;^. 
 
 ^^^•^^' ^ 
 
 -^<< 
 
 
 
 
 .0^ 
 
 
 
 <^\ \ N C^ ' -^C 
 
 x- . ^' V ^x. 
 
 
 ,0^ ^ ^ * « A ^^ 
 
 V, -^ 
 
 ^^ .^^ 
 
 ^ '%. - ^ 
 
 
 i^. 
 
 -^-^■\^.-^.'-> 
 
 
 
 /: .v^^'% ^^ 
 
 V-, V 
 
 * oV 
 
 %^<i-. 
 
 
 ^'^^ .>!.:,''. -^^ 
 
 -=,. "rrr^'-' <o 
 
 I ^ / ^..^--z^^ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 ,0o. 
 
 
 
 \- »^ V '-'. > 
 
 ^^*o^:o> / 
 
 
 
 ^y: 
 
 %%'^- 
 
 >'.. .x^^'X '. 
 
 = ^^,^^ 
 
 .^^ %. 
 
 -O- s 
 
 ■ . , fl <^ ^ O * X ■* a'^ 
 
 . <t 
 
 .<.,. 
 
 ^ , -^^ 
 
 
 
 *^'', 
 
 
 /. 
 
 ,^-^ ^<t< 
 
 -^ ,..^ 
 
 
 ;o^' 
 
 .-^^^' »' 
 
 o. 
 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2011 with funding from 
 The Library of Congress 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/solonathenianOOIinf 
 
SEMICENTENNIAL PUBLICATIONS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 1868-1918 
 
[X^-0 - ^'-rii 
 
 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 % 
 
 y 
 
 IVAN M.^ LINFORTH 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS 
 
 BERKELEY 
 
 1919 
 
-7 A 
 
 SEP 
 
 Of B. 
 
 25 iy20 
 
PEEFAOE 
 
 The present work falls into two distinct parts, a biography 
 of Solon and an edition of the fragments of his poems. The 
 biographical essay should not be regarded as an introduction to 
 the text of the poems and the commentary upon them. Since 
 our knowledge of Solon's life is not extensive and since the 
 fragments of his poems are few, it is possible to include within 
 one small book two things which in other cases would offer 
 material for two separate books. This is in one sense a happy 
 circumstance, because the reader can have before him in brief 
 space all that can be brought together about Solon. 
 
 The biographical essay presents the results of a critical study 
 of all the evidence available on the life of Solon. A sceptical 
 attitude has been adopted alike toward ancient legend and 
 modern hypothesis. If the attitude seems oversceptical, this is 
 not much to be regretted ; it is better in such a business to tell 
 nothing but the truth than to risk falsehood through fear of not 
 telling the whole truth. But whatever has been rejected has 
 received due consideration in footnotes or appendices. 
 
 No critical discussion is offered of Solon's code of laws ; in- 
 deed, it is not certain that such a discussion would be really 
 fruitful. None at any rate has yet been made.^ No one has 
 even taken the first step in the investigation and subjected to 
 critical examination all the laws which in ancient times passed 
 as the laws of Solon, with a view to determining just which are 
 authentic and which are not. It may be that so few would be 
 recognized as genuinely Solonian that the next step in the 
 investigation would be impossible. But even if a small body of 
 
 1 Cf. p. 71, footnote 2. 
 
\\' PREFACE 
 
 genuinely Solonian laws were recovered, an estimate of their 
 value and significance would still be extremely difficult because 
 of our ignorance of conditions ])efore and after the establish- 
 ment of the code. It" such a study could be successfully carried 
 tliroiiL;li, it should yield results of great value for the biographer 
 of Solon, l)ut it nnist be left to special students of the history 
 of Athenian law. 
 
 The reader will miss the extended treatment of certain topics 
 which occupy much of the attention of historians in writing of 
 tlie period of Solon. The biography does not pretend to offer 
 a comprehensive discussion of the social and economic conditions 
 of Athens, of the state of Athenian law, or of the forms of 
 A tlienian government. What is knoAvn of the reforms of Solon 
 is tlie most valuable single piece of evidence for this wider 
 study ; there is, indeed, no other direct evidence. It is the task 
 of the general historian and of the student of constitutional and 
 legal antitjuities to use this evidence and, with the help of 
 analogy, cond)ination, and conjecture, to attempt to restore the 
 history of pre-Solonian and Solonian times. We cannot say 
 that we have anything more than a hypothetical understanding 
 of the events and institutions of the period. If our knowledge 
 were fairly sure and complete, the biographer of Solon would 
 have no excuse for neglecting the study of the larger move- 
 ments in wliieli he played a part. A proper biography of a 
 statesman is also a history of his times. In the present instance 
 sueli a proper biography is impossible. Either one must enter 
 on the ])roa(l held of history with scanty evidence and fearless 
 conjecture as his guides ; or he must confine himself to the 
 career of Solon and hold fast to sound evidence. 
 
 ill the airangenient of the poetical fragments editors l^ive 
 usually aimed to observe the chronologieal order of composi- 
 tion. I>ut no two have adopted the same arrangement, because 
 it is i!n])ossible to determine the true chronological order. I 
 have tlierefori' not attempted an arrangement of this sort, pre- 
 
PREFACE V 
 
 ferring not to leave the reader with an impression of certainty 
 about a thing which is only a matter of opinion. On the other 
 hand, it is very important that the fragments should be read 
 with the context of the passages in which they are quoted ; the 
 recognition of this principle leads naturally to an arrangement 
 according to the chronological order of the quoting authors, 
 which is the one adopted. 
 
 The text of the fragments has been independently constructed 
 on the basis of the text and critical apparatus of the editions 
 from which the citations are made.^ The statement of manu- 
 script variants which is given in these editions is accepted as 
 authoritative,^ and the same abbreviations and symbols are em- 
 ployed. There are recorded in the textual notes : (1) all 
 cases in which the reading adopted differs from the reading of 
 the edition from which the citation is made ; (2) all cases in 
 which the reading adopted, though it is the same as that of the 
 accepted edition, is nevertheless not supported by any good 
 manuscript or is the result of pure conjecture ; and (3) all cases 
 in which the reading adopted differs from the reading of the 
 testimonia. Therefore, to put it in summary form, it is to be 
 assumed that the text of this book, the text of the accepted 
 edition of the author who quotes the fragment, at least one 
 good manuscript of that author, and the testimonia (if there 
 are any) are in entire accord, unless divergences are indicated 
 in the textual notes. The only exception to this rule is in 
 matters of spelling. The spelling of the text of Hiller-Crusius 
 has been followed throughout without comment. The principles 
 on which Crusius determined the correct spelling may be found 
 on page v of the Anthologia Lyrica. No conjectural emenda- 
 tions, except those which have been admitted into the text, are 
 recorded in the textual notes. 
 
 1 A list of these editions and the editions of the authors from whom the testi- 
 monia are drawn will be found in Appendix 9. 
 
 '^ Except in the case of Diogenes Laertius (see commentary on xxxiv). 
 
VI PREFACE 
 
 One remark should be made about the commentary. The 
 many parallel passages which are quoted are not introduced 
 simply because of some curious similarity of form or idea, but 
 because they are thought to contribute to the proper under- 
 standing of Solon's verse. Quotations from Homer, Hesiod, 
 and the elegiac poets, in particular, are intended to illustrate 
 forms of thought or speech which were conventional in Solon's 
 time or which he borroAved from others. 
 
 I desire to express here my obligation to my friend and col- 
 league, Mr. Torsten Petersson, for the generous assistance which 
 lie has afforded me. He has not only read the manuscript 
 tlirough and offered many most valuable suggestions, but, better 
 than this, lie has come to my aid with his wise counsel at many 
 perplexing moments during the writing of the book. For 
 these things I am deeply grateful. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 BIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 
 
 I. The Record of Solon in Antiquity ... 3 
 11. Before the Archonship . . . . .27 
 
 III. The Archonship 46 
 
 IV. After the Archonship 91 
 
 V. The Poems 103 
 
 THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 
 
 I. Text and Translation 129 
 
 11. Commentary ........ 173 
 
 APPENDICES 
 
 1. Salamis 249 
 
 2. Date of the Archonship 265 
 
 3. The Seisachtheia 269 
 
 4. The Laws and the Axones ..... 275 
 
 5. Changes in Weights, Measures, and Currency, 
 
 and in the calendar 287 
 
 C. Travels 297 
 
 7. Relations with Pisistratus .... 303 
 
 8. Death and Burial 308 
 
 9. Bibliography 311 
 
 vii 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 
 
CHAPTER I 
 RECORD OF SOLON IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 Lawgiver, one of the Seven Wise Men of Greece, founder of 
 the Athenian democracy — these are the titles which are asso- 
 ciated with the name of Solon in the minds of well informed persons 
 of the present da5^ If they are pressed a little, these same well 
 informed persons may recall at least one good story about him, 
 the famous story of his interview with Croesus, king of Lydia; 
 and if they are urged to tell how they know these things,they 
 will say without much hesitation that they learned them from the 
 incomparable Plutarch or perhaps read of Croesus in Herodotus. 
 Some, but probably not all, will remember that Solon was a poet 
 as well as a statesman and therefore doubly a representative of 
 the city whose glory springs in large measure from her matchless 
 poetry and her indomitable love of liberty. These random recol- 
 lections are all true and well founded, and they are enough to 
 show that the man of whom such things can be said deserves to be 
 better known. Whither shall we turn in order to learn more about 
 him ? ^ We can read Plutarch's life again ; but can we believe 
 all he tells us? And are there no other ancient records by which 
 we can supplement and correct the account which Plutarch gives? 
 If, in order to answer these questions, we survey the record of 
 Solon in the ancient authors, we shall find that many besides 
 Plutarch had something to say of him. W^e shall also find that 
 the ancient tradition followed certain well defined lines, which 
 were fixed partly by the historical facts of his career and partly 
 by legends which had become attached to his name. But before 
 
 1 On the sources for Solon in general, consult Busolt (1895, pp. 1-65, espe- 
 cially 39-49 and 58 ff., and 255 ff.) ; Gilliard (1907, pp. 16-28) 
 
4 SOLOX THE ATHENIAN 
 
 we examine the nature of the ancient record itself, v;e should 
 first inquire about the character of the foundations upon which it 
 rests, in order that we may know what measure of confidence may 
 be placed in it as a true report of the actual facts of Solon's life. 
 We certainly cannot push back the possibility of a written record 
 of any sort beyond the middle of the fifth century B.C. at the 
 earliest ; but Solon himself lived in the first half of the sixth 
 century. By what means could knowledge of events in the 
 early part of the sixth century have been transmitted through the 
 one or two centuries that intervened before men began to write 
 the history of them? If there had been no means, we should 
 be forced to confess that all that has been told us about Solon 
 is mere unreliable tradition. But fortunately there were a few 
 bridges across the gulf. 
 
 The firmest of these was Solon's own poetrj' , a concrete struc- 
 ture reenforced with the bonds of meter, which was unshaken by 
 the lapse of time. The poems must have come down through the 
 years substantially in the form in which they were originally com- 
 posed, and they were a clear and intelligible voice out of the past. 
 Furthermore, these poems were a historical document of great 
 value ; for many, if not most of them, were occasional poems, 
 dealing with the events in which Solon himself played a part. 
 Tliei-e can therefore be little room for doubt about their authen- 
 ticity. The fragments which survive afford us a surprising amount 
 of information ; the whole body of Solon's poetry, which was 
 available in ancient times, must have yielded much more. 
 
 A second source of information which was freel}^ drawn upon 
 by the ancient writers was found in the laws which were attrib- 
 uted to Solon. Here their footing was much more insecure. 
 The authenticity of the laws is open to very grave question, as 
 we shall see.^ But in the hands of critical scholars they could 
 have been made to yield some information of great value. 
 
 * Appendix 4. 
 
RECORD OF SOLON IN ANTIQUITY 5 
 
 A third source of precise information about the past was to 
 be found in the official records of the state. These were, indeed, 
 very meager, and for the early part of the sixth century prob- 
 ably did not go beyond the official list of archons. But this was 
 something. And outside of Athens, there was the list of victors 
 in the Pythian games at Delphi from which, we are told,^ Aris- 
 totle derived some information about Solon's share in the Sacred 
 War. 
 
 Lastly, there were the frail strands of oral tradition leading 
 back into the past. And oral tradition is not to be scorned as 
 a source of historical information, though it must be handled with 
 a most delicate critical judgment. In some things it can tell the 
 truth, in others it is a mere conscienceless myth-monger. Un- 
 fortunately Greek annalists and biographers did not deal criti- 
 cally with their sources, and it is difficult for us to separate those 
 of their statements which rest upon sound evidence from those 
 which are only hanging in the air. In examining reports of 
 events in the first half of the sixth century we must be suspi- 
 cious of all stories which are told with much circumstantial de- 
 tail. Such small baggage is easily lost in a voyage of a hundred 
 years and is just as easily replaced by fresh inventions. But it 
 is perhaps even more important that we should not yield to un- 
 critical agnosticism, flatly denying the validity of all oral tradi- 
 tion. The main facts are likely to come through, and should be 
 accepted without too much hesitation, especially if there is some 
 collateral support for them. 
 
 These are the four ways in which the ancient authors could 
 learn something of Solon and his times. We have no knowledge 
 of any other.^ No assertion which was not founded upon one or 
 
 1 Plut. Sol. xi. 
 
 2 Cf. Beloch (1912, p. 364) : " Glaubwtirdig ist diese Ueberlieferung (i.e., 
 Const, of Ath., Plutarch, and Diogenes Laertius) nur insoweit, als sie auf die 
 Gediclite Solons und seine Gesetze zurtickgeht. Von diesen Gesetzen sind aber 
 diejenigen, die sich auf die Sozialreform und die Neuordnung der Verfassung 
 bezogen, zum grossten Teil sclionfriih verloren gegangen, da sie keine praktische 
 
G SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 the other of these Hnes of evidence can be accepted as true. And 
 even in cases where the ancient writers had such evidence at hand, 
 we must still question their critical judgment in the use of it. If 
 they have preserved for us the poem or the law upon which their 
 statements are based, we are in a position to test and verify; 
 otherwise we cannot be sure. But even when statements are made 
 which are not supported by any law or poem which we, too, have 
 before our eyes, we must still admit that they may be justified 
 by evidence which the ancient authors had and which we have 
 not. 
 
 For us at the present day the evidence which is available 
 for the determination of the truth about the life and works of 
 Solon falls into two main divisions. The first, in which we can 
 put great confidence, includes the actual extant writings of Solon 
 himself, the poems mainly, and, as far as we can believe them au- 
 thentic, the laws. The second is the ancient tradition, preserved 
 through a long line of writers, overlaid with legend, resting ul- 
 timately on the same poems which we have and others besides, 
 on a large body of doubtful laws, on meager official records, and on 
 vague popular report. This ancient record we can trust just so 
 far as we can satisfy ourselves that it is based solidly on the four 
 original foundations, and just so far as w^e can satisfy ourselves 
 that the foundations themselves in each case were secure. This 
 means that we can accept little besides what we know w^as learned 
 from the poems and the official records. We do not need to 
 trouble ourselves overmuch with the confused relationships 
 between our ancient authorities. The earliest of them were 
 scarcely in a better position for learning the facts than the latest. 
 The poems told the tale, and all who could read them with dis- 
 cernment knew all that could be truly known about their author. 
 
 Bedcutiini; mehr liatlen . . . Andererseits iralt spiiter ja manches Gesetz als 
 soloniscli. (las erst lanu^c; iiach Solon j^ci^cben war. So beruht das Bild, 
 dius mis von Solons ])()liiisclit;m Wirken Uberliefert ist, zum grossen Teil auf 
 CombiiiatioiH'ii."" 
 
RECORD OF SOLON IN ANTIQUITY 7 
 
 We shall now proceed to examine in greater detail these two 
 main sources of information : first, the poems themselves, both 
 those which we still possess and those of whose former existence 
 we have some trace ; and then, in a cursory way, the development 
 of the biography of Solon in the ancient writers. 
 
 The fragments that survive, and which are attributed to Solon 
 by the authors in whose works they appear, number some two 
 hundred eighty-three verses.^ Some of these so-called fragments 
 are probably complete poems ; most of them, however, are 
 manifestly only portions of longer poems. In only one case 
 have we any information concerning the actual length of the whole 
 poem from which portions are quoted : the poem called ^'Salamis" 
 was one hundred verses in length, and of these one hundred verses 
 we have only eight, four in one fragment and two in each of two 
 others. 2 
 
 Besides what we can learn from the extant fragments, we have 
 very little precise information concerning Solon's poetical works. 
 Diogenes Laertius,^ in a brief and carelessly written list of his 
 works, includes ''Salamis," poems of self-counsel, and political 
 poems, all in elegiac verse ; and other poems in iambic and epodic 
 verse. He mentions the number of five thousand verses, but it 
 is not clear whether this number is intended to include all the 
 poems, or only those in elegiac verse, or only the ''Salamis" and 
 the political poems. But in any case the number seems exces- 
 sively large for a man who did not make poetry his principal occu- 
 pation. 
 
 1 The elegiac fragments, of %Yhich the two longest (xl andxii) are respectively 
 76 and 40 lines in length, number 215 verses ; the iambic fragments, of which 
 the longest (ix) consists of 27 verses, number in all 42 verses ; the trochaic 
 fragments, 20. Besides these there are two hexameters and four or five lines in 
 lyric meter. 
 
 2 XX, xxxiv, XXXV. See pp. 40 ff. and Appendix 1. ^ iQl. 
 
 S 
 
8 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 Plutarch ' divides the poetical works into two classes. The 
 earlier poems, he says, were written for diversion and amusement ; 
 these are probably the ones he has in mind when he says that 
 Solon speaks of pleasure with more freedom than becomes a 
 pliil()s()j)her. The later poems are devoted to moral and politi- 
 cal (lucstions: some contained exhortations, admonitions, and re- 
 bukes addressed to the Athenians ; others were written in defense 
 of his public acts as a statesman. 
 
 In a few cases definite poems seem to be referred to by ancient 
 authors which are not actually quoted. 
 
 Plato, in the Timaeus,- says that Solon frequently alludes 
 to the intimacy which existed between himself and the family 
 of Dropides, the great-grandfather of Critias. A single line ^ 
 survives which apparently belonged to one of the poems con- 
 taining such an allusion. 
 
 Aristotle refers to poems, which he does not quote, in which 
 Solon expressed his unwillingness to soil his reputation by at- 
 tempting to make himself tyrant of Athens;"^ and to others, be- 
 sides those which he quotes himself, in which Solon laid the blame 
 for the civil disorder in Athens on the rich.^ And it is possible 
 that in one place ® he is quoting indirectly from a poem in which, 
 after his archonship, Solon announced his intention of going 
 abroad for ten years.'' 
 
 * Sol. iii. 2 20e ; cf. also Charmides 157 e. 3 xxxix. 
 
 4 Const, of Ath. vi 4, Fra<^ments xxi and xxii probably belong to this 
 group. 
 
 ^ Const, of Ath. V 3. Fragments xii, xvii, xl probably belong to this 
 group. 
 
 G Const, of Ath. xi 1. 
 
 7 Bekker thought he found a bit of verse embedded in Plutarch's narrative 
 (Sol. xv). Tlic prose runs as follows : (f)o^r]d€ls fxij (n^7x^as Travrdiraa-i Kai rapd^as 
 T7JV TrdXiv daOep^arepo^ y^vrjTai tou KaracrTTjcrai irdXiv Kal <xvvapfx6aaa6ai irphs rb 
 Apiaroy. From this he constructs tlu' following trochaics : 
 
 (rv7X^as diravrdTraai Kal rapd^as rrjv irdXLV 
 dadeviarepos y^pufxai toO KaTaaTTJcrai irdXiv. 
 
 Bergk thinks the words are Plutarch's own ; Wilamowitz recognizes them as 
 
RECORD OF SOLON IN ANTIQUITY 9 
 
 Most of the fragments owe their preservation to their .impor- 
 tance as historical documents. It may be that if we had all of 
 Solon's poetical works we should not find the poUtical poems so 
 largely preponderating. There would undoubtedly be a larger 
 proportion dealing with lighter themes. 
 
 We cannot, of course, expect to date the fragments with any 
 precision and recover the exact circumstances of their composition.^ 
 But certain ones were manifestly written before the archonship 
 and certain ones after. The lines are too few in number to enable 
 us to detect any change in style or increase in skill. It is interest- 
 ing to observe that the longer elegiac poems belong to the earlier 
 period and the principal iambic and trochaic fragments to the 
 later. But this may be a mere accident in the preservation. 
 There is undoubtedly a marked change in Solon's political opin- 
 ions : before he put his reforms into effect, he was disposed to 
 lay the blame for the misfortunes of Athens on the greed of the 
 rich ; later he was equally convinced of the folly and incapacity 
 of the lower classes. 
 
 It seems almost necessary to believe that Solon's poems were 
 recorded in writing by himself.^ Many of them, being occasional 
 
 by Solon. It is not likely that Plutarch would thus quote two lines without in- 
 dicating that they are a quotation. In Sol. ii he quotes i indirectly, but the 
 quotation is very brief ; Aristotle in Const, of Ath. v 3 and Plutarch in Sol. xiv 
 5 quote v, a single pentameter. But in the present case we must recognize the 
 trochaic rhythm as accidental ; and after all nothing is gained by adding so un- 
 certain a fragment to the collection of genuine fragments. The idea which is 
 expressed in the sentence we may safely believe to have been in Solon's mind, 
 because it really lay at the bottom of his whole policy. 
 
 1 AVilamowitz (189.3, II, 304 ff.) undertakes to piece together like a puzzle the 
 fragments of Solon's poems, and, with the help of what he takes as indirect 
 quotations from the poems in Plutarch and Aristotle, to restore the several poems 
 in their entirety, to outline the course of thought in each, and to assign them to 
 the several periods in Solon's life. It is an ingenious study, but unconvincing ; 
 indeed its plausibility is deceptive, because it leaves in the reader's mind seem- 
 ing-true ideas which are after all only guesses. Many of the shorter fragments 
 are arbitrarily assigned to Solon's later years without a shred of justification. 
 There is no such degree of certainty about Solon's career as the reader of this 
 chapter would be led to believe. 
 
 2 Heinemann (1897, pp. 45 ff.) thinks that an edition of the poems was pre- 
 pared either by Solon himself or soon after his death. But he concludes, justly, 
 
10 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 and in the nature of apologies for his own acts, would hardly have 
 survived in the popular memory alone. Dissatisfied as they were 
 with the results of Solon's reforms, the Athenians would not 
 naturally have committed to memory, or encouraged their rhapso- 
 dists to commit to memory, the poems which Solon wrote in his 
 own defense. Furthermore, some of his poems are addressed to 
 individuals,^ and it seems natural that they should have been 
 sent to the persons for whom they were intended. 
 
 There is only one hint in the ancient authors of any method 
 of publication, and this is untrustworthy. Solon is supposed to 
 have memorized the ''Salamis" and recited it publicly in the 
 market place. Though we cannot accept this particular tradi- 
 tion, it seems likely that this was the regular method of publica- 
 tion. ^ But public recitation before various groups of citizens by 
 the author himself was probably only the first step in the dis- 
 semination of the poems. They would then be repeated by 
 others ; and a few written copies would be made. 
 
 What may fairly be regarded as the earliest allusion to poems 
 of Solon is found in Plato's Timaeus.^ Critias, the oligarch, 
 who is a speaker in the dialogue, says that when he was a lad of 
 ten years it was a common thing for the boys who took part in the 
 competitive recitations at the festival of the Apaturia, to recite 
 the poems of Solon, which were new at the time. There is no 
 reason to doubt the truth of this statement — it was a thing about 
 which Plato could easily have definite knowledge — and we may take 
 it as proof that there was a well recognized collection of poems by 
 Solon in the first half of the fifth century. One is struck by the 
 
 that there is little probability that the names of the poems which are recorded 
 and which appear in modern editions were actually given by Solon (pp. 35 ff.). 
 
 1 xxi, xxii, xxvi, xxxvii, and possibly xxxix. 
 
 2 On the recitation of elegies at social gatherings, see Croiset (1903, pp. 583, 
 684). 
 
 3 20(1-21 d. There is a (juotation from xiv in a play of the comic poet Cratinns 
 (see commentary on xiv), which was probably even earlier. Critias was born 
 about 460 ii.c. 
 
RECORD OF SOLON IN ANTIQUITY 11 
 
 remark that they were new at the time, when as a matter of 
 fact they had been written between fifty and one hundred years 
 before. The explanation probably is to be found in the fact that 
 these poems would have been thought of as modern in contrast 
 with Homer and Hesiod. Plato may also have been led to speak 
 as he does by the fact that in his own day Solon's poems were 
 no longer recited on such occasions, having become old-fashioned 
 in the midst of the abundant Athenian poetry of the fifth cen- 
 tury. So there was for Plato a certain propriety in calling them 
 new, both by contrast with the oldest Greek poetry on the one 
 hand, and with the more recent poetry of his own day on the 
 other. 
 
 There is abundant evidence for the existence of the collection 
 in Herodotus, Plato, Demosthenes, and Aristotle, and it seems 
 probable that it continued in existence throughout antiquity. 
 Of course many of the quotations in the later authors could have 
 been drawn from the works of earlier writers.^ But some of these 
 quotations are of a kind which could hardly have been made except 
 from the collection itself. The grammarians and lexicographers 
 quote passages as examples of the use of particular words. Athe- 
 naeus has a quotation ^ which he says was ''in the iambics," 
 as if he was acquainted with a collection of the iambic poems. 
 Proclus ^ makes some very judicious comments on Solon's style, 
 which he could hardly have made unless he had read a considerable 
 number of the poems ; and there was certainly no collection of 
 fragments like ours in his day. Lastly, the longest extant poem of 
 Solon is not found earlier than the anthology of Stobaeus, and this 
 poem, of seventy-six lines, Stobaeus could hardly have found 
 already quoted in the text of an earlier author, — though it may 
 have been contained in some earlier anthology. 
 
 1 E.g., the poems quoted by Aristides (second century a.d.) are all believed 
 to be taken from the Const, of Ath. ; see Piatt (1896). 
 
 2 xxxiii. 
 
 3 Ad Plat. Rep., vol. i, p. 65 Kroll ; Ad Plat. Tim., vol. i, p. 93 Diehl. 
 
12 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 Fortunately, the greater part of the extant verse can be rec- 
 ognized as the authentic work of Solon with the utmost con- 
 fidence, because it is concerned with the public events in which 
 he played a principal part. As for the fragments which deal with 
 general subjects, there is no reason to deny his authorship. The 
 whole amount of Solonian poetry which we possess is too meager 
 to justify us in rejecting this or that fragment on inner grounds of 
 style and spirit. Onh^ two of the fragments must be definitely 
 set aside as late forgeries : ^ one, the two hexameter verses which 
 were supposed to be the introduction to a metrical version of the 
 laws ; the other, the lyric fragment which is drawn from a group 
 of spurious scolia forged by Lobon of Argos and ascribed to the 
 Seven Wise Men. 
 
 Tlie principal difficulty in the matter of authenticity lies in 
 the fact that a number of the Solonian fragments are also found 
 among the poems which are ascribed to Theognis ; and we must 
 ask ourselves which of the two poets has the better claim to 
 them. 
 
 It is generally recognized that the collection of elegiac poems 
 which goes under the name of Theognis is something in the nature 
 of an anthology, though there is considerable difference of opinion 
 concerning the exact amount that is to be attributed to Theognis 
 himself. Practically all scholars are agreed that the lines in 
 Theognis which are elsewhere attributed to Solon are actually the 
 work of Solon, and that, in one way or another, they have been 
 included in the Theognidean collection. In view of the definite 
 ascription to Solon and the composite nature of the Theognidean 
 collection this is a just conclusion. And it is not shaken by the 
 fact that a few verses which are ascribed to Solon and also in- 
 c1u(1(m1 in Theognis are quoted by later authors as from Theognis.^ 
 This accident is due to the fact tliat the quotations were actually 
 
 1 xviii and xxxviii. See commentary. 
 
 2 xvi and xvi-a in Stob. iv 33, 7. 
 
RECORD OF SOLON IN ANTIQUITY 13 
 
 drawn from the Theognidean collection and the authors did not 
 know that they were really by Solon. In one case Stobaeus 
 assigns some verses to Theognis which he has already in another 
 place assigned to Solon. ^ There are in all some twenty-six verses 
 by Solon which are also found in Theognis. ^ The extent and. 
 character of the differences between the two versions are dis- 
 cussed in the commentary. 
 
 Since we have evidence to show that as many as twenty-six 
 verses in Theognis properly belong to Solon, it is reasonable to 
 suppose that there are still other poems by Solon imbedded in the 
 Theognidean collection, if we only had the means of detecting 
 them. Many attempts have been made to show that particular 
 verses belong to him, but with a single exception none is convinc- 
 ing.^ Language, versification, style, and ideas offer very frail 
 criteria in the case of two authors whose work is in many ways 
 so similar and whose extant poems are so inconsiderable in amount. 
 
 3 
 
 The earliest appearance of Solon's name in extant Greek 
 literature is found in a fragment of two lines from a comedy of 
 Cratinus,^ who lived about the middle of the fifth century 
 B.C. Solon himself is represented as the speaker, and he alludes 
 to the popular belief that his own ashes had been scattered over 
 the island of Salamis. The significance of this curious notion 
 
 1 xl 65-70 in Stob. iii 9, 23 and iv 47, 16. 
 
 2 ii = 1253 f. ; vii 3 f.=r 153 f. ; xvi = 719-724 ; xvii 1-4 = 315-318 ; xl 65-70 
 = 585-590 ; xl 71-76 =i 227-232. The extent and character of the differences 
 between the two versions are discussed in the commentary. Cf. also Heine- 
 mann (1897, pp. 16 ff.). 
 
 3 The exception is found in vss. 725-728. Vss. 719-728 form a complete 
 unit ; vss. 719-724 are ascribed to Solon by Plutarch ; it is altogether probable 
 therefore that the four lines 725-728 should be included in Solon'^s poem. These 
 four lines are printed in the present edition as an appendix to xvi and are num- 
 bered xvi-a. In view of the many divergences betwee^^ the text of Plutarch for 
 xvi and the text of Theognis we cannot assume that xvi-a is in exactly the form 
 in which it was written by Solon. 
 
 4 Diogenes Laertius i 62. This is not the same fragment as that referred to 
 on page 10, footnote 3- 
 
14 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 will be better understood later when we have learned what Solon 
 did for the Athenians in Salamis. But in the meantime it is 
 interesting to observe that this first allusion to the great Athenian, 
 separated from his own lifetime by a century and more, presents 
 him to us almost in the guise of a m3'thological hero. In the 
 history of Herodotus, which was composed about the same time, 
 Solon is mentioned on several occasions : ^ the longest passage is 
 an account of his legendary meeting with Croesus ; but besides 
 this there is recorded at least one real fact in his life. Thu- 
 cydides is entirely silent on the subject of Solon ; but Aristophanes 
 and Plato, a little later, speak of him in a number of places 
 as a legislator, a poet, and a Wise Man. In Demosthenes and 
 the orators he is a familiar name, being accepted by them as 
 typical of all that is best in Athenian government and law ; in 
 their minds and in the minds of their auditors he had come to 
 represent the ideal form of democratic government, equally re- 
 moved from obnoxious oligarchy and from the fierce democracy 
 which ruled in Athens toward the close of the fifth century. He 
 typified a vague ideal which all parties could unite in applaud- 
 ing. Aristotle, too, as a student of political institutions, was a 
 warm admirer of Solon, and, as we shall see, has much to tell us 
 about him. 2 Thereafter frequent allusions to him are found in 
 all kinds of books, — in the learned writers of the fourth cen- 
 tury and later ages, in the lexicographers and grammarians, and 
 in the anonymous commentaries which are preserved on the mar- 
 gin of ancient manuscripts. 
 
 Among all these authors there were some who dealt witli the 
 life and works of Solon more particularly and at greater length, 
 not in the form of brief references, but in connected narratives. 
 Some of these accounts, like that of Plutarch, happily still sur- 
 
 1 i 2«-34, 86 ; ii 177 ; v 113. 
 
 2 Outside of the Const, of Ath., the principal passages are in the Politics (ii 
 12, 1273 b, 84 ff. ; ii 7, 1266 b, 17 ; iii 11, 1281 b, 32). 
 
RECORD OF SOLON IN ANTIQUITY 15 
 
 Vive ; others we know nothing about except through indirect report. 
 But in order that we may understand the character of the ancient 
 record, we must not be satisfied merely with an examination of 
 the extant books ; we must also try to recover something of those 
 that are lost. The list of authors in whom we can still read short 
 accounts, a page or two in length, of various circumstances in 
 Solon's career is fairlj^ long and includes many names besides the 
 writers already mentioned.^ 
 
 More important than these, however, are the more extended 
 accounts which have been left us by Aristotle, Diodorus Siculus, 
 Plutarch, and Diogenes Laertius. These four constitute our 
 principal source of information. They are widely separated in 
 time, and it is only through accident that they are the only im- 
 portant extant accounts out of all the literary and scholarly works 
 of many centuries. It is not to be supposed that there is neces- 
 sarily any chain connecting the four in such a way that each is 
 to be regarded as dependent upon his predecessor. The study 
 of their sources has been pursued with great diligence, and we 
 know that they drew their material from many writers whose 
 books are now lost. We shall examine these four accounts a little 
 more carefully and attempt to restore from them some of the 
 missing links in the biographical tradition. Since our knowledge 
 of the lost writers is derived only from allusions to them in sub- 
 sequent literature, it will be convenient to begin with the latest 
 of the four extant accounts, that of Diogenes Laertius, and pro- 
 ceed from him to the earlier. 
 
 Diogenes Laertius' life of Solon, about six pages in length, 
 was composed in the early part of the third century a.d. and is 
 
 1 The following may be noted : Aeneas Tacticus, Comm. Pol. iv 8 ff . ; Justi- 
 nus, ii 7 f . ; Frontinus, Strateg. ii 9, 9 ; Aelian, F. H. vii 19 and viii 16 ; Polyaenus, 
 Strateg. i 20 ; Suidas, s.v. SoAwv. etc. Short summaries of the principal features 
 of Solon's life are also to be found in an anonymous Vita Solonis (in Biographi 
 Graeci, ed. Westermann, p. 11.3) and in the scholia to Plat. Rep. x 599 e and 
 Demosthenes xlv 64. 
 
16 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 to be found in the first book of his Lives of the Philosophers. It 
 is an altogether uncritical compilation of scattered scraps of in- 
 formation concerning Solon and his work. Besides the traditional 
 matter, it contains a few of Solon's poems, many sayings and apoph- 
 thegms attributed to him, and some spurious letters supposed 
 to have been written by him to Periander, Epimenides, Pisistratus, 
 and Croesus. Diogenes mentions a few of his authorities by name, 
 among whom the most important seems to have been one Sosic- 
 rates of Rhodes who lived early in the Christian era. But it 
 is generally assumed that his principal sources were the same as 
 Plutarch's,^ which will be discussed presenth'. 
 
 Plutarch's biography, the longest and fullest account which 
 we possess of Solon and his times, consists of about thirty-five 
 pages, and was written in the second century a.d. Little is to be 
 found in other authors which is not also given by him. Many 
 poems are quoted ; and much that he has to tell us is demon- 
 strably true. But large portions of the biography are legendary 
 in character; and frequently small matters which are known to 
 be true in themselves are expanded into long narratives, charming 
 in style but unreliable in substance. Plutarch's fondness for 
 anecdote and his well known preoccupation with the moral im- 
 plications of his subject detract from his historical accuracy, 
 here as elsewhere. But the total impression of the character of 
 Solon which he leaves with the reader is entirely harmonious with 
 his true character as far as it is revealed in his own poems. Be- 
 sides the poems of Solon which he quotes as evidence, Plutarch 
 mentions during the course of the biography some fourteen or 
 fifteen writers as authorities for various statements, but he had 
 probably not consulted them all directly. Among them are 
 Androtion, Aristotle, Heracleides Ponticus, Demetrius of Phale- 
 rum, Theophrastus, Phanias of Lesbos, Hereas of Megara. But 
 modern investigation has shown that his principal sources, out- 
 iSeeBusolt (1895, p. 50). 
 
RECORD OF SOLON IN ANTIQUITY 17 
 
 side of Solon's own poems, were the learned writers, Didymus and 
 Hermippus.^ 
 
 Hermippus of Smyrna lived about 200 B.C. He was the 
 author of Biographies of Illustrious Men {pioi tCjv iv 7rat8eta 
 SuLXafiil/dvTwv) , of which large work the names of certain por- 
 tions are known. Among these are sections ''Concerning the 
 Seven Wise Men" and ''Concerning Lawgivers." Solon might 
 have found a place equally well under either of these heads. The 
 work of Hermippus, which must have been an uncritical collec- 
 tion of traditional lore, is known to have been widely used as a 
 source by later writers, and probably Plutarch derived from it 
 most of his biographical material. It is supposed, furthermore, 
 that Plutarch's acquaintance with Androtion, Herodotus, Theo- 
 phrastus, and other early authors came through Hermippus. 
 There is some doubt whether either Hermippus or Plutarch used 
 Aristotle's Constitution of Athens. 
 
 Didymus of Alexandria was an extraordinarily prolific writer 
 who lived at the very beginning of the Christian era. Among the 
 numberless works in which he gathered up the learning of his 
 predecessors was one on the laws of Solon {irepl rdv diovoiv toov 
 SoAcovos dvTcypapr] tt/oo? 'AcTKXrjTndSrjv) , which is mentioned by Plu- 
 tarch, 2 and from which he probably learned what he has to tell 
 us in the long section of his biography which he devotes to 
 Solon's laws. 
 
 Earlier than Plutarch, but infinitely less important, is the 
 brief account of Solon which is preserved in the fragmentary ninth 
 book of the history of Diodorus Siculus, who lived just at the dawn 
 of the Christian era. Most of what Diodorus has to say of Solon 
 is legendary in character and of little value. He gives no hint of 
 the sources of his information about Solon ; but it is known that 
 he derived some of his material at least, directly or indirectly, 
 from Ephorus and Hermippus.^ The biographer Hermippus, as 
 1 See Busolt (1895, p. 58). 2 Sol. i. ^ See Busolt (1895, p. 59). 
 
18 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 we have seen, lived some two centuries earlier than Diodorus. 
 Ephorus lived a century and a half before Hermippus. He was 
 a pupil of the school of Isocrates and wrote a universal history of 
 the Greeks from the return of the Heracleidae to about the mid- 
 dle of the fourth century B.C. This work consisted of no less than 
 thirty books ; but this is little enough for the history of so long a 
 period, and we cannot suppose that the space given to Solon and 
 his times was very considerable. 
 
 We come now to the fourth and earliest account of Solon's 
 career, which consists of about twelve pages near the beginning of 
 Aristotle's treatise on the Constitution of Athens, which was com- 
 posed about the middle of the fourth century b.c. This treatise, 
 which was discovered and published only in the last decade of the 
 nineteenth century, has given us some fragments of Solon's 
 poems which we did not have before ; but otherwise it does little 
 more than corroborate or slightly modify information which we 
 already possessed. The general conception of Solon which had 
 been previously entertained has not been altered by Aristotle's 
 account. He gives most of his attention to Solon's economic, 
 legislative, and political reforms, and quotes a number of passages 
 from the poems as evidence for the truth of his statements. In 
 the pages devoted to Solon, Aristotle mentions no earlier writer 
 by name, but he permits us to see whence he derived his informa- 
 tion. First and most important as a source were Solon's own 
 poems, both those which he quotes and no doubt others which he 
 was familiar with ; a considerable part of Aristotle's account is sub- 
 stantiated and verified by these quotations, and we have reason 
 to l)elieve that other statements, too, rest upon poems which are 
 not (luoted. Second, a number of laws are referred to, which 
 Aristotle regarded as the work of Solon. These laws are used by 
 him as evidence for certain political institutions which he at- 
 tributes to Solon. Third, some conclusions concerning Solon's 
 constitution are drawn from customs which still survived in 
 
RECORD OF SOLON IN ANTIQUITY 19 
 
 Aristotle's day. Fourth, there are indications that he derived 
 some information from certain conflicting traditions concerning 
 some features of Solon's career. He refers expressly to the 
 ''account given by the popular party" (6 twi/ Syj/xonKoyv Adyos), and 
 by implication gives us to understand that there was also an aris- 
 tocratic or oligarchic account.^ There is nothing in the text to 
 show whether these two accounts were written down or merely 
 oral traditions. 2 
 
 These four sources are the only ones that can be discerned in 
 the text itself. Are we to suppose that Aristotle owed nothing 
 to earlier writers ? There is very little doubt that there was such 
 a source, which, though not mentioned by Aristotle, may have 
 been more directly useful to him than the four sources which 
 are apparent.^ This was the work of the Athenian chroniclers, 
 the so-called 'Ar^tSoypat^at, who had been busying themselves 
 for some years before Aristotle's time with the composition 
 of prose accounts of early Athenian history.^ Among these the 
 one to whom Aristotle was most indebted appears to have been 
 Androtion, like Ephorus a pupil of Isocrates, and an older contem- 
 porary of Aristotle, whose name is familiar to us from the well 
 known speech which was delivered against him by Demosthenes. 
 The book of Androtion is generally assumed to be the first written 
 
 1 Const, of Ath. vi 3. 
 
 2 Cf . Wilamowitz (1893, I, 55) : " Ich meine, es ist klar geworden, dass 
 Aristoteles es sich mit der behandlung Solons recht leicht gemacht hat. die 
 person des gesetzgebers, wie sie in den gedichten leibhaft ihm entgegentrat, in- 
 teressirte ihn, und sie stellte er mittelst dieser unverfalscliten zeugnisse in ein 
 belles und reines licht. aber das antiquarische detail einer verschollenen gesetz- 
 gebung war dem philosoplien sehr wenig interessant. er hat weder sich selbst 
 noch seinen lesern ein bild jener verfassung zu entwerfen versucht, sondern sich 
 begniigt eine sehr kurze und ungleichf ormig gearbeitete skizze fast ausschliessUch 
 auf grund der darstellungen zu liefern, die er bei den attidographen fand. 
 dagegen hat er seine auge scharf auf das ziel gerichtet, die ausgebildete demo- 
 kratie, die er nachher darstellen will : die hat Solon begrtindet, schon allein durch 
 aufhebung der schuldknechtschaft ; die weiteren demokratischen grundrechte 
 erortert cap. 9." 
 
 3 For the sources of the Const, of Ath. see Busolt (1895, pp. 39-49), Seeck 
 (1904), Sandys (1912, pp. Ixv ff.). 
 
 4 On Androtion and the other Attic chroniclers see Busolt (1895, pp. 7 ff.). 
 
20 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 account of Solon and his age, and all later accounts are supposed 
 to rest upon it, directly or indirectly. But his account of Solon 
 was probably very brief, and no doubt all he had to tell is pre- 
 served for us in one or another of the later authors. His sources 
 were probably the same as those which we have discovered in 
 Aristotle. 
 
 This brief sketch is enough to show that our four principal 
 accounts of the life and works of Solon and the lesser contributions 
 to our knowledge which are scattered through the ancient authors 
 are inconsiderable in extent when they are compared with the 
 many writings no longer extant of which Solon was the subject. 
 A few parts of the structure of ancient literature still stand above 
 the waves ; but most of the foundations and supports on which 
 these parts rest have been overwhelmed by time. We have been 
 able to catch glimpses of a little of the substructure where it lies 
 just below the surface. The names of many other authors who 
 support the tradition of Solon, but whose works have sunk still 
 deeper into oblivion, might be recounted if it were profitable to 
 do so. But enough has been said to give a fair impression of the 
 nature of the record of Solon in antiquity. If we review once more 
 the names of the authors who had a major part in the transmission 
 of our knowledge of Solon — Androtion, Aristotle, Ephorus, 
 Hermippus, Diodorus, Didymus, Plutarch, and Diogenes — we 
 observe that there were two causes in particular which led them 
 to give special attention to Solon. One was the fact that he was 
 the; reputed author of the first Athenian code of law ; the other 
 was the fact that he was numbered among the Seven Wise Men. 
 These were the two circumstances to which in the past, as in the 
 present, Solon chiefly owed his fame, and it is worth while for a 
 moment to push our investigation a little farther along one of the 
 two lines which were followed by the ancient record, the legend of 
 the Seven Wise Men. 
 
RECORD OF SOLON IN ANTIQUITY 21 
 
 From the time of Aristotle onward, many men devoted them- 
 selves to the study of the laws and the political constitutions of 
 the Greek states, and manj^ books were written on these subjects. 
 In most of them, it is fair to presume, the Athenian laws and 
 political institutions which were attributed to Solon must have 
 received their share of attention. The works of Didymus and 
 Hermippus, in which we know there was much about Solon, have 
 already been mentioned. Theophrastus, the pupil of Aristotle, 
 is supposed tq have written a book Concerning Laws {ncpl vofxwv) : 
 and his pupil, Demetrius of Phalerum, wrote a book Con- 
 cerning Legislation at Athens and another Concerning the Political 
 Constitutions of Athens. These last named works may very 
 likely have been the source of Didymus, and therefore ultimately 
 the source of that portion of Plutarch's biography which deals 
 with the laws of Solon. The names of other writers on laws and 
 lawgivers are also known, and they, together with the writers 
 already mentioned, probably assisted in the preservation of what- 
 ever information men had about Solon as a lawgiver. 
 
 However much, or however little, writers such as these may 
 have known about Solon's contribution to the legal and political 
 institutions of Athens, there was at least a foundation of fact to 
 their undertakings. Solon unquestionably wrote laws and modi- 
 fied more or less the Athenian constitution. But the conception 
 of Seven Wise Men was an arbitrary invention ; and though we 
 have a little sound information about these Wise Men as individ- 
 uals, all that is related about them as a group is purely legendary. 
 Indeed most, though not all, of the stories about Solon which can 
 be set apart as legends lacking historical foundation are attached 
 to his name as one of the Seven. 
 
 It is not known when the Greeks first began to talk of a group 
 
22 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 of Seven Wise Men.^ But the notion was evidently a familiar 
 one b}^ the time Plato wrote the Protagoras. In this dialogue,- 
 Socrates gives a list of the Seven and allows us to see that it was 
 not one constructed by liimself, but rather one which was already 
 recognized. The names in this list are Thales of Miletus, Pittacus 
 of Mytilene, Bias of Priene, Solon of Athens, Cleobulus of Lindus, 
 My son of Chene, Chilon of Sparta. In the lists which are given 
 by later authors some of these names are replaced by others. 
 Only four names appear in all lists. Thales, Bias, Pittacus, and 
 Solon. In most lists My son is omitted, and Periander of Corinth 
 is put in his place. In all, there are some twenty-two names 
 which are found in one or another of these ancient lists of Seven 
 Wise Men. 
 
 Almost all the men whose names found a place at one time or 
 another in this group of seven were historical characters, and 
 almost all, like Solon, lived in the sixth century B.C. The 
 wisdom for which they were celebrated was the wisdom of men of 
 affairs who were experienced in the ways of the world and in the 
 fortunes of men. They were not supposed to be gifted with the 
 mysterious lore of the sage. None but Solon was the author of 
 any literary works. ^ Almost all took an active part in public 
 life and were benefactors of their countries. Their wisdom was 
 supposed to have found expression in the pithy maxims 
 which were attributed to them and of which considerable col- 
 lections were made. The most famous of these maxims were : 
 
 yvoj^t aavTov ] jjltjSIv dyav ', fierpov apLdrov ; eyym irapa 8' ara. A col- 
 lect ion of them was made by Demetrius of Phalerum, and 
 many have been preserved in Diogenes Laertius and other writers. 
 Indeed, it has been suggested^ that the conception of a group of 
 seven wise men may have had its origin in such a collection, 
 
 1 For tlie Seven Wise Men see Zeller, Phil, der (iriech., vol. I, 5. Aiifl., 
 pp. 110 If. ; Wulf (1805); Meyer (18'.);1 p. 717) ; Heloch (IIHS, pp. 352-300). 
 '^ rrotaij. 343. =' Ililler (1878). 
 
 4 ('hrist, Cr'e.sr/i. d. yriech. Literatur, 3. Aufi. 1890, Munich, p. 133. 
 
RECORD OF SOLON IN ANTIQUITY 23 
 
 containing the maxims grouped uncier seven names. This is 
 only a conjecture. But at any rate the famiUar maxims served 
 to give substance to the conception. Socrates speaks with ap- 
 proval of the laconic brevity of these utterances, in which were 
 summed up the results of long experience and profound observa- 
 tion. Undoubtedly in attributing these proverbs to Seven Wise 
 Men the Greeks were only following their unfailing instinct of 
 searching for some definite personal author for every feature of 
 their civilization. The Seven Wise Men were men of real dis- 
 tinction and ability who lived in the sixth century; the prov- 
 erbs and maxims were well known principles of conduct in the 
 Greek world : legend united the two and made the Wise Men the 
 authors of the proverbs. 
 
 When once the conception of the Seven had been formed, 
 legend was soon busy decking it out with circumstantial details. 
 The Seven were soon thought of as exact contemporaries and 
 personal friends ; banquets were described at which they met 
 and conversed with the wit and sagacity which was to be expected 
 of them ; ^ they were the guests of foreign kings and in their in- 
 terviews with them exhibited the superior intelligence of the 
 Greeks ; a golden tripod was offered as prize to the wisest among 
 them, and after each had modestly declined it in turn, they 
 united in offering it to Apollo himself at Delphi ; they also made 
 an offering to Apollo of the maxims which they had composed, 
 inscribing them on the temple at Delphi. Besides these fables 
 in which they all had a share, each individual had a legend of his 
 own which credited him with many clever deeds and sayings. 
 The first book of Diogenes Laertius' Lives of the Philosophers 
 contains biographies of eleven men whose names appear in the 
 lists of Wise Men. 
 
 Legends cluster thick about the name of Solon, as a member 
 of this illustrious group. He, too, rejected the tripod and refused 
 1 Cf. especially Plutarch's Convivium Septem Sapientium. 
 
24 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 to admit that he was the wisest of men ; he feasted with the others 
 and contributed his share of wisdom to the conversation ; he 
 is credited with the authorship of many clever moral sayings. 
 But besides these there are certain legends which are told of 
 liiiii in particular which deserve a word of consideration. 
 
 The most famous story about Solon relates to his interview 
 with Croesus, king of Lydia.^ We are told that Solon visited the 
 Lydian court, and that Croesus tried to dazzle him with the 
 splendor of his riches. Asking Solon whom he considered the 
 happiest man in the world, Croesus expected him to answer that 
 the king of Lydia was the happiest. But Solon mentioned the 
 names of three unknown Greeks, two Argives and an Athenian, 
 who were already dead, and told of the noble manner of their 
 death. Upon this, Croesus became angry and asked if he was not 
 himself to be reckoned as one of the happiest of men. Solon 
 replied tluit no man can be called happy until he has lived his 
 life through without disaster. Thereupon Croesus dismissed 
 him with scorn and indignation. But in later 3-ears, when his 
 kingdom had been conquered by the Persian Cyrus, and he was 
 himself about to be burned on the pyre, the words of Solon came 
 again to his mind, and he called on his name three times in a loud 
 voice. When Cyru^ heard these cries and learned the cause, he 
 was so much impressed with the wisdom of Solon and so strongly 
 reminded of the uncertainty of his own fortunes that he spared 
 the Ufe of Croesus and made him his friend and counselor. 
 
 This tale was told again and again by ancient writers. The 
 earliest v(M-sion we have is found in the first book of Herodotus,^ 
 who narrates the events with all the art of the prince of story- 
 tellers. He has so expanded and embellished it, and imparted 
 to it so great a moral dignity, that it has become one of the best- 
 known and most admired portions of his whole work. The 
 story appears again, also well told, both in Diodorus and in 
 
 1 On Solon and Croesus see Busolt (1895, p. 300). ^ i 29-34. 
 
RECORD OF SOLON IN ANTIQUITY 25 
 
 Plutarch,^ and is briefly alluded to by Diogenes Laertius, who 
 refrains from telling it at length because, as he says, it is so 
 hackneyed (ra Opvkovfxcva) . 
 
 The truth of the story was doubted even in ancient times. 
 Plutarch introduces his narrative with a remarkable statement 
 in which he mentions these doubts, and which throws much light 
 at the same time on his critical judgment in matters of historical 
 accuracy. He says : ^ 
 
 As for his [Solon's] interview with Croesus, some think to prove 
 by chronology that it is fictitious. But when a story is so famous and 
 so well-attested, and, what is more to the point, when it comports so well 
 with the character of Solon, and is so worthy of his magnanimity and 
 wisdom, I do not propose to reject it out of deference to any chronological 
 canons, so called, which thousands are to this day revising, without being 
 able to bring their contradictions into any general agreement. 
 
 Now the chronological objections are serious, but not ab- 
 solutely insuperable. Croesus came to the throne about the year 
 555. Solon's death is generally fixed at about 559, but there is 
 nothing to prove that he did not live for many years after this 
 date. The interview, therefore, might have been held soon after 
 Croesus' accession. But the really insuperable objections to our 
 acceptance of the story are : first, that there is no known way 
 in which it could have been transmitted ; second, that the legen- 
 dary character of it is unmistakable ; and, third, that it forms a 
 part of the larger tradition of the Seven Wise Men with its many 
 unquestionably legendary interviews. 
 
 Plutarch is right when he says that the story comports well 
 with the character of Solon. This must be said to the credit of 
 the authors of the legend ; but it does not, of course, prove its 
 truth. There are two moral principles by which Solon is moved 
 in the legend : one is scorn and contempt of great riches ; the 
 other is the belief that human happiness cannot be judged till the 
 
 1 Diodorus ix 2 and 26 f . ; Plut. Sol. xxvii f . ; Diog. Laert. i 50. 
 
 2 Plut. Sol. xxvii (Perrin's translation). 
 
2G SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 will of the gods has been fulfilled to the end. There is abundant 
 evidence even in the few remaining poems of Solon that these 
 two principles were strongly characteristic of his thought. Ex- 
 pressions of the former are to be found scattered all through the 
 fragments. The latter is enunciated in the noble poetry of his 
 longest elegy. 
 
 Good stories are also told of interviews, equally legendary 
 in character, between Solon and three other men who were in- 
 cluded in various lists of the Seven Wise Men : Anacharsis the 
 Scythian, Thales of Miletus, and the mysterious Epimenides 
 of Crete. ^ In each of these cases it is the wit and shrewdness, 
 not of Solon, but of his interlocutor, which is displayed. The 
 stories probably belonged originally to the legends of the three 
 other men, and Solon was introduced into them because of the 
 association of the Seven. 
 
 Such, then, was the reputation of Solon in the ancient world, 
 and such was the written record of his career. It is apparent that 
 we must stand incredulous before many stories which are told of 
 his exploits. As stories they have their value ; but they will 
 not be retold here. We must be willing to sacrifice the picturesque 
 and romantic inventions which add so much to the definiteness 
 and charm of Plutarch's biography. We must keep our minds 
 unflinchingly on the ultimate sources of information which have 
 already been described, and reject all that cannot be traced to 
 them. But when all subtractions have been made, there still 
 remains for us a noble career which is clear at least in its main 
 outlines, and a personality of sterling worth. Fortunately not 
 a little of sound fact stands the test, and we need not despair of 
 knowing Solon in some sort even as he was. 
 
 1 Anacharsis : Plut. Sol. v ; Diog. Laert. i 101 f . Thales : Plut. Sol vi. 
 Epimenides : Plut. Sol. xii ; Diog. Laert. i 109 ff. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 BEFORE THE ARCHONSHIP 
 
 1 
 
 No precise date is known for any event in Solon's life. Even 
 the year of his archonship cannot be fixed, and we can only say 
 that it fell within the period between 594 and 590 b.c.^ There 
 is no statement in the ancient authorities concerning the date of 
 his birth ; about the date of his death, there are conflicting asser- 
 tions. According to one of these, he died in the archonship of 
 Hegestratus, which was in the year 560-559 ; according to another, 
 he was eighty years of age at the time of his death. ^ Neither of 
 these statements can be accepted as certainly true ; they were 
 probably based upon chronological calculations of a sort which are 
 not to be trusted. But if we take them for what they are worth, 
 we find that the year of his birth would be 640-639. In this case 
 he would have been somewhere between forty-five and fifty years 
 of age at the time of his archonship — just the period of life at 
 which perhaps men would have been most willing to entrust to 
 him grave public responsiblities, though he might well have held 
 the office ten years earlier or ten years later. But we shall not 
 be far wrong if we think of the life of Solon as occupying the 
 greater part of the second half of the seventh century b.c. and the 
 greater part of the first half of the sixth century and bisected ap- 
 proximately by the year 600. 
 
 That Solon was an Athenian by birth we should not think of 
 
 1 See Appendix 2. 
 
 2 Archonship of Hegestratus : Phanias ap. Plut. Sol. xxxii 3. Eighty years 
 of age : Diog. Laert. i 62. 
 
 27 
 
28 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 doubting if we did not discover . that he is twice called a Sala- 
 niinian.^ But we must regard this as an error when we recall 
 his own words, — ''May I be no longer an Athenian," in the poem 
 entitled ''Salamis."- The error was probably due to the renown 
 of Solon's leadership in the Athenian conquest of the neighboring 
 island, in connection with which this very poem was composed. It 
 is even possible that Diodorus and Diogenes were not really in 
 error, but were only applying the name Salaminius to Solon as 
 the Roman Scipio was called Africanus. 
 
 Let us stop to consider for a moment what it meant to be an 
 Athenian at the dawn of the sixth century b.c.^ The name of 
 Athens rouses in the mind so many memories of the glories of 
 her prime, and the sixth centurj^ is an epoch about which our 
 recollections are so vague and insubstantial, that we are in danger 
 of holding a false conception of the Athens in which Solon lived. 
 Almost all the achievements to which Athens owes her fame 
 still lay far below the horizon of the future. The brilliant develop- 
 ment under the rule of Pisistratus, the principle of democracy, 
 the deathless glory of the Persian wars, the growth of empire, 
 the white heat of genius during the long war with Sparta, the mellow 
 age of philosophy, — men could not even have dreamed of these 
 wonders in the rocky land of Attica at the beginning of the sixth 
 century. The old fortress of the Acropolis was not yet crowned 
 with the noble buildings which to our eyes form the chief feature 
 of the Attic scene. Art and literature were still unknown. Solon 
 himself was the first of Attic poets, and was to have no notable 
 successor for fifty years and more. Sculpture was still in a rude 
 stage of advancement. Probably even the primitive statues 
 which were overthrown by the Persians and which have been 
 discovered in the debris of the Acropolis were still unwrought. 
 
 1 Diod. ix 1 ; Diog. Laert. i 45. Elsewhere always an Athenian. 
 
 2 xxxiv. 
 
 3 For early social and economic conditions in Athens see especially Wil- 
 brandt (18i)8) and De Sanctis (1912). 
 
BEFORE THE ARCHONSHIP 29 
 
 The painted pottery, found in the graves of this early period, has 
 as yet Uttle promise of the exquisite art of the future. All the 
 glories which the Athenians of a later time pointed to with pride 
 and we contemplate with admiration did not yet exist as an in- 
 centive to loyal emulation. 1 
 
 One of the most signal characteristics of Athens throughout 
 the sixth century, as contrasted with the fifth, is her inland posi- 
 tion. Themistocles and Pericles made Athens an island state, 
 facing the sea and depending for her prestige and for her very 
 existence upon sea-borne commerce and naval defense. In the 
 sixth century Athens was only just beginning to be aware of this 
 mighty neighbor and ally, waiting just off her coasts. Her people 
 were mostly occupied with internal affairs. The social institu- 
 tions which are rooted in agricultural life still prevailed. Land- 
 holders were the dominant class in the community. There were 
 nobles with hereditary estates, peasants and serfs with no estates 
 at all. Men were bound together by the religious bonds of clan 
 and family. Not only their livelihood, but their religion and 
 their habits of life were drawn from the soil. In later times, it 
 was the sea that fashioned men's lives and habits ; and since no 
 individual can own a portion of the high seas, there emerged an 
 equality of opportunity in industry and commerce which tended 
 to break down the feudal distinctions between landlords and 
 landless folk, between nobles and commons. This change had 
 begun in Solon's time. Men whose wealth consisted of money 
 
 1 Wilamowitz (189.3, II, 60) : "aber ganz abgesehen von dem formalen stu- 
 dium, das seine gedichte zur voraussetzung haben, hat er sein ganzes denken und 
 empfinden ionisch machen mlissen, menschlich, modern fiir seine zeit. halten 
 wir doch die attischen werke etwa der gleichen periode neben ihn : wie gross ist 
 der abstand. die kostliche darstellungsfreude mit der der bildner des Typhon- 
 giebels seine scheusale in aller derbheit aus seinem weichen stein schnitzt, das 
 ist das alte Athen, dasselbe, das ein paar generationen frtiher leiclienziige und 
 seeschlachten mit kindlichen mitteln auf die tonkriige pinselte, ungeschlacht 
 autochthonisch, aber mit acht attischer ivapyeia.'''' One should not forget, liow- 
 ever, that sculpture and painting were arts of a much slower growth in Greece 
 than poetry ; and the real state of culture in Athens might be measured by Solon's 
 poetry as well perhaps as by the Typhon pediment. 
 
30 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 accumulated in foreign trade began to take their places by the 
 side of the men whose wealth was in land. But the new source 
 of wealth was not yet open to any but the old landed nobility 
 who had the means for new enterprise. Such changes as these 
 are of slow growth, and we must not think that there was at any 
 time a conscious transition from the old order to the new, at 
 least until Themistocles built the long walls. Roughly speaking, 
 the age of Solon was characterized by the old order, the age of 
 Pericles by the new. 
 
 Athens, however, was not shut off from contact with the out- 
 side world. There is evidence that during this period she was 
 adopting some of the customs of the Ionian Greeks who dwelt in 
 Asia. The ancient dress of Attica was discarded for the Ionian 
 fashion ; the Ionian practice of cremating the dead was taking 
 its place beside the old Attic custom of burial ; a knowledge of 
 the Ionian mythological epic is revealed in some of the pictures 
 painted on Attic pottery. Trade, too, was carried on with other 
 communities. Fragments of early Athenian pottery have been 
 found in Cyprus and as far west as Etruria ; and on the Acropolis 
 there have been discovered broken bits of vessels which had been 
 made in Crete or at Naucratis in Egj^pt. 
 
 In that far-off day the city which was later to be the school 
 of Hellas and the chief city of Greece in art and letters, in in- 
 dustry and commerce, was a place of little account in the world. 
 The main currents of Hellenic life did not flow through Attica. 
 The focus of Hellenic life was across the Aegean Sea. Miletus 
 was the greatest city of the Greek world. Her close rivals were 
 Samos, Ephesus, Smyrna, and other cities whose names are less 
 well known to-day, lusty champions of the Greek spirit, not yet 
 enervated and corrupted by the laxity of the Orient. Ionia 
 was the first school of Hellas. Even on the western side of the 
 Aegean there were many cities more notable than Athens : Corinth 
 on tlic isthmus; Chalcis and Eretria on the island of Euboea; 
 
BEFORE THE ARCHONSHIP 31 
 
 Megara, which Athens later came to despise ; and Aegina, whose 
 proud Dorian lords were in the end forced to bend to Athens. 
 These were the cities which had played a part in the vast projects 
 of colonization which marked the eighth and seventh centuries. 
 They had established flourishing outposts of Greek civilization 
 from the Black Sea to Spain and from Thrace to the northern 
 coast of Africa. Athens had not a single colony. Athenian mer- 
 chants made use of money, the wonderful invention of the age ; 
 but they used the coinage of other cities. Athens probably 
 minted no coins of her own before the time of Solon. 
 
 It is not difficult to discover what characteristics would be 
 absent in a true portrait of Athens at the beginning of the sixth 
 century. They are, in point of fact, generally identical with all 
 the notable features of the more prominent Greek communities 
 of the same epoch and of Athens herself at the period of her great- 
 ness. But though we recognize that these characteristics must 
 be eliminated, it is not easy to form and preserve a true concep- 
 tion of what Athens actually was. There is little that is positive 
 to put in the place of what we know we must omit. If we try 
 to create a picture of Attica and of the people who dwelt there 
 as they appeared to the eyes of Solon, we find that material is 
 almost wholly lacking. There are many scattered scraps of in- 
 formation concerning the religious, social, and political institu- 
 tions of early Athens ; but they cannot be united into any com- 
 prehensive picture of the city's life. We know that the scattered 
 villages of the land were already associated together in that re- 
 markable community which recognized all residents of Attica 
 as Athenians. The people who lived about the Acropolis were 
 not more truly Athenians than those who dwelt in the mountains 
 or along the sea or farmed the more fertile valleys. The city of 
 Athens did not dominate Attica, but all Attica was Athens. This 
 was a momentous circumstance for the development of the state ; 
 and though the cit}^ of Athens never spread beyond the bounds of 
 
32 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 Attica, yet this political organization was as significant for Athens 
 herself as a similar organization was for the city of Rome, which 
 ultimately became coterminous with the Roman empire. In 
 this larger community of Athens, Eleusis also already formed a 
 part. This little village which lay beyond the low range of hills 
 to the west of the Acropolis had already been incorporated into 
 the Athenian state, bringing to the common life of Athenians 
 participation in the noble religious usages and ideas which there 
 had their home. 
 
 Solon himself, in the longest of his extant poems, gives us an 
 account of the principal occupations of the men of his time. He 
 shows us the trader, the husbandman, and the artisan ; the min- 
 strel, the prophet, and the physician. A busy, bustling world 
 it seemed to him, in which all were working bhndly with little 
 thought of the future. Money-making, he tells us, filled men's 
 minds; and in his day a deep social and economic unrest per- 
 vaded society, as a result of the unequal distribution of wealth. 
 Society fell into two conflicting classes : the one was composed of 
 the ''best" people (apto-rot), by which were meant the people of 
 wealth and noble birth ; the other consisted of the folk at large 
 (&7/xos). Political power lay entirely in the hands of the former 
 class, and the magistrates were chosen only from their number. 
 The restlessness, however, of the lower classes seems to have 
 been due not so much to political inequality as to cruel economic 
 conditions. Of all this we shall learn more later, because it was 
 to remedy the disorder that Solon was chosen to the archonship. 
 But since the disorder must have been long in growing, it is neces- 
 sary that we should glance thus for a moment at the state of the 
 world in which Solon lived. 
 
 2 
 
 If now we return to Solon, we may perhaps comprehend some- 
 thing of the significance of the two facts about him which have 
 already been presented. He was an Athenian whose years of 
 
BEFORE THE ARCHONSHIP 33 
 
 maturity fell in the first half of the sixth century. But what was 
 his position in this old feudal society of Athens which was slowly 
 outgrowing its ancient molds? What was his family, and what 
 were the formative influences of his early life? There will be 
 no temptation to protract the story of his childhood and his 
 youth in the somwhat pointless manner which is generally in- 
 evitable in the biographies of men about whom much is known. 
 Little is told us about this period in his life ; and even this is 
 open to question because we cannot be sure that it rests upon 
 secure evidence. But there are some things of which we can 
 be sure, and fortunately they are things of whose importance 
 we shall be convinced when we come to the principal work of 
 his life. 
 
 The name of Solon's father, we are told/ was Execestides. 
 The authorities all agree in this, with one exception : a certain 
 Philocles, otherwise unknown, is reported by Plutarch ^ as giving 
 the name Euphorion for Solon's father. But Plutarch himself 
 believed Execestides to be the correct name. The name of 
 Solon's mother is unknown ; according to Heracleides Ponticus,^ 
 who probably had no means of knowing anything about it, she 
 was a cousin of the mother of Pisistratus. 
 
 In any case Solon was of noble birth. His father was sup- 
 posed to be descended from Codrus, the early king of Athens, 
 or even from Neleus and Poseidon.^ But this does not enable 
 us to decide which of the great Athenian families Solon belonged 
 to, even if we admit the truth of the tradition, because several 
 families claimed descent from Poseidon through the mythical 
 line of Neleus, Melanthus, and Codrus. We may be fairly cer- 
 tain, however, on other grounds, that Solon was a member of 
 the aristocracy. He was later chosen archon, and in a day 
 
 1 Diod. ix 1 ; Plut. Sol i ; Diog. Laert. i 45 ; Schol. Plat. Bep. x 599e ; 
 Schol. Dem. xlv 64. 
 
 2 Sol. 1. 3 Ap. Plut. Sol. i. 
 
 4 Plut. Sol. i ; Diog. Laert. iii 1 ; Vita Platonis, ed. Westermann, p. 396. 
 
34 
 
 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 when only men of noble birth could fill this office it is not likely 
 that he would have been elected if he had not possessed this 
 qualification.^ 
 
 If, in the eyes of the Greeks, the ancestors of Execestides 
 were illustrious, there were reckoned among his descendants 
 personages whom the modern world would deem more illustrious 
 still. Plato himself and the notorious Critias, his mother's uncle, 
 were supposed to be the descendants of Dropides, the brother of 
 Solon. Socrates says, in the Charmides of Plato,^ that Charmides 
 and Critias inherit gifts of poetry and philosophy from Solon; 
 and Plutarch also alludes to the kinship between Solon and Plato.^ 
 The genealogy is given as follows : ^ 
 
 Execestides 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 Solon 
 
 Dropides 
 
 Critias 
 
 Callaeschrus 
 
 Glauco 
 
 Critias 
 (one of the Thirty) 
 
 Charraide? 
 
 Perictione = Aristo 
 Plato 
 
 Unfortunately there are two flaws in this genealogy : in the first 
 place, there must be at least two more generations between the 
 oligarch Critias and Execestides the father of Solon ; and in the 
 second place, it is not certain that Solon had a brother named 
 
 1 At this time the archons were chosen dpiaTivb-qv koI wXovTivSrjv (Const, of 
 Ath. iii 1). 
 
 2 l.'SGa. 3 Sol. xxxii. 
 
 4 I)io<j;. Lacrt. iii 1. Cf. also Vita Platonis, ed. Westermann, p. 388. 
 Accordiiit; to Olympiodorus (Vit. Plat.., p. 1), it was Ariston, the father of 
 Plato, who was (lescended from Solon. In the Critias of Plato (113 a) Critias 
 says that his i^rcat-^i^randfather Dropides possessed a manuscript which had 
 belonged to Solon. 
 
BEFORE THE ARCHONSHIP 35 
 
 Dropides.^ Plato ^ makes Critias say that Solon was a relative and 
 close friend of his own great-grandfather Dropides, and we still 
 have a couplet^ addressed by Solon to Critias, the son of Dropides, 
 bidding him follow the counsel of his father. We further know 
 that Dropides was the name of one of the archons who held office 
 within a few years after Solon > Beyond this we have no definite 
 information. One would be glad to know for certain that the 
 blood of Solon flowed in the veins of Plato, but the evidence is 
 too scanty to support the belief. It matters very little for a true 
 understanding of the life of Solon, whether the belief in the re- 
 lationship between Solon and Plato is true or false. But the 
 fancy of the modern reader is stirred more by the kinship between 
 Solon and a person so illustrious as Plato than by his descent from 
 a mythical Poseidon and a mythical Codrus. Yet the influence 
 upon Solon's own life and thought which was exercised by a 
 belief in his royal descent and his relation to the royal house must 
 have been of no little significance. 
 
 We do not find that any Athenian ever claimed descent di- 
 rectly from Solon, nor is there any statement recorded that he 
 was ever married. Plutarch does indeed tell a story about an 
 interview between him and the philosopher Thales,^ in which 
 Thales, to point a moral, pretends to have heard of the death of 
 Solon's son in Athens. But the story is quite unhistorical, and 
 the son is undoubtedly a fictitious person. 
 
 Though Solon was of noble birth, his father, according to Plu- 
 tarch,® was possessed of only moderate means. Aristotle tells us/ 
 
 1 Busolt (1895, p. 255) says Dropides was not a brother of Solon. It is 
 hardly a matter about which one can be so positive. Cf. also xxxix, Solon's 
 warning to Critias, the son of Dropides. 
 
 2 Timaeus 20 e. 3 xxxix. 
 
 4 Cf. Wilamowitz (1893, I, 7, footnote 9): " A/owtti'St/s, Ss /xera SoXwm ' Adrj- 
 valoLs 9jp^€P bei Philostratos vit. soph, i 16 wird dagegen mit zu scharfer interpre- 
 tation auf das nachste jahr nach Solon bezogen. es reicht vollkommen hin, dass 
 der name irgendwo bald nach Solon in der liste stand, sonst miisste man wol 
 gar ^op/xiwv fiera SoXwm dp^as schol. Ar. Fried. 347 ebenso fassen." 
 
 5 Plut. Sol. vi. 6 piut. Sol. i. 7 Const, of Ath. v. 
 
36 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 in almost the same words that are used by Plutarch in his state- 
 ment about the father, that Solon himself belonged to the middle 
 class in point of wealth. It is more likely that there was evidence 
 in Solon's poems concerning his own station in life than that 
 there was evidence about his father, and we must regard Plu- 
 tarch's statement rather as an inference from the prevailing view 
 about Solon himself. 
 
 It appears that early in life Solon embarked in commerce. 
 He was forced to this, according to Plutarch, ^ by the impaired 
 state of the family fortune, which had been brought about by the 
 excessive generosity of his father : belonging to a family which 
 was accustomed to help others, he was unwilling, when he was in 
 financial straits, to ask aid of his friends, who would have been 
 glad to render it to him. Others found the motive for his voyages 
 in his desire to acquire learning and experience rather than to 
 make money. Obviously both these excuses were offered to 
 save the reputation of Solon from the stain of trade. Plutarch 
 goes to the trouble of explaining at considerable length that in 
 earlier times trade brought with it no social inferiority. But 
 whatever the reasons may have been, the fact may be accepted 
 as true even though no direct evidence can be quoted in support 
 of it. In the first place, a thing which must be apologized for 
 is not likely to be invented ; Solon probably revealed his business 
 experience more or less explicitly in his own verse. Indeed, in 
 the fragments that remain he shows an acquaintance with eco- 
 nomic affairs which may well have been drawn from his own ex- 
 perience : he had a business man's understanding of things. 
 Furthermore, it is difficult to believe that if Solon had not gone 
 abroad into the wider air of the Greek world, he would have at- 
 tained to the breadth of view and the sympathetic comprehension 
 which characterize his public career. 
 
 Whither was he carried by his commercial ventures? At 
 1 Pint. Sol. ii. 
 
BEFORE THE ARCHONSHIP 37 
 
 this period Athens had begun to trade not only with the neigh- 
 boring coasts and islands of Greece, but also with Asia Minor 
 and the Pontus, with Crete, Cyprus, and Egypt, and with Sicily 
 and Italy in the west. It is impossible to say certainly whether 
 Solon made his way to all or any of these regions. But it seems 
 altogether probable that he should have been often in Ionia and 
 for somewhat prolonged periods. This assumption is almost 
 necessary in order to explain his ability to use the Ionic language 
 and the elegiac verse of Ionia as his natural medium of expression. 
 Solon must have carried many a cargo of oil or pottery from his 
 own rocky Attica to the wealthy cities across the Aegean, and in 
 spite of his love for his own native land {Trpea-pvTo.r'qv yaXav 
 'laovtas) 1 he must have been charmed by the brilliant society 
 which he found in Asia. It was here that he learned the pleasures 
 of Aphrodite, Dionysus, and the Muses, whose attractions he 
 frankly acknowledged. ^ He may have been tempted into luxury 
 and prodigality, as Plutarch supposed when he offered in excuse 
 for such habits the trials and dangers of his mercantile career. 
 
 There must have been some years of this wild and merry life. 
 Good songs, good wine, and a lass in every port lightened the 
 toil of the sea. But it was a good school for Solon. He learned 
 to know men as they lived outside the limits of the society of the 
 best Athenian families ; he learned self-reliance, resourcefulness, 
 and courage; his natural instinct for poetical art was developed 
 by contact with the refinement of the east. 
 
 It is clear that he did not grow rich through trade. No doubt 
 he provided himself with a competence. But there were two things 
 he preferred to money : one, as we have seen, was the good things 
 that money can buy, the other his own personal worth (a/aeri}), 
 which, he says himself, he would not sell for any amount of money .^ 
 Speaking of the time when Solon became archon, Aristotle says* 
 
 1 iii. 2 xxviii. 3 xvi and xvii. 
 
 4 Const, of Ath. V. Cf. also Arist. Pol. vi (iv) 11, 1296 a, 19, where Aris- 
 totle says again that Solon belonged to the class of yuecroi iroXTrai, and refers to 
 his poems in proof of the fact. 
 
38 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 that by birth and reputation he ranked among the highest 
 in the city, but that his hmited means and his manner of hfe 
 placed him in the middle class. And yet in order to be eligible 
 to this office, the law required that he should be sufficiently 
 well off to claim a place in the census of the wealthiest class in 
 Athens.^ 
 
 Whether he was in fact rich or poor, he showed himself capable 
 of adopting the views of a true moderate as thoroughly as if he 
 had been born to that class.^ His conviction that the love of 
 money is the root of all evil, appears again and again in fragments 
 of poems which must have been written before his archonship 
 but after he had had considerable experience of the world. ^ He 
 believed at this time that the rich men of Athens were entirely 
 responsible for the civil disorder which was yearly growing more 
 threatening. Together with his condemnation of the rich went a 
 sympathetic recognition of the hardships of the poor.'^ He reveals 
 himself in the character of an ardent social reformer, outraged 
 and shocked by the heartless excesses of the moneyed class, stirred 
 with pity and commiseration for the oppressed. Fortunately 
 the time was to come when he could act upon his generous im- 
 pulses and bring relief where relief was needed ; unfortunately 
 he was also to suffer disillusionment and learn that if the rich are 
 greedy and rapacious, the poor, too, have their characteristic 
 vices of ingratitude and discontent. 
 
 1 Gilliard (1907, p. 153) says that the tradition which made Solon a man of 
 moderate means rests upon his own poems (xvi, xvii, xl). The proof, ho main- 
 tains, is not convincinjG^. The poems may not be a revelation of his personal 
 position, but simply the expression of a fairly common thought, which is also 
 found in Theoirnis. xvi and xvii are even attributed to Theognis (315 ff., 719 ff.). 
 
 2 Cf. tlie whole passage in Aristotle's Politics just referred to. Solon could 
 not strictly be numbered with the middle class which Aristotle believes should 
 rule in an ideal state. True ixea-dTrjs implies the absence of inrepKaXSv, virepLa-xv- 
 pov, vTrepevyeurj, and virepTrXovaLov. A man who was connected by blood with the 
 noblest house in Athens could never satisfy the full definition. But Solon as an 
 individual could choose liis own political ideals ; and, choosini? as he did the 
 ideal of fxeadr-qs, he could not but be benefited by his sympathetic understanding 
 of the evyevijs. 
 
 3 ii'.f/., iv, v, xii, xvi, xvii, xl. •* xii. 
 
BEFORE THE ARCHONSHIP 39 
 
 Our information concerning the first half of Solon's life is 
 unfortunately very meager. We can only say that he must have 
 risen steadily in popular esteem ; and it is much to be regretted 
 that we cannot trace in detail the course of events through which 
 he ultimately attained to a position of leadership in the state. 
 We have seen that he gave serious thought to the problems by 
 which Athens was beset, and fearlessly published his opinions in 
 poetical form. But there must have been something more than 
 thought, however sound, and something more than speech, 
 however persuasive, to induce the Athenians, embittered as they 
 were by party strife, ultimately to resign to him full control of 
 their destinies. There must have been deeds as well as words. 
 Things must have been done in the public service which won for 
 Solon the admiration and confidence of his fellow-citizens. But 
 there is only one such event of which we have any record, and this 
 unfortunately is a matter which is involved in much obscurity. 
 The evidence for it, as far as it went, was of the best, for it was 
 provided by Solon's own poems, but it is difficult to determine 
 how much of the information found in the ancient biographers 
 was actually certified in this way. 
 
 The event in question was the acquisition by Athens of the 
 island of Salamis.^ This island lies in the Saronic Gulf close to 
 the shore of Attica westward from Athens, shutting in the little 
 bay of Eleusis. It thrusts itself out also as a menacing barrier 
 toward Nisaea, the port of Megara. In the rivalry between 
 Athens and Megara, which had probably begun long before this 
 time and which was to continue intermittently for hundreds of 
 years, the possession of Salamis was a matter of crucial impor- 
 tance. The credit for the conquest was awarded to Solon by al- 
 most the unanimous voice of antiquity. It was generally be- 
 1 For a critical discussion of the affair of Salamis see Appendix 1. 
 
40 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 licved that he was the miUtary captain who carried the matter 
 through to success. If this had been the fact, the exploit would 
 certainly have done much to secure for Solon the affections of his 
 fellow-countrymen. Like many another miUtary hero, he might 
 have won political preferment through success on the field of 
 battle. Although the name of Solon is inextricably involved in 
 the affair of Salamis, all the records of his military participation 
 are open to very grave suspicion. We must look elsewhere to 
 discover his real part in the business. ^ 
 
 The poem which offered the best evidence for the affair was 
 the one entitled ''Salamis," which has already been mentioned.^ 
 Plutarch narrates with some detail the circumstances of its com- 
 position and of the results to which it led ; but though he might 
 have learned from the poem something as to why it was written 
 and what had happened before it was written, it is clear that it 
 could have told him nothing of what happened after its publica- 
 tion. If there is any truth in the latter part of the story, it must 
 have come from some other source. In Plutarch's own words 
 the story is this : ^ 
 
 Once when the Athenians were tired out with a war which they were 
 waging against the Megarians for the island of Salamis, they made a 
 law that no one in future, on pain of death, should move, in writing or 
 orally, that the city take up its contention for Salamis. Solon could not 
 endure the disgrace of this, and when he saw that many of the young men 
 wanted steps taken to bring on the war, but did not dare to take those 
 steps themselves on account of the law, he pretended to be out of his 
 head, and a report was given out to the city by his family that he showed 
 signs of madness. He then secretly composed some elegiac verses, and 
 after rehearsing them so that he could say them by rote, he sallied out into 
 the market place of a sudden, with a cap upon his head. After a large 
 
 1 Page 7. 
 
 2 Plut. Sol. viii-x. Perrin's translation is quoted. For the poem and the 
 circuinstances under which it was composed and recited, see also Dem. xix 252 
 (and scliol.) ; ('icero de off. i 30, 108 ; Philodemus de mus. xx 18 ; Justinus ii 
 7 f. ; Aristides Or. xxxvii, vol. 1, p. 708 and Or. xlvi, vol. 2, p. 361 Dindorf ; 
 Polyaeiius Strateg. i 20 ; Paus. i 40, 5 ; Diog. Laert. i 40 ff. ; Porphyrins ad 
 Ham. n. ii 183. 
 
BEFORE THE ARCHONSHIP 41 
 
 crowd had collected there, he got upon the herald's stone and recited the 
 poem which begins : 
 
 "Behold in me a herald come from lovely Salamis, 
 With a song in ordered verse instead of a harangue.** 
 This poem is entitled "Salamis," and contains a hundred very graceful 
 verses. When Solon had sung it, his friends began to praise him, and 
 Pisistratus in particular m-ged and incited the citizens to obey his words. 
 They therefore repealed the law and renewed the war, putting Solon in 
 command of it. 
 
 After this there follow two different accounts of the conduct 
 of the campaign and the strategies that Solon employed to cap- 
 ture the island.^ Both of these accounts are legendary. But 
 in the second account there are two circumstances recorded 
 which do not seem to form an integral part of the legend and which 
 may have some historical value : the first of these is the state- 
 ment that Solon had under his command five hundred volunteers 
 and that a decree was passed that these should be supreme in the 
 government of the island if they took it ; the second is the state- 
 ment that near the spot where the Athenians effected a landing 
 there was a temple of Eny alius which had been erected by Solon. 
 
 What can we conclude from all this ? 
 
 Clearly the possession of Salamis was at stake. Either Athens 
 held the island and was in imminent danger of losing it ; or she 
 had now given up, or was about to give up, the struggle. This 
 is plainly revealed by the portions of the poem which are extant. 
 We know that it was generally believed by Athenians of a later 
 day that Salamis had belonged to them by right from the begin- 
 ning of time, but had once or twice slipped from their power ; we 
 also know that, as a matter of fact, Salamis had been originally 
 independent and had come at different times under the domi- 
 nation of Megara and Aegina.^ During the seventh century, 
 
 1 For Plutarch's first account of the campaign, see also Aeneas Comm. 
 Poliorc. iv 8 ff. ; Justinus ii 8 ; Frontinus Strateg. ii 9, 9 ; Polyaenus Strateg. i 
 20. For his second account^ Aelian, V. H. vii 19. 
 
 2Toepffer (1886, pp. 34 ff.)- Beloch, however, thinks (1913, p. 310) that 
 before Solon's time Salamis must have belonged to Athens because the strong 
 
42 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 Megara, which was then at the full tide of its prosperity as the 
 mother of colonies, must have been in control of the island, which 
 in the hands of another would have blocked her seaport. It is 
 probable, therefore, that at the time of Solon's poem Salamis 
 had never yet been in the possession of Athens ; but it must be 
 recognized that it may have changed masters several times within 
 the preceding decades. However this may be, the immediate 
 situation which moved Solon to address his fellow-Athenians in 
 verse was discreditable to Athens and not to be tolerated by 
 patriotic citizens. Solon exhorts them to go and fight for the 
 island. 
 
 As for the circumstantial account of the composition and 
 recitation of the poem, we must admit that it has a legendary 
 aspect. The picturesque description of the dramatic scene in 
 the market place is almost unquestionably fiction, suggested per- 
 haps in the first instance by Solon's figure of the herald. But 
 we should not forget the lost ninety-two lines of the poem. Plu- 
 tarch may have found in them sure authority for some of his 
 statements. The protracted war, the death penalty, the discon- 
 tent of the younger men, the rashness or even insanity of Solon's 
 defiance of the law may well have been facts, revealed more or 
 less directly by the poem itself. At any rate, it is as uncritical 
 to reject, as it is to accept, them unreservedly.^ 
 
 expressions in the poem would be appropriate only if the island had been lost by 
 Athens. HaXaixivacpeT Qv is meaningless, he argues, unless Athens had a claim to 
 Salamis, and the claim could rest only on previous possession. But this word 
 may mean with ec^ual propriety either that Athens, having once possessed 
 Salamis, had now lost it, or that, never having actually possessed it, she was now 
 disposed to resign her claims. It may be remarked here that Beloch's restoration 
 of the history of Salamis throughout the sixth century, ingenious as it is, is 
 nevertheless entirely conjectural. It assumes that we have a record of all the 
 vicissitudes in the fortunes of the island, and tliat each piece of evidence refers 
 to a separate event. All the allusions cannot b(i fitted into a convincing scheme: 
 the fragments of the puzzle picture are too few, and they can be arranged in 
 many ways. 
 
 1 Demosthenes (xix 252) evidently had Solon's poem before his eyes, as we 
 can see by his language. It is not unlikely, therefore, that the poem was his 
 authority for the statements which he makes in the innnediate connection, viz., 
 
BEFORE THE ARCHONSHIP 43 
 
 What happened after the pubUcation of the poem? Did 
 
 Solon do anything more toward the success of the Athenians than 
 
 • 
 
 to rouse them to energetic activity ? In later times the renown of 
 the achievement was almost universally attached to his name. 
 We have already seen that he was called a Salaminian by Diodorus 
 and Diogenes; there was also a tradition that his ashes were 
 scattered over the island.^ We learn from the orator Aeschines 
 that there was in his day a statue of Solon standing in the market 
 place of the town of Salamis.^ It is conceivable that the glory 
 for the whole affair might have been given to Solon simply on the 
 strength of the poem. The poet Tyrtaeus was credited with the 
 success of the Spartan arms in the wars against the Messenians 
 because of the martial verse by which he stirred them to the fight. 
 Solon's poem may have been such another trumpet call. But 
 Tyrtaeus was only a poet and, according to the story, lame be- 
 sides. Solon was more of a statesman than a poet; and it is 
 probable that he did more than a poet could do. We can be sure, 
 at any rate, that he did as much as Tyrtaeus ; but we should be 
 surprised if his aid was limited to poetical exhortation. Let us 
 see if we can discover a hint of anything else that he may have 
 done to bring about the conquest of the island. 
 
 At the time when the island of Salamis was slipping from her 
 grasp, Athens, as we have seen, was suffering from a grave eco- 
 nomic disorder, which was aggravated by social and political con- 
 ditions which were crying for reform. Solon's thoughts were 
 much occupied with the unhappy state of his country, as his 
 poems show plainly enough, and he now saw her threatened with 
 disgrace abroad as well as disaster at home. In this perplexing 
 situation, the possibility occurred to him of neutralizing one evil 
 with the other. Domestic troubles have been frequently remedied 
 
 that Salamis had revolted from Athens, that Athens had set up the death penalty, 
 that Solon had exposed himself to danger in composing and reciting the poem. 
 1 Plut. Sol. xxxii ; Diog. Laert. i 62. 2 i 25. 
 
44 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 by a vigorous foreign policy. The energetic prosecution of the 
 campaign against Salamis would turn men's minds from their 
 anxieties at home, and unite the opposing parties, for a time at 
 least, in one common struggle. To accomplish this result, it 
 was necessary for him both to fire their enthusiasm and to hold 
 out a reasonably sure promise of success. The first he accom- 
 plished through the stirring exhortations of his poem, in which he 
 appealed both to their sense of shame and to their longing for the 
 island. The second he compassed by laying before them the pro- 
 posal that five hundred volunteers should be called for, and that 
 as a reward for their success the volunteers should be promised 
 full economic and political freedom on the newly won soil. Rely- 
 ing upon the longing for liberty which possessed the hearts of 
 many Athenians who were little better than serfs of the rich, he 
 believed that he could, at one and the same time, assure the con- 
 quest of the island and draw off a little blood from the fevered body 
 politic. The promise of political independence in the land which 
 was to be won was the strongest inducement which he could offer 
 to secure the support of the lower classes. Downtrodden as they 
 were by the Athenian aristocracy, nothing would have stirred 
 them as much as the vision of a life freed from the burdens and 
 restrictions by which they were oppressed. Five hundred such 
 men, stimulated at once by their loyalty to Athens and her gods 
 and by the prospect of the immediate attainment of their politi- 
 cal and economic aspirations, were sufficient to wrest the coveted 
 island even from powerful Megara. By this single shrewd stroke, 
 Solon could bring permanent relief to five hundred unhappy Athen- 
 ians and their families, and so far lighten the pressure within the 
 state as to postpone the conflict for some years. The plan was 
 adopted and put into effect. Salamis was won, not so much by 
 the prowess of the Athenian leaders, whoever they were, as by 
 the irresistible elan of the men who were fighting for their liberty 
 in a new land which should still be a piece of Attica. When all 
 
BEFORE THE ARCHONSHIP 45 
 
 was over, Solon, who had been the soul of the enterprise, dedi- 
 cated a precinct in Salamis to the god Enyalius as a thank-offering 
 for the victory, and ever after he was thought of as the benefactor, 
 not only of the Athenian state, but more especially of those 
 Athenians who dwelt in Salamis. It was natural that legend, 
 which is inevitably romantic, should invent tales of the military 
 stratagems by which Solon won the island ; the clever stratagems 
 of a statesman are not the stuff for popular stories. 
 
 This conjectural restoration of the incident rests, after all, 
 in spite of its plausibility, upon few and slender supports. It 
 cannot be quite admitted within the bounds of sober history. 
 But the nucleus of it, the fact that Solon was in some sort the 
 hero of Salamis, is scarcely open to question. And this was no 
 sUght thing in those days of small beginnings. It was a public 
 service which stirred men's admiration, and which, added to their 
 other knowledge of his character and capacity, made them ready 
 a few years later to appoint him supreme dictator in Athens. 
 
 We have no record of Solon's activities between the conquest 
 of Salamis and his election to the archonship. It may be that 
 the beginning of the Sacred War which the Amphictyonic League 
 waged against the people of Cirrha fell in this interval ; if so, the 
 part which Solon played in the counsels of the league is an indica- 
 tion of the growing esteem in which he was held even beyond the 
 confines of his native city. His part, however, in this war, which, 
 whenever it may have begun, undoubtedly came to an end after 
 his archonship, will be more appropriately discussed on a later 
 occasion.^ 
 
 1 See pp. 98 f . 
 
 ^^ 
 
CHAPTER III 
 THE ARCHONSHIP 
 
 At some time between 595 and 590 Solon was elected to the 
 archonship.^ We are told that he was intrusted with extraor- 
 dinary powers during his term of office : that he was made a 
 mediator between the two hostile parties ; and that he was given 
 special legislative powers, with liberty to remodel at his own pleas- 
 ure the whole machinery of government. ^ Undoubtedly these 
 statements are true ; that Solon actually addressed himself to 
 these tasks and accomplished them with more or less success, 
 we know from his own poems and from the common Athenian 
 tradition, which in a matter of such importance was unquestion- 
 ably sound. Furthermore, we can be equally sure that these 
 high powers had been granted to him by an authority which he 
 himself regarded as sovereign in the state : and this sovereign 
 authority could only have been the joint will of all the conflicting 
 elements. Otherwise he could have done his work only as a tyrant, 
 and a tyrant he steadfastly refused to be, as his poems clearly 
 show. 
 
 That Solon should have been chosen to fill the office of archon 
 requires no explanation. An archon was elected every year, and 
 no extraordinary ability was required to win this civic honor. But 
 the additional powers which were granted to him made him a 
 
 1 For the date see Appendix 2. 
 
 2 Const, of Ath. V 1, vi 1 ; Plut. Sol. xiv, xvi. Cf. also Pint. Amatorius 18, 
 p. 7(58 o, and Praec. Ger. Keip. 10, p. 805 d. That the duty of revising the 
 constitution was intrusted to him only after the Seisachtheia, as Plutarch 
 represents, is probably an unwarranted assumption. 
 
 43 
 
THE ARCHONSHIP 47' 
 
 dictator plenipotentiary in the state. This was indeed an ex- 
 traordinary thing ; it must be remembered that the Athenians 
 in those turbulent days did not choose a man whose historical 
 reputation was already secure. They would be guided in their 
 choice only by the achievements of Solon in the past and his 
 promise for the future. It is worth while to review those achieve- 
 ments, and to weigh that promise. But first it will be necessary 
 to consider just what the circumstances were which drove the 
 Athenians to the perilous expedient of resigning their liberties to 
 a temporar}^ autocrat. 
 
 Fortunately we have some fairly precise information about the 
 state of affairs in Athens at the moment when Solon entered upon 
 his office.^ After what has been previously said, this will not be 
 misunderstood to mean that we are in a position to command a 
 comprehensive view of all aspects of the city's life. The greater 
 part of the scene is dark. But some real illumination is thrown 
 upon certain parts of it — and those, for our purpose, the most 
 significant parts — by Solon's own poems. In some of the poems 
 written before his archonship and in some written after, he has 
 given reasonably clear indications of the abuses of the day, and 
 it is not difficult to discern the conditions out of which these abuses 
 grew.2 No doubt we should know more if we had more of the 
 poems ; but even Aristotle and Plutarch, who had more, add little 
 to what we can easily infer from the extant remains. 
 
 The outstanding feature of the times was a bitter dissension 
 between the rich and the poor. The population was sharply 
 divided into two hostile groups. It would be misleading to call 
 these groups parties, because there could have been nothing like 
 genuine political rivalry between them, such as is implied by the 
 word " parties " in the modern world. It cannot be supposed that 
 
 1 For an admirable and thorough discussion of the social and economic dis- 
 order in Athens and the curative measures adopted by Solon see Gilliard (1907"). 
 Cf. also p. 28, footnote 3. 
 
 2 iii-xii, xl. 
 
'48 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 the poor had united themselves even in the semblance of a labor 
 party which could energetically and systematically push its claims 
 in the struggle with the rich. It was one of Solon's chief claims 
 to glory among the Athenians of a later day that he had been the 
 first of the distinguished line of statesmen who had championed 
 the rights of the people and resisted the rule of special privilege. 
 There was certainly justice in this claim ; before Solon the lower 
 classes in Athens could only have been helpless and inarticulate, 
 lacking the means of either aggression or defense. 
 
 But if the poor had nothing which may be properly called a 
 political organization, they were nevertheless bound together by 
 common suffering and oppression, and they were clearly and con- 
 sciously opposed to the rich by whom they were oppressed. They 
 were not moved to a desire for new things by theoretical propa- 
 ganda and the requirements of abstract justice. Every man 
 knew from his own misery that there was something wrong in 
 the organization of society which must be put right.^ Men had 
 suffered till they could endure no longer. They were ready to 
 strike out blindly and fiercely against the thing that hurt them and 
 destroy it. Revolution was at the door. We do not hear that 
 the opposing parties had met in armed conflict. It seems to have 
 been recognized, however, that affairs had come to such a pass 
 that the only settlement would be found in a resort to force. 
 
 Solon tells us plainly of the overt abuses in his own day.^ 
 A large part of the soil of Attica had come into the possession, 
 or at least under the control, of the rich ; many Athenians were 
 suffering under a load of debt; some of these debtors, helpless 
 to relieve themselves, had been forced into exile and had been 
 living so long abroad that they had forgotten the good Attic 
 speech ; others, free-born though they were, had become the slaves 
 of their creditors or had sold their children as slaves ; and of these, 
 many had been sold into slavery abroad and so were in the worst 
 1 xii 27-30. 2 cf . especially ix, xii, xl. 
 
THE ARCHONSHIP 49 
 
 case of all. Broadly speaking, the land and the greater part of 
 its products belonged to the rich ; and the poor were constrained 
 to toil for them as their slaves without mercy or redress. -Here 
 were causes enough for bitterness and discontent. While the 
 rich enjoyed their ease and all the luxuries and comforts that the 
 times afforded, the poor were condemned to a life of hopeless 
 drudgery at home or to that worst of evils in the ancient world, 
 exile in a foreign land. 
 
 The causes of revolution are always long and slow. We 
 cannot hope to trace through the darkness of the centuries preced- 
 ing the archonship of Solon the insensible movements of society 
 that led to the crisis. It is probable that certain well known 
 changes that had been taking place throughout the Greek world 
 produced, when they came into contact with the old social order in 
 Athens, the reaction which precipitated the appalling conditions 
 which have been described. There is much to show that this 
 old social order had resembled in a degree the feudal conditions 
 of the Middle Ages. Wealth and power had belonged to the 
 nobles or Eupatridae, and families of humbler birth were at- 
 tached to their lords and bound to certain obligations of service.^ 
 As long as the temper of the nobles is mild and that of the common 
 people submissive, such a relation as this does not breed dis- 
 content ; indeed the mutual advantages may be such as to make 
 it desirable. But when the lords become arrogant and over- 
 bearing, the lot of their vassals soon becomes hard. Solon has 
 much to say of the pride and greed and arrogance of the upper 
 classes in Athens.^ This change of temper, together with other 
 changes in Athenian society, tending to destroy the old content- 
 
 1 In later times the words eKTrjfjLopoL^ TreXdrat, and drjres were applied to men 
 who occupied the position of vassals and serfs in early Athenian history ; but no 
 definite information about them is available. For a discussion of the words see 
 Busolt (1895, pp. 108-110) ; Gilliard (1907, pp. 92-97) ; De Sanctis (1912, pp. 
 195 ff.) 
 
 2 See iv, v, xii, xvii, xl. 
 
50 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 ment, were probably produced by the widely operative reagents 
 that have just been alluded to. 
 
 The general character of the seventh and sixth centuries in 
 the history of Greece is well known. It was an age of coloniza- 
 tion, of rapidly growing commerce, of sudden riches and sudden 
 losses. The old traditional life of isolated Greek communities 
 was undergoing a transformation : the old noble famiUes embarked 
 on new enterprises of money making ; the lower classes saw op- 
 portunities for advancement which did not depend on the owner- 
 ship of the soil. The mass of the people began to be aware of 
 hopes and possibilities which had never before entered their heads. 
 The world was suddenly opened to them. A spirit of adventure, 
 an eagerness for a larger and fuller life marked the whole age. One 
 single, concrete thing had an incalculable influence in making 
 over the world : it was at this time that coined money began to 
 be used in Greece. Commerce demanded a medium of exchange, 
 and money fostered commerce. One was impossible without 
 the other. But the existence of money completely upset the old 
 relations between men in single communities. In order to live to- 
 gether without money, men must come very close to one another ; 
 barter and exchange, whether of goods or of labor, is direct and 
 personal. Money has the same value everywhere ; it may be 
 earned in one place and spent in another. It is not necessary 
 to tell the old familiar story. The fundamental transformation 
 in human society wrought by the invention of money is suffi- 
 ciently well known. 
 
 With these general characteristics of the age in mind we can 
 now see what probably took place in Athens during the seventh 
 century. The new opportunities of trade and commerce were 
 open first to the nobles because they alone held any considerable 
 property ; they began to collect money ; payment in kind was 
 no longer acceptable ; since money is the form of wealth which 
 most quickly engenders avarice, the nobles became greedy and 
 
THE ARCHONSHIP 51 
 
 avaricious. No distinction is made by Solon, or by Aristotle, 
 between the noble and the rich, who are also called indifferently 
 the few, the distinguished, or the powerful. Often enough, 
 with a singular directness, but without any thought of moral dis- 
 tinction, the upper classes are called the good, and the lower classes 
 the bad ; but this habit of expression is common enough among 
 the Greeks, who were never blind to the fact that high birth and 
 wealth enable men to attain a higher standard of human worth 
 than can be reached by those who are not blessed with these 
 advantages. Meanwhile the lower classes had no money with 
 which to pay; no longer able to fulfill their old obligations by 
 payment in kind, they were forced to borrow ; men who held land 
 were forced to give up part of their right to its products ; the 
 only security which others could offer was their personal liberty 
 or the liberty of members of their family. Once their liberty 
 was forfeited, they were in danger of being sold abroad for money. 
 Thus the old order was transformed merely by the conjunction 
 of circumstances. 
 
 Meanwhile political power and the administration of justice 
 lay in the hands of the nobles. Aristocratic rule may have begun 
 already to breed discontent ; now at any rate when the new abuses 
 that afflicted the community could only be righted through the 
 agency of law and government, the very part of the community 
 which profited by the abuses held control of both. All Athenian 
 magistrates, it is safe to say, were chosen from among the wealthy 
 class. The laws which they administered were the unwritten 
 laws of custom and precedent. What recourse had a poor man 
 under these circumstances, now that the new, baleful influence 
 of money had transmuted a benevolent aristocracy into a rapa- 
 cious oligarchy ? Public property and even the sacred holdings of 
 temples were not spared ; ^ and if men had the audacity to lay 
 hands on such things as these, they would certainly have felt no 
 
 1 xii 12 f . 
 
52 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 scruple in seizing upon the lands and the persons of poor debtors, 
 to which they had a certain right according to the terms of custom 
 and tradition. 
 
 These were the deplorable conditions which compelled the 
 Athenians to seek some radical remedy. Positive pressure came, 
 of course, from the lower classes. It was they who demanded 
 a change.^ But the upper classes, too, perceived the danger that 
 threatened, and were themselves eager that peace and calm should 
 be restored. Just what the demands of the lower classes were, 
 we cannot say. Indeed, they were probably not formulated at 
 all; or, if the vague dissatisfaction and distress came to some 
 coherent expression, it was probably in the radical and revolu- 
 tionary terms which are characteristic of such popular clamor. 
 It appears that an equal distribution of the soil was talked of,^ 
 and no doubt other short-sighted and impracticable schemes 
 filled men's minds. But there seemed to be no escape from the 
 irrepressible conflict. 
 
 Such was the problem which Solon was called upon to solve. 
 Both factions, divided in all else, were united in their belief that 
 he alone could find a way.^ What was it that gave all Athenians 
 such confidence in him alone? We have not been able to trace 
 the steps by which he had risen to the position of the accepted 
 statesman of the day. But we can discern three causes at least, 
 which, though they may not have been the only ones, would at 
 any rate have been sufficient to win for him the public confidence. 
 
 In the first place, he occupied a unique position in his relation 
 to the parties, having bonds of relationship with all the principal 
 groups in the state. A member of one of the best families of 
 Athens, he belonged indisputably to the highest social class ; 
 he knew their ways and he understood their thoughts. Possess- 
 
 1 iv. 2 viii 8f. 3 Const, of Ath. v 1 ; Plut. Sol. xiv. 
 
THE ARCHONSHIP 53 
 
 ing no large estates, he was thrown by circumstances into associa- 
 tion with the landless men in the community ; he appreciated 
 their difficulties and sympathized with their aspirations. A 
 successful trader and a traveler of wide experience, he had made 
 himself one with the new industrial and commercial element in 
 the population ; he saw the change which was inevitably coming 
 in the constitution of Athenian society.^ Surely there were 
 not many men in Athens who had enjoyed such opportunities 
 for learning the temper of the people. All parties alike could 
 trust him as one who knew them and could survey the problem 
 from their point of view. The poor saw in him the champion 
 of their liberties ; the rich believed that he would be the defender 
 of their privileges — noblesse oblige. It is not likely that when 
 through compromise Solon was made dictator by the united ac- 
 tion of both parties, either party really thought of him as an im- 
 partial administrator. In such cases neither party really desires 
 a compromise ; in the present instance, we may be sure the lower 
 classes fully expected a redistribution of the land, and the rich 
 expected a preservation of the status quo with only slight modi- 
 fication. ^ This is clear from the loudly expressed dissatisfaction 
 on both sides which is echoed in the poems composed by Solon 
 after his archonship.^ If either party had really believed that 
 Solon was the inflexible mediator that he eventually showed him- 
 self to be, he would never have been appointed to his high office. 
 A compromise candidate is one whom each party thinks it can 
 bend to its own uses. 
 
 In the second place, he was the victor of Salamis. When in 
 
 1 Lehmann-Haupt (1912, p. 17) observes : " Als Grosskaufmann von hoch- 
 ster staatsmannischer Begabung und weitem Blicke ist er, als die Stunde rief, 
 daran gegangen, Athen aus wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Noten zu befreien und 
 durch den Handel auf den Weg der Grosse zu fiihren." Cf. also Lehmann- 
 Haupt (1900, p. 638, footnote 1). This opinion, however, is not well supported, 
 resting, as it does, mostly on the reform in the monetary system and the system 
 of weights and measures which is attributed to Solon. See Appendix 5. 
 
 2 Const, of Ath. xi 2 ; Plut. Sol. xvi 1. 3 vi-xi. 
 
54 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 the mind of the Athenian people factional disputes were mcrg:ed 
 in the common emotion of patriotic devotion to the fatherland, 
 their grateful loyalty naturally rested in him. He was in a cer- 
 tain sense the national hero of the day. And not only this. 
 There were good grounds for his popularity. If we have judged 
 aright his conduct of the Salaminian affair, he had not only guided 
 it to a successful conclusion, but in his settlement of the island 
 he had shown wisdom and sagacity. We may well believe that 
 there was much in what he had done to inspire confidence in his 
 ability to handle the more difficult task of reconstituting Athenian 
 society. 
 
 Thirdly, Solon was a writer on public questions who had given 
 expression to opinions which were acceptable to the people at 
 large. Considerable fragments remain of the elegiac verse which 
 he composed in the period before his archonship, and they are 
 sufficient to give us a fair understanding of his political creed. ^ 
 He denounces the greed of the rich, he sympathizes with the hard- 
 ships of the poor; therefore, he is the accepted leader of the 
 popular party, the first STy/otaywyos in the history of Athens. 
 The policy, moreover, with which he proposes to correct the 
 abuses of the day is far from being subversive and radical. It 
 was a policy which the upper classes could readily subscribe to, 
 particularly at a moment when some conciliation at least must 
 be made to the restless masses. Solon did not propose to take 
 away the property of the rich and give it to the poor ; he did not 
 propose to throw open the magistracies of the city to the ple- 
 beians ; he did not propose to throw down the social barriers in the 
 community. The panacea which he offered to Athens was cwo/u,tr;, 
 a beneficent reign of law, which should remove all causes for 
 dissension and foster harmony and contentment. Obviously 
 this was an ideal which all could acclaim. It might mean much 
 or it might mean little. Both parties were wrong, as the event 
 
 1 iv, V, xii, xl. 
 
THE ARCHONSHIP 55 
 
 proved : Solon meant precisely what he said,^ and what he said 
 was the wise utterance of a man whose view is not circumscribed 
 by the wall which shuts in a party. But for the moment all were 
 content, and Solon was intrusted with the destinies of the state. 
 
 The influence of Solon's poetry is not to be regarded as in- 
 significant. Ringing verse has great advantages over the sober 
 pamphlet in stirring the emotions, and political action springs 
 more often from emotion than from reason. We may well be- 
 lieve that many a rousing couplet from Solon's elegies was re- 
 peated in the market place and at the crossroads ; and the 
 noble description which he gives of the ideal blessings of Euno- 
 mia must have convinced many who were oppressed with the 
 realities of life, that Solon was the man to bring the state into 
 order. Furthermore, it appears that Solon had something of the 
 gift — invaluable to politicians — of coining watchwords which 
 like magnets drew to his cause the unsettled opinions of the 
 community. Plutarch reports one such phrase, which, whether 
 it is authentic or not, serves at any rate as an illustration : ^ 
 "Equality breeds no war" {t6 la-ov TroXe^ov ov Trotet) — a stimu- 
 lating sentiment, especially to unthinking persons, well adapted 
 to serve as the nucleus for a political movement. That the 
 phrase has no precise meaning does not diminish its value as a 
 rallying cry. Plutarch himself observes, very neatly, that the 
 two parties put different interpretations upon it, the rich think- 
 ing that the equality was to be based on ability and worth, and 
 the poor thinking it was to be based on measure and count. 
 
 It would not be fair to conclude an estimate of the causes 
 which led to the choice of Solon as the dictator of Athens without 
 mentioning also the power of his personality. Certain qualities 
 stand out as characteristic of the man, demonstrated both in his 
 poetry and in the whole conduct of his life. Wisdom, surely, 
 he possessed in full measure : geniality we can infer from the tone 
 
 1 viii 6 f . ; cf . ix 15 ff. 2 piut. Sol. xiv 2. 
 
56 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 of his utterances and from the mellowing effects of travel and 
 experience ; kindliness unquestionably is revealed at many points ; 
 and best of all he was a man of unflinching integrity and loyalty. 
 Such qualities as these, coupled with the savoir faire of a man of 
 birth and breeding, must have had their effect upon the minds 
 of Athenians. What they did not suspect was that he also pos- 
 sessed an indomitable will and an unwavering purpose. They 
 wanted a leader who should do what they individually thought 
 was best for them ; they found a leader who did what he himself 
 knew was best for them, without fear or favor. 
 
 The extraordinary office which Solon was called upon to fill 
 carried with it functions which had to be performed by some one 
 in every Greek state at some point in its transition from aristocratic 
 to democratic government. The readjustments throughout the 
 Greek world which were made necessary by the rise of the lower 
 classes and the growth of trade and industry, did not come about 
 automatically, but generally required more or less violent proce- 
 dure. In some cases a great lawgiver made over the machinery 
 of government so that it would work under the new conditions; 
 but in most cases the change came through the arbitrary assump- 
 tion of power by some single individual who commanded the 
 support of the commons because he overthrew the government of 
 the aristocracy. Such a person, called by the Greeks a tyrant, 
 made himself sole master of the state and administered the govern- 
 ment at his own pleasure, maintaining his power till overthrown 
 by force. His office was unconstitutional and he was himself 
 an outlaw in the literal sense of the term. Actually the motives 
 of the tyrant in setting himself against the established order of 
 things were personal ambition and lust for power ; but he served 
 at the same time, unconsciously, another purpose. He freed 
 the common people from the domination of the hereditary aris- 
 
THE ARCHONSHIP 57 
 
 tocracy, and, by making all citizens equal under his own despotic 
 sway, prepared the people for the assumption of the sovereignty 
 when the time came to cast off his yoke. Such tyrannies were 
 of varying duration ; and they were of varying merit. Some 
 tyrants acted like tyrants in the modern sense of the word ; 
 others did much for the prosperity of their cities. Tyrants rose 
 to power, here and there, in the Greek world throughout the 
 course of Greek history. But it was in the seventh and sixth 
 centuries, when tyrannies first appear, that they performed this 
 special and peculiar function in the constitutional development 
 of the Greek city-state. 
 
 If ever a state was ripe for a tyranny, it was Athens at the 
 beginning of the sixth century. Conditions had reached such a 
 pass that no less heroic remedy, apparently, would suffice. Un- 
 doubtedly the remedy would have been applied if Solon had not 
 resolutely set himself against it. He could easily have put him- 
 self at the head of either of the two opposing parties and won his 
 way to a dominant position in the city. The lower classes fully 
 believed that the mild policies which he publicly expressed were 
 only a cloak to conceal his real ulterior purpose, and that he in- 
 tended, when the fruit of his plans was ripe, to seize by a stroke 
 of force the supreme power in the state. ^ Such action was eagerly 
 awaited by the common people, who hoped to secure large advan- 
 tage for themselves through the triumph of the man who they 
 thought would give them all they wanted. He held within his grasp 
 the opportunity that most men covet most. Another man, of less 
 rigid principle, would have given the people their way, and al- 
 lowed himself to be carried to a position of supremacy by the un- 
 restrained violence of the mob. Plutarch reports ^ (and there may 
 have been some authority for his statement in the lost poems), 
 that even neutral persons, who belonged to neither of the two 
 parties, felt that the peace and prosperity of the city could best 
 
 1 viii, xxi, xxii. 2 piut. Sol. xiv 3. 
 
58 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 be secured if Solon became tyrant. Some even jeered at him for 
 refusing so enviable a position.^ 
 
 But Solon was inflexible. His political principles, resting 
 upon Eunomia, were absolutely inconsistent with the lawless 
 tyranny. He had confidence in the power of the people to adjust 
 themselves to a lawful form of government which would provide 
 for their perfect happiness and security. He would not yield 
 to the temptation of personal advancement ; he remained stead- 
 fastly loyal to the best interests of the state. He took more pride 
 in his renunciation of the doubtful honor than he would have 
 felt in the attainment of it.^ For this, Solon deserves the highest 
 praise from all believers in democracy. He himself believed so 
 firmly in the capacity of the people to govern themselves, if the 
 obstructions to good government were removed, that he refused 
 to undertake the government himself; yet he must have felt 
 that he could guide the affairs of Athens well, if it had been best 
 that any one but the Athenians should guide the affairs of Athens. 
 The thing was thrust upon him which most men long to possess ; 
 Athens besought him to be her ruler ; and he refused because he 
 knew it was better for Athens that she should rule herself.^ 
 
 Just when this demand was made that Solon should accept 
 the tyranny, we do not know. It may have been before he was 
 elected archon ; it may have been during his term of office ; it 
 may have been when his legislation was complete. To judge 
 from his own allusions to it in his poems, the people must have 
 
 1 xxii. 2 viii, ix 20 ff., xi, xxi. 
 
 3 Heloch (1912, p. 367) says: "Er hat es nicht c^ewagt (i.e., to make him- 
 self tyrant) ; er wusste zii gut, dass ihm die unentbehrliche Grundlai^e felilte, 
 ein fester inilitiirisclier Ruckhalt, uiul davSS er audi selbst nich der reehte Mann 
 dazu war, den 'I'yrannen zu spielen." To this dei^radation of Solon's motives 
 by the (ierman historian an effective reply may be found in the words of a dis- 
 tin£2;uish(!d French Hellenist. vSolon may have been aware, says Croiset (1903, 
 pp. 594, 595), of the danj^ers and deceptions incident to the tyranny ; but, he con- 
 tinues, '' nous n'avons aucune raison pour ne pas croire qu'a cette sa.i?esse 
 natnrello se soient associ6s les motifs 61ev6s (ju'il laisse deviner dans ses vers. II 
 considenvit, la tyrannic comme une violence, et la violence lui rfipugnait, parce 
 qu'il avait foi dans la justice et la liberty." 
 
THE ARCHONSHIP 59 
 
 been very persistent; probably they long refused to take ''No" 
 for an answer. But finally they became quiet and he was allowed 
 to accomplish his task in his own way. 
 
 He had refused to be tyrant, but in order to prevent civil war 
 and restore quiet in the state, he needed temporarily the arbi- 
 trary power of a tyrant. This he did not hesitate to assume. 
 Having once accepted office at the hands of his fellow-citizens, 
 he immediately showed his complete independence and his de- 
 termination to carry out the measures which he conceived to be 
 necessary for the relief of the situation. He exhibited no weak- 
 ness ; he made no concessions to the powerful ; he was guilty of 
 no truckling to his electors. He had been chosen mediator be- 
 tween two hostile parties, and a mediator is expected by each 
 party to champion its cause. This is what Solon undertook to 
 do. He strove to defend each party from the vindictiveness of 
 the other. In his own words, he cast his shield over both parties 
 alike. ^ It was inevitable under these circumstances that each 
 party should feel that it was getting only half the support of the 
 man whom it had counted upon to be its champion. Neither 
 party was satisfied. But Solon did not allow himself to be turned 
 from his settled course. He fulfilled his promises, no more, no 
 less ; he used such a measure of force as was necessary to support 
 the dictates of justice ; he strove to give every man, high and low, 
 his due. 2 He did not aim to cut a new constitution out of new 
 cloth. He adhered to the old where the old was sound : he let 
 well enough alone. But he endeavored to make the changes 
 which were essential to the peace of Athens and the well-being 
 of all the citizens.^ Such a plan, conceived and executed in a 
 spirit of moderation and fair dealing, was not likely to please 
 either the extreme left or the extreme right. He says himself 
 he was like a wolf hemmed in by a pack of hounds.^ But he held 
 true. He was as sure at the end as he was at the beginning that 
 1 vi 5 1' 2 ix 15 ff. 3 vi. 4 ix 26 f . 
 
60 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 he had done the best thing for Athens, and he was proud of his 
 unflagging resolution. 
 
 Upon an examination of the reforms which Solon himself 
 claims to have introduced, one is struck by a notable consistency 
 in his policy. In certain of his earlier poems, as we have seen, 
 he had put his finger on what he believed to be the chief vices of 
 that society. Now, after his term of office was over, it was pre- 
 cisely these vices which he claimed to have corrected. He knew 
 from the first just what he intended to do. He asserts explicitly 
 that he had fulfilled his promises.^ He may have been referring 
 to definite promises, or he may have had in mind the well known 
 views to which he had been giving public expression, probably 
 for some years past. However this may be, it is certain that 
 during his administration he did exactly the things which he had 
 led the Athenians to expect he would do, the things which, he 
 firmly believed, both before and after his archonship, were the 
 things which above all others ought to be done. There was no 
 reason for surprise or disappointment, on the part of the Athenians 
 at any rate ; it was Solon himself who was both surprised and 
 disappointed when the people received with dissatisfaction the very 
 reforms which they had appointed him to carry out. 
 
 Solon makes a double claim for the value of his reforms. He 
 insists that he had accomphshed more good for the lower orders 
 than they could have dared to hope for ; but at the same time he 
 asserts with equal positiveness that he was acting in the interest 
 of the upper classes.^ Such statements as these are susceptible 
 of but one interpretation. Solon believed that the safety and 
 happiness of each class lay, not in its own complete triumph over 
 the other, but rather in a wisely adjusted social, political, and eco- 
 nomic order which would assure to all men their full deserts. He was 
 a statesman who was concerned for the good of all Athenians, not 
 for the ascendancy of one group over another. He refused aUke 
 
 1 viii6f. ; ix 15 f. ^ x. 
 
THE ARCHONSHIP 61 
 
 to humiliate the nobles and to exalt unduly the common people.* 
 Naturally, since the need for reform was due to the distresses of 
 the common people, the measures which Solon actually adopted 
 were taken in their interest. The complaint of the nobles, there- 
 fore, was that he had done too much. The common people, on 
 the other hand, were angry because he had not done more. In 
 particular, they demanded a redistribution of the land. This ex- 
 travagant demand may have taken shape in men's minds as a 
 result of the positive but limited advantage which they had won 
 through Solon's administration ; or it may have been an old cry 
 which had been raised before his term of office and which they had 
 fondly thought he would hear and answer. It is certain that 
 Solon had never intended or promised to take away the land of 
 the nobles and distribute it equally among the population. ^ No 
 doubt his steadfast refusal to do this was one of the reasons why 
 he claimed to have acted in the interest of the upper classes. But 
 one cannot believe that this was the only reason. He must have 
 been convinced in his own mind that the condition of the nobles 
 would be altogether happier and more secure if the lower classes 
 were peaceful and contented as a result of an equitable adminis- 
 tration of fair and impartial laws. Evidently this ideal was too 
 high for the heated partisans of the day, who, on both sides 
 aUke, were too selfish and short-sighted to see its worth. 
 
 4 
 
 What, now, were the measures adopted in order to bring the 
 community of Athenians into a state of order and contentment? 
 Like a good physician, he understood that quick and powerful 
 remedies were needed to cure the acute disorder from which 
 Athens was suffering, and that when the crisis was past and con- 
 valescence had begun, a sound regimen was required to safeguard 
 the health which had been restored. The first of these require- 
 
 1 vi. 2 viii. 
 
62 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 ments he met by issuing certain executive orders, which, however 
 deeply they cut, the city had given him the power to enforce. 
 Then, when these had been put into effect, he proceeded to draw 
 up a body of written laws calculated to prevent the recurrence 
 of so grave a situation in the future. The reforms which were 
 secured by these two separate acts would be described to-day 
 as social and economic, legal and constitutional ; but in the 
 simpler organization of society which prevailed in the sixth cen- 
 tury, such a classification as this would not have been thought of. 
 To Solon and his fellow-Athenians no other classification would 
 have been apparent than that which divided the reforms into 
 temporary expedients and permanent regulations. We shall 
 examine first the one and then the other. ^ 
 
 Solon himself tells us of four things which he did to bring 
 immediate relief to the oppressed classes : ^ he freed the land, he 
 restored to their homes Athenians who had been sold into foreign 
 slavery, he brought back those whom destitution had driven into 
 exile, and he set at liberty those who were the slaves of Athenian 
 masters. Freedom, plainly, was the dominant motive in his 
 procedure, and we may be sure that the freedom which was granted 
 by a moderate statesman like Solon was neither excessive nor un- 
 deserved. 
 
 What did Solon mean when he said he had freed the land? 
 His statement is cast in a poetical form, sufficiently clear for his 
 readers, who knew exactly what he was referring to, but somewhat 
 obscure to us. ''I removed," he says, ''the stones of her bondage, 
 and she who was a slave before is now free." The word which is 
 translated ''stones of bondage" is one which in later times was 
 
 1 Two reforms are attributed to Solon which it would be difficult to classify 
 as executive or legislative : namely, the modification of the currency and of the 
 system of weights and measures, and the reform of the calendar. But since 
 there is nothing to justify us in beheving that Solon was personally responsible 
 for these changes, we do not need to concern ourselves with them here. For a 
 discussion see Appendix 5. 
 
 2ix. 
 
THE ARCHONSHIP 63 
 
 applied to small stone tablets which were set up on lands or houses 
 which rested under a mortgage, bearing the names of the owner 
 and the creditor and the amount of the loan. There may have 
 been similar mortgages and similar records of them in Solon's 
 time.^ If there were, we must infer that the result of Solon's 
 action was the cancellation of all debts for which real property 
 was held as security. But some scholars claim that the sale of 
 land, unknown in primitive society, was only just coming into 
 use in the first part of the sixth century and that when families 
 held inalienable rights in their land, the institution of mortgage 
 could not yet have appeared. If this contention is sound, we 
 can only conclude that the stone tablets were set up as proof 
 that the creditor could claim a certain fixed portion of the produce 
 of the soil. This is equivalent to saying that while a creditor 
 could not claim in return for a loan the land which served as 
 security, he could nevertheless exact regular interest upon it, 
 in the form of natural produce, until the debtor was able to dis- 
 charge the debt. If this was the situation, we can easily recognize 
 the justice of Solon's statement that the earth had been a slave. 
 He indicates plainly that a large part of the soil of Attica had 
 come under the control of wealthy creditors, and the very presence 
 of the stones, everywhere visible, kept before men's minds the 
 unequal distribution of wealth. Whatever may have been the 
 exact character of the financial transaction which was recorded 
 by the stones,^ in any case it is clear that the rights of the creditors 
 were summarily annulled and the poor who had been laboring 
 under a grievous obligation were restored to the full enjoyment 
 of their own land. It cannot be supposed that the creditors were 
 reimbursed out of the public treasury, because at this stage in the 
 development of the state there could not have been a sufficiently 
 
 1 On the question of mortgages see De Sanctis (1912, pp. 194 ff. with the 
 footnotes) . 
 
 2 For a fuller account of these stones (Spoi) see Gilliard (1907, pp. 129-136) 
 and Sandys (1912, p. 46). 
 
64 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 large accumulation of public moneys to redeem debts of such 
 magnitude ; thus the only persons upon whom a tax could be 
 levied were the very ones who might have profited by it. We 
 cannot escape the conclusion that Solon's order, while it brought 
 great relief to the poor, must have caused a considerable loss to 
 the rich. 
 
 If the removal of the encumbrances which rested on the soil 
 of Attica was accomplished only at the cost of the rich, the same 
 must have been equally true of the liberation of Athenians who 
 had sunk into slavery. The personal freedom of these unhappy 
 creatures, which had been pledged as security for debts contracted 
 by themselves or their relatives, had been forfeited. Failing to 
 recover from destitute debtors the sums which they had lent them, 
 the wealthy citizens had taken over the debtors themselves to be 
 their slaves and to work for them without remuneration. If 
 now these slaves were restored to liberty and nothing was paid 
 for their redemptionyvtheir creditors must have suffered no slight 
 loss. Those creditors who having seized upon the persons of 
 their debtors had sold them abroad (as they might legally do)^ 
 may have been in better case, because having already received 
 the value of their slaves they were not now affected by their 
 liberation. But it is not certain that they were. For if these 
 slaves were to be redeemed from their foreign masters, Solon must 
 have provided money for their purchase, and, though we can 
 only conjecture how he obtained the money, it may be that he 
 forced the original owners to provide it. 
 
 It is not clear what Solon had to do in order to bring back 
 to Athens citizens who had not been enslaved but had been forced 
 into exile by reason of their poverty. Probably they had fled 
 from threatened slavery, and the same cancellation of debts which 
 liberated the slaves would have made it safe for them to re- 
 turn to their homes. It is possible that they had emigrated 
 
 iix9f. 
 
THE ARCHONSHIP 65 
 
 from Athens not because they were oppressed by a load of debt 
 but because living conditions were so hard that they could not rise 
 above the level of sheer destitution ; in this case, however, 
 nothing short of a general amelioration of economic conditions 
 could have brought them back; whereas the tone of Solon's 
 words implies that he had made it possible for them to return 
 immediately. Again, possibly these unhappy exiles owned land 
 in Attica which had fallen into the power of wealthy creditors; 
 in this case, the liberation of the soil would have restored to them 
 the opportunity of earning an independent livelihood. 
 
 We cannot hope, after all, to know the exact terms of these 
 several measures, and it is unwise to carry conjecture too far. 
 We can see that much of the land and many of the men of Athens 
 had come, according to the iniquitous custom of the time, into 
 the power of the rich, and that they were rescued from their 
 clutches. The only conceivable way of accomplishing this result, 
 as far as we can see, was by canceling all debts which had been 
 contracted on the security of the land or the persons of the debt- 
 ors. Farther than this we cannot go, on the evidence which is 
 afforded by Solon's own words. 
 
 This cancellation of debts, either alone or in connection with 
 supplementary legislation, was known in the later Greek world 
 under the name Seisachtheia or ''disburdenment. " ^ Plutarch 
 informs us ^ that this supplementary legislation took the form of 
 a law prohibiting loans on the security of the person of the debtor. 
 Aristotle does not expressly include this law in the Seisachtheia, 
 but he mentions it in immediate connection with it.^ There can 
 be little doubt that Solon instituted such a law immediately after 
 the promulgation of the order providing for the cancellation of 
 debts. If he had not taken such a step, there would have been 
 nothing to prevent a prompt return of the same deplorable con- 
 
 1 For Seisachtheia see Appendix 3 and Busolt (1895, pp. 259-261). 
 
 2 Plut. Sol. XV. 3 Const. ofAth. vi. 
 
66 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 ditions which had only just been dispelled. We must, therefore, 
 include in our survey of Solon's social and economic reforms 
 this beneficent law which was calculated to perpetuate the 
 personal liberty of Athenians. Never after, in the history of 
 Athens, do we read of the enslavement or even the imprisonment 
 of free men for debt, except in certain rare instances where vagrant 
 and irresponsible persons had to be summarily dealt with.^ Un- 
 fortunately we know nothing of the means adopted by Solon to 
 prevent the rich from again getting into their power the land which 
 belonged to impoverished debtors. There was the same need of 
 permanent and effective legislation in this matter as in the matter 
 of personal liberty. But the problem was infinitely more com- 
 plicated. Land must still continue to serve as security for debts. 
 What was needed was equitable regulation of the practice. But 
 we know neither the procedure by which the rich had previously 
 got the land into their power, nor the legislation by which Solon 
 put a stop to it ; we must, therefore, content ourselves with the 
 little which we have been able to gather from Solon's own state- 
 ments. ^ - 
 
 When by a few bold strokes Solon had rid Athenian society 
 of the deplorable effects of long-standing abuses, it remained for 
 him to establish the new order on a secure foundation. We have 
 seen that he had very definite ideas of the best way to insure the 
 happiness of the state. Eunomia was the name which he applied 
 to his ideal of civic order. The field was now clear for him to 
 inaugurate a reign of law which would provide for the Athenians 
 all the blessings which he had described in his earlier poem. 
 
 Now, in order that a state may thrive and prosper under a 
 reign of law, two things are essential : on the one hand, the laws 
 
 1 Speakiiiij of the abolition of slavery for debt, Glotz remarks (1904, p. 368): 
 " I)es les premieres annees du sixieme siecle avant iiotre ere, Athenes a ainsi 
 plac6 sa legislation a line hauteur qui n'est atteinte aujourd'hui encore, et depuis 
 peu de temps, i\uv, par (juelques codes des nations les plus civilis^es." This 
 action may be credited to Solon without doubt. 
 
THE ARCHONSHIP 67 
 
 must be wisely framed and impartially administercci ; on the 
 other hand, the people must be loyal in their obedience to them and 
 wise and patient when the need arises for a modification of them. 
 Of these two essentials, Solon, at the best, could provide only one. 
 He could do no more than build the machine and set it in motion ; 
 thereafter its success or failure would be only in part dependent 
 on the skill and ingenuity with which he had constructed it. Un- 
 less the people were endowed with the capacity for self-govern- 
 ment, the machine would soon be broken and useless. 
 
 Though only one of the two essentials could be provided 
 wholly and completely by Solon, it should not be forgotten that 
 he had done everything in his power to provide the other. In 
 the early poem, which has just been mentioned, he had done what 
 he could to direct the attention of the Athenians to the beauty 
 of Eunomia. And we cannot but believe that he had bent every 
 effort to implant in their minds a love and respect for the true 
 freedom which a reign of law guarantees. Such admonitions 
 must have formed the subject of other poems which are now 
 lost; and he must have embraced every opportunity offered by 
 daily intercourse with his fellow-citizens to establish a sound 
 public opinion. But the dissemination of such ideas is a slow 
 business ; no single individual, however wise he may be, can 
 assure the wisdom of a whole community. The very nature of 
 popular government forbids even an ardent advocate of its doc- 
 trines to exert any pressure upon the will of the citizens other 
 than that of his own moral influence. 
 
 Probably, at the beginning of the sixth century b.c, Solon 
 could not foresee the dangers and difficulties of free institutions. 
 The experiment had never yet been tried. Solon's chief claim to 
 glory lies in the fact that, at a moment when Athens was in sore 
 need of good government, he rejected the manifest opportunity 
 to provide such government by making himself a benevolent 
 autocrat and, acting on the faith that was in him, insisted that 
 
68 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 the Athenians undertake the task of governing themselves. He 
 prepared the way for them. Without such preparation nothing 
 could have been done. He swept away all that he believed to be 
 a hindrance to freedom, and provided the people with the necessary 
 instrument for the preservation of their freedom. The future 
 lay with the Athenians.^ 
 
 5 
 
 What was the nature of the instrument which he provided? 
 In his own words, a body of written laws providing the fair ad- 
 ministration of justice for every individual.^ Just how much 
 or how little is meant by these words, it has been hitherto beyond 
 the power of scholars to determine. At the most, they imply 
 that Solon was the first to provide the Athenians with a written 
 code ; at the least, they would signify that he had simply added 
 to a written code already in existence a limited number of laws 
 which were essential for the establishment of an impartial ad- 
 ministration of justice. It was the universal behef of antiquity 
 that Draco was the first to provide the Athenians with a written 
 code and that Solon had repealed all of Draco's laws except those 
 relating to homicide, and had created a new code in its place. ^ But 
 this is manifestly an assumption which could not rest on any real 
 evidence. Whatever Greeks of a later age knew about the laws 
 of Solon, they could certainly know nothing of a code which pre- 
 ceded that of Solon and which Solon had abolished. They did 
 know, as we learn from inscriptions, that the laws relating to homi- 
 cide which were still in force at the end of the fifth century were 
 recorded under the name of Draco.'* This fact probably led them 
 
 1 " Solon a m6rit6 sa gloire moins par son action sur les partis, qu'il ne put 
 jamais maltriser, ou par sa constitution, qui ne r^sista pas cinq ans a Tassaut des 
 m6contents, qne par les principes qu'il introduisit dans la legislation pour toujours, 
 par les prescriptions ou ses concitoyens ne cesserent plus de voir le r6sum6 de la 
 sagesse humaine.'' — Glotz (1004, p. 326). 
 
 2 ix 18-20. 3 Const, of Ath. iv 1, vii 1 ; Pint. Sol. xvii 1. 
 
 4 C. I. A. i 61. Furthermore, Plutarch suggests {Sol. xix 2) that Solon 
 founded the Areopagus and supports the theory by the fact that Draco 
 
THE ARCHONSHIP 69 
 
 to the inference that Draco had drafted a full code of laws and 
 that since all early laws then extant were attributed to Solon, the 
 still earlier code of Draco, with the exception mentioned, had 
 been repealed. We cannot accept this inference without evidence 
 that some substantial proof of it existed. Nor, on the other hand, 
 can we deny flatly that there was a full written code of laws be- 
 fore Solon. It is a significant fact that a strict construction of 
 Solon's own words suggests that he himself believed that the good 
 effect of his work was due, not primarily to the quality of his laws, 
 but rather to the fact that he had reduced them to writing.^ 
 One should not insist too strongly upon this clue, but at the same 
 time it should not be overlooked. 
 
 If Solon was indeed the first to reduce the laws of Athens 
 to writing, we must put a far higher estimate on his services to 
 the people. As long as justice was administered solely on the 
 basis of unwritten custom and precedent, there was no limita- 
 tion on the power of the magistrates who were themselves the 
 depositary of the law ; and since the magistrates without excep- 
 tion were chosen among the rich and noble, the lower classes were 
 entirely in their hands. ^ The most arbitrary and oppressive 
 procedure might pass under the name of justice, because the 
 magistrates could maintain that their judgments were given in 
 accordance with the law of the land. But if the law of the land 
 was recorded in writing, so that it could be consulted by all who 
 could read, the magistrates could not pervert justice to their own 
 purposes without open defiance of the law. The importance of 
 such a change cannot be overestimated. The reduction of the 
 
 nowhere mentions the Areopagites but always addresses himself to the Ephetae 
 in cases of homicide. There must, therefore, have been a set of laws relating to 
 homicide which were accepted as the work of Draco. Elsewhere we learn that 
 these laws of Draco were incorporated into the first of the Axones which were 
 supposed to contain the laws of Solon. Evidently there was no documentary 
 evidence to show exactly what Solon had done in a constitutional way. 
 
 1 Appendix 4. 
 
 2 Cf. Aesch. Prom. 186 f. olb Sti Tpaxi>J (i.e., ZciJs) Kaiira.p' cauTy rb dUaiov 
 
70 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 laws to writing was a democratic reform of the first magnitude. 
 If the thing had been done by Draco, it must have been done 
 in the interest of the common people ; and it is difficult to under- 
 stand why his work should have had to be annulled in so short 
 a time. The temptation is strong to deny the credit to Draco 
 and give it to Solon, but unfortunately the matter lies beyond the 
 reach of real proof. 
 
 Whether the code of Solon was the first written code in Athens 
 or not, we can be sure that it marked an important departure 
 from conditions which had previously prevailed. Solon makes 
 the explicit claim that it assured an impartial administration of 
 justice for all, high and low alike. If this claim was well founded, 
 the achievement certainly deserves unlimited praise ; in any case 
 Solon himself deserves unlimited praise for so high a purpose. 
 Was his claim really justified? Have we any information on 
 which an answer to this important and fundamental question 
 can be safely based ? 
 
 As we might expect, there is no allusion to any particular 
 law in the extant poems of Solon. Probably none of the poems 
 contained any such allusion. Prosaic as the matters are with 
 which he sometimes deals, we should be surprised to find anything 
 like the terms of a law appearing in his verse. But among later 
 Greek and even Roman authors we may collect a large number of 
 laws which were attributed to him. One or two appear as early 
 as Herodotus and Aristophanes.^ Aristotle mentions a few; 
 there are many in Plutarch and Diogenes Laertius ; others are 
 scattered among other authors. But the largest number are con- 
 tained in the speeches of Demosthenes and the other Attic ora- 
 tors. Many of the laws attributed to him manifestly belong to 
 a later period ; a few can be definitely connected with his name ; 
 the majority are such as might have been written by any early 
 legislator. In order to know what confidence can be placed in 
 
 1 Herodotus ii 177 ; Aristophanes Birds 1660. 
 
THE ARCHONSHIP 71 
 
 the authenticity of this considerable body of supposedly Solonian 
 laws, it is necessary to inquire how the laws which were written 
 by Solon at the beginning of the sixth century could have been 
 preserved as his recognizable work during the century and a half 
 that intervenes before the first mention of a Solonian law by a 
 Greek author. Such an inquiry leads to the conclusion (stated 
 more fully elsewhere),^ that we have no right to accept any of 
 these laws as genuinely Solonian unless there is some internal or 
 external proof other than the mere ascription of them to him by 
 the Greek writers. The nucleus, the original cell, of the great 
 body of Athenian law was created by Solon ; this cell contained 
 within itself all the characteristics of the mature organism ; but 
 in the course of time the original cell expanded and multiplied, 
 until in the end, though the original life-principle had never been 
 lost, Athenian law was a thing infinitely greater and more complex 
 than it had been at the beginning of its long life of two hundred 
 years. This biological analogy, though slightly misleading, is 
 fimdamentally true. Undoubtedly much of the original tissue 
 of Solon's code still survived in the fourth century, but it was 
 so imbedded in later accretions that it is practically impossible 
 for us to isolate it. With a few exceptions, therefore, the many 
 laws which pass under the name of Solon cannot be used as evi- 
 dence of the character of his code. They are of the highest in- 
 terest and importance to the student of Athenian law, but since 
 the work of Solon cannot be distinguished from the laws which were 
 in force before his time or from the laws which were passed sub- 
 sequently, one who is curious primarily about the life and career 
 of Solon himself finds little in them to assist him to a clearer view.^ 
 
 1 See Appendix 4. 
 
 2 For Solon's revision of the legal code, in addition to the standard works on 
 constitutional and legal antiquities, see Busolt (1895, pp. 287-295) and the ex- 
 cellent discussion by Gilliard (1907, pp. 28 ff.) of the authenticity of the laws 
 attributed to Solon. Sondhaus's dissertation (1909) is a collection of the laws 
 attributed to Solon, classified under the several magistrates whose province it was 
 to administrate them. He accepts almost all the laws as authentic, differing 
 
72 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 Perhaps the law which may be assigned to Solon with the 
 least hesitation is that prohibiting loans on the security of the 
 person of the debtor. We have seen that a law of this tenor was 
 necessary in order to prevent the recurrence of the evils which 
 had been corrected by executive order. Besides this, two laws 
 are recorded which bear within them the date of the archonship 
 of Solon. Of these one, whose authenticity is generally recog- 
 nized, legalized the practice of leaving property by will to persons 
 unrelated by blood. ^ This is a step common to all communities 
 which pass from the primitive condition which recognizes only 
 family rights and not personal rights in property. The other of 
 the two laws provided for the reenfranchisement of all persons 
 who had been disfranchised before the archonship of Solon, with 
 certain specified exceptions ; ^ but even this law, which seems so 
 well attested, is open to grave suspicion. 
 
 fundamentally from Gilliard, who refuses to recognize more than a few. Glotz 
 (1904, pp. 325 ff.) discusses at considerable length the effect of Solon's legislation 
 upon the solidarity of the family ; but one is disposed to doubt whether all that 
 is attributed to Solon by him is actually Solon's own work. It may be that re- 
 forms that were supposed to have been achieved by Solon were not actually his 
 alone, but rather the results of prolonged effort on the part of the Athenians. 
 Glotz's study, however, is one of the most important contributions to the early 
 history of Athenian law. 
 
 1 On the laws of inheritance and certain other laws whose authenticity is 
 comparatively sure, see Glotz (1904, pp. 325 ff.) and De Sanctis (1912, pp. 
 211 ff.). The following passage from Glotz may also be quoted in this connec- 
 tion (p. 397) : " Dans la p^riode de la transition qui nous a mends de la famille 
 souveraine k I'^tat souveraine, tandis que nous suivions les progres de I'indi- 
 vidualisme dans le droit grec, petit k petit tout I'int^ret de cette ^tude s'est con- 
 centre sur Athenes. Ce n'est pas seulement parce que cette ville b^n^ficie de la 
 gloire acquise plus tard et des documents plus nombreux qu'elle a laiss^s. C'est 
 que r^ellement, k partir du sixi^me siecle, en un temps ou toutes les cit^s avaient 
 ^galement supprim^ la responsabilit^ familiale en droit commun, elle surpassa 
 les autres par la vigeur des coups dont elle frappa I'organisme interne et Paction 
 sociale des y^vr}. L'homme ici f ut libre plus tot que partout ailleurs. A un progres 
 jusqu'alors continu, mais lent comme une fatality, Solon donna une pouss^e 
 decisive. Et c'est ainsi qu'il lit passer sa patrie au premier rang, et que I'his- 
 toire des ameliorations introduites dans les lois grecques se conf ond avec Phistoire 
 m§me de la legislation attique." 
 
 2 Plut. Sol. xix ; cf . Andocides i 77 f . 
 
THE ARCHONSHIP 73 
 
 6 
 
 It may be a matter for surprise that in our examination of 
 the measures which Solon adopted for the ameUoration of condi- 
 tions in Athens no account has been taken so far of the changes 
 which he may be supposed to have introduced in the poUtical 
 organization of the state. It is the habit in modern times to 
 beUeve that the chief remedy for the discontent of the lower 
 classes lies in the enlargement of their political rights. And yet 
 in all that survives to us of Solon's own words we find but one 
 obscure hint of political reform. Are we to suppose that he made 
 Uttle or no change in the constitution ? Or are we to suppose that 
 though he did bring about changes of importance he has omitted 
 any mention of them in his poems ? " There is much talk among 
 ancient writers and modern scholars of the Solonian constitution, 
 and there can be little doubt that he was responsible for modifi- 
 cations of some sort. Probably the explanation of his silence 
 is to be found in the fact that in the ancient world there was 
 no distinction between constitutional law and statutory law; 
 his allusions to law in general must be understood to cover his 
 reforms in the governmental machinery as well as in the laws 
 which the government was designed to administer. It is probable 
 that if we had a full copy of Solon's laws, we should have as full 
 a statement as ever existed of Solon's constitutional measures. 
 
 All that Solon himself has to tell us about his changes in the 
 form of government is to be found in a single fragment which is 
 quoted by Aristotle.^ He says : 
 
 To the common people I have given such a measure of privilege as 
 sufficeth them, neither robbing them of the rights they had, nor holding out 
 the hope of greater ones ; and I have taken equal thought for those who 
 were possessed of power and who were looked up to on account of their 
 wealth, careful that they too should suffer no indignity. I have taken 
 a stand which enables me to hold a stout shield over both groups, and I 
 have allowed neither to triumph unjustly over the other. 
 
74 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 These words certainly imply that changes of some sort had 
 been made ; but they chiefly emphasize the fact that the changes 
 had been slight. Whether our judgment of the extent and im- 
 portance of these changes, or the judgment of Solon's contem- 
 poraries, would have been the same as his own, of course we cannot 
 say. If Aristotle's verdict is sound, ^ that Solon had actually" 
 transferred the sovereignty from the nobles to the common people, 
 or rather to the people as a whole, we must admit either that 
 Solon's changes were more far-reaching than he knew or that he 
 was minimizing their effect. But perhaps he is not here discuss- 
 ing the total effect of his reforms. The words which he actually 
 uses imply, though they do not assert, that he is thinking of the 
 right to hold office. If this is the case, they contain a fair judg- 
 ment of the provisions concerning eligibility to office which we 
 shall find later in Aristotle's description of the constitution. 
 More than all else, this statement of Solon reveals in a very strik- 
 ing way his own view of the extent to which it is wise to grant 
 political rights to the lower classes. He does not for a moment 
 believe that they should enjoy the same rights as the upper classes. 
 "Such a measure of privilege as sufficeth them" evidently means 
 in his mind a measure of power sufficient to defend them against 
 the injustice and abuse of the upper classes, from which alone the 
 magistrates were chosen. Similar words might have been used 
 in Rome of the portentous institution of the tribunate ; but 
 whereas the Roman tribunate culminated in the principate, 
 the defensive power of the Athenian plebs led ultimately to the 
 most extreme form of democracy. However, such an outcome as 
 this unquestionably lay far beyond the range of Solon's prophetic 
 vision. 
 
 Excepting this single obscure allusion to political change 
 which is made by Solon himself, our information on this very 
 important subject is all derived from Greek writers of later times. 
 1 Const, of Ath. ix ; cf. Arist. Pol. ii 12, 1273 b, 34 to 1274 a, 23. 
 
THE ARCHONSHIP 75 
 
 principally from Aristotle and Plutarch. Aristotle devotes 
 several pages to the subject in the Constitution of Athens and a 
 page or two in the Politics.^ Plutarch adds little to what may be 
 learned from Aristotle. From these authorities we derive cer- 
 tain categorical statements about some features of the Solonian 
 constitution, some critical observations on its tendencies, but 
 nothing like a detailed description. Aristotle himself probably 
 learned what he knew about Solon's constitutional reforms partly 
 from his own researches and the researches of his pupils, and 
 partly from the works of his predecessors, especially Androtion 
 and the other students of Athenian history.^ But what was the 
 ultimate source of authoritative information? Whatever politi- 
 cal changes Solon brought about, he must have promulgated 
 either by executive order or in his completed code of laws.^ Docu- 
 mentary evidence, therefore, of a rehable nature must have been 
 completely lacking at the end of the fifth century. As far as 
 we can see, the opinions of Androtion and Aristotle must have 
 rested upon the evidence of extant laws which were attributed to 
 Solon,^ upon inferences drawn from the political institutions of 
 the time, and to a certain extent upon tradition. At the best, 
 
 1 Const, of Ath. v-xii ; for references to the Politics see p. 14, footnote 2 ; 
 Plut. Sol. xvii-xix. 
 
 2 Cf . pp. 18 ff. 
 
 3 The ancient confusion between the two conceptions of constitutional and 
 statutory law is often exhibited, as in Aeschines iii 38 tw w/uo^^tt^tv ttjv 8-qixoKpa- 
 rlav KaraaT-qaavTi ; 257 tov KaWlaTots vojiois KOCT/irjCTaPTa ttjv drjfjLOKparlav ; Isocrates 
 vii 16 ivotxodeTTjcre d-q/uLOKpaTiai'. Lysias (xxx 28) ranges Solon with Themistocles 
 and Pericles as one of the great democratic voiJ.od^Tj.L, and elsewhere the name of 
 Solon is found in groups including these names and the names of Clisthenes and 
 Aristides. Other passages in which Solon is referred to as the first leader of the 
 popular party are : Const, of Ath. xxviii 2, xli 2 ; Aristophanes Clouds 1187; 
 Isocrates vii 16, xv 232 ; Andocides i 81 ff., 95, 111 ; Lysias xxx 2 ; Demosthenes 
 xviii 6 ; Aeschines iii 257. 
 
 4 An example of this method may be seen in Const, of Ath. viii 3. Here 
 Aristotle infers the function of the vavKpapoi from the frequent appearance in 
 Solon's laws of the words rods vavKpdpovs eiairpaTTeiv and dva\i<XK€iv iK tov vavKpa- 
 piKov dpyvpiov. These phrases, he says, are found in laws no longer in use. In 
 Const, of Ath. viii 4 he determines one of the powers of the Areopagus on the 
 testimony of a law attributed to Solon relating to the process of eia-ayyeXia against 
 men who conspired to overthrow the state. 
 
76 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 only very uncertain conclusions can be drawn from evidence of 
 this kind, especially in a subject like constitutional law which 
 requires great precision of terms. But we are not in a position 
 to control the results of Aristotle's study of the evidence ; we 
 cannot be sure how far his statements were justified even by the 
 meager facts at his disposal. 
 
 Furthermore, if Aristotle knew comparatively little about the 
 constitution of Solon, he knew even less about the constitution 
 which was in use before the period of reform. We are embarrassed 
 by the spectral constitution of Draco. It is a matter of endless 
 dispute whether Draco, besides what he is supposed to have done 
 towards the codification of the laws, also made changes in the 
 constitution of the state. Until the discovery of Aristotle's 
 treatise on the Constitution of Athens, there was not a shred of 
 evidence for a Draconian constitution. Now that we have this 
 pamphlet before our eyes, we are scarcely better ofif, because 
 Aristotle appears to have drawn his information from an oli- 
 garchic writer who might have found it to his advantage to forge 
 a constitution of Draco.^ Aristotle's very brief account of Draco's 
 reforms includes, furthermore, allusions to several features which 
 are also attributed to Solon. If we could examine in their com- 
 pleteness the measures which Solon adopted for the government 
 of Athens, and if we could set them by the side of the institutions 
 which had preceded them, we should be able to form a just con- 
 ception of the political principles by which he was actuated and 
 of the sagacity and skill which he brought to his task. But 
 this we cannot do. We must be content with the brief critical 
 estimate of his work which we find in Aristotle and Plutarch, and 
 with the common opinion of antiquity, and recognize frankly 
 that any real corroboration of the ancient account is impossible.^ 
 
 1 Busolt (1805, pp. 36 ff.). 
 
 2 For the features of the Solonian constitution, in addition to the standard 
 works on constitutional and le.2;al antiquities, see Busolt (1895, pp. 264-287); 
 Lehmann-llaupt (1906) ; the chapter of De Sanctis (1912) on "La prima costi- 
 
THE ARCHONSHIP 77 
 
 One of the most striking features of Solon's legislation is that 
 he did not pretend to believe that all men are equal. Founder 
 of the Athenian democracy though he was, he nevertheless based 
 his system of government upon clearly defined classes. It ap- 
 pears that there already existed in the state four classes of citizens, 
 openly recognized and plainly named. These were the Pen- 
 tacosiomedimni, the Hippeis, the Zeugitae, and the Thetes. The 
 literal meaning of these words is clear : the first were men whose 
 income amounted to five hundred measures ; the second were 
 knights, men who owned and were able to support a horse ; the 
 third were men who owned a yoke of oxen for farm work ; and 
 the fourth were common laborers. Undoubtedly the names of 
 the classes bore these meanings in the beginning. The last 
 three are common nouns, and it was no doubt through popular 
 usage that they came to be applied to three several classes in the 
 economic scale. The name of the first class has an artificial 
 appearance, as if it had been coined by a theorist or a legislator. 
 But it may have been as much a popular invention as the word 
 ''millionaire." However this may be, we may assume that 
 three of the names at any rate were old. Whether they had been 
 used in a technical sense before Solon, to denominate four classes 
 officially recognized by the state, we cannot tell. It would be 
 interesting to know whether he was the first to recognize them 
 officially, or whether he was merely continuing, in a modified 
 form perhaps, dispositions which had been made before his time. 
 Whenever it was that the four classes were first recognized by 
 the Athenian constitution, it appears that they were given at 
 some time a more precise definition than the meaning of the words 
 themselves would imply. The Pentacosiomedimni included all 
 
 tuzione scritta " ; Sandys (1912), who gives a copious bibliography ; the chapter 
 of Beloch (1913) entitled "Zur Verfassungsgeschichte Athens." 
 
78 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 Athenian citizens whose land produced annually five hundred or 
 more measures of corn and oil, the Hippeis, all whose land pro- 
 duced from three to five hundred measures, the Zeugitae, all whose 
 land produced from two to three hundred measures; and all 
 below the Zeugitae belonged to the class of Thetes.^ It will be 
 observed that this division into classes was made entirely on an 
 agrarian basis. It was a frank recognition of the landed aris- 
 tocracy. The wealthy manufacturer or trader could not claim 
 a place in the upper classes on the basis of his income. The 
 ownership of Attic soil was the only key to these exclusive 
 groups. We cannot positively assert that under Solon the class 
 distinctions were exactly as they have been described ; but at 
 any rate there is no evidence for supposing that they were not. 
 
 It is very difficult to understand how membership in the 
 several classes was determined. The distribution could not be made 
 once for all, because there must have been considerable fluctua- 
 tion in the size of the crops from year to year. But how could an 
 annual census of the population be taken? Possibly no census 
 at all was taken. Possibly only those citizens who were actually 
 nominated for office were required to prove that their land had 
 during the previous year produced enough to place them in the 
 class eligible for the office in question. Again, if only those men 
 were eligible for office who gathered from their own land large 
 enough crops to admit them to the required class, what are we 
 to think of the increasingly large group of men whose income was 
 derived from manufacture or trade ? This was the class to which 
 Solon belonged, and this was the class which during the next 
 ten or twenty years were the chief supporters of his policies. Only 
 two answers present themselves. Either the successful manu- 
 
 1 Const, of Ath. vii 4. Aristotle was uncertain of the requirements for the 
 class of the Knii^hts and presents several pieces of indirect evidence. Manifestly 
 neither he nor his sources had any direct documentary evidence. For a discus- 
 sion of the four classes, see Busolt (1895, pp. 180 ff.), and Gilliard (1907, pp 
 221-240). 
 
THE ARCHONSHIP 79 
 
 facturer or trader must invest his money in land, if he was not 
 ah'ead}^ a landholder — a requirement which with the develop- 
 ment of commercial and industrial life must soon grow irksome — 
 or the census was not based actually upon the produce of the soil, 
 but upon incomes from all sources, measured in terms of the 
 produce of the soil. This is contrary to the express language of 
 
 Aristotle — os av Ik rr}<s oiKCtas ttolyJ irevTaKOcrta fxlrpa ^ — which is SO ex- 
 plicit that if we deny the truth of it we must also admit that 
 Aristotle himself was in error. 
 
 In what way did Solon make use of this division into classes ? 
 One naturally expects to find that the higher classes were called 
 upon to perform special duties and that they enjoyed in return 
 certain rights and privileges. One thinks of the later Athenian 
 system of liturgies and of the modern income tax. But in Solon's 
 government, as far as we know, the classes served only to define 
 the eligibility of the citizens to the several public offices. The 
 highest officials of the state might be chosen only from citizens 
 of the first class ; the next highest from the second class ; the 
 lowest from the third. Members of the Thetic class were not 
 eligible to office.^ 
 
 At first sight there is little that is democratic in such a system. 
 One learns with a slight shock of disappointment that the father 
 of democracy did not establish a democracy at all, but an aris- 
 tocracy, or rather a timocracy, in which wealth was a requisite 
 for a share in the government. But the case is not complete yet. 
 We have not yet discovered the sovereign power in the Solonian 
 state. Let us postpone judgment for a time. In the meanwhile 
 it is fair to ask whether the timocratic arrangements marked any 
 advance over previous conditions. It is not fair to judge Solon's 
 achievement solely by the standard of perfect democracy. 
 
 In the first })lace, let us inquire who was actually excluded 
 
 1 Const, of Ath. vii 4. 
 
 2 Const, of Ath. vii ; Pint. Sol. xviii 2 ; Arist. Pol. ii 12, 1274 a, 18 ff. 
 
80 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 from office by Solon's plan. Only members of the lowest class ; 
 only men who owned no land or who owned so little that they 
 derived from it less than two hundred measures a year; only 
 those who, as a general rule, were so lacking in enterprise and 
 intelligence that they could not rise above a very humble station 
 in life ; only those who were manifestly unfit to hold a responsible 
 post in the government. Men of this type rarely hold office 
 even in a real democracy, and when they do, it is regarded as a 
 public calamity. Probably by far the larger number of Athenian 
 citizens were included in the three upper classes. Probably these 
 classes included all who were fit to hold office. And let us recall 
 that by the Seisachtheia and by the law which forbade lending 
 money on the person of the debtor, Solon had opened a fair field 
 for all honest endeavor. Economically all men were equal ; 
 any man who could show his worth in the ordinary business of 
 life received his proper portion of political rights. There was a 
 certain justice in the property requirement. In an age when 
 education was not universal, only those persons who enjoyed the 
 advantages of good birth and at least moderate wealth could 
 attain to such a measure of cultivation and experience as would 
 properly prepare them for public life. Solon saw things as they 
 were and made his plans accordingly. He was indeed an idealist 
 in some ways : without idealism he could have accomplished 
 nothing. But he was not the man to wreck his ship upon a rock 
 because his eyes were on the distant haven. 
 
 Was the new arrangement better than the old? Alas, we 
 know so little of Athens before the archonship of Solon that we 
 cannot say for certain. But we may guess at the nature of the 
 change, with some probability that we shall not go very wide of 
 the mark. The affairs of Athens, since the abolition of the king- 
 ship, had been in the hands of the hereditary nobility. Little 
 by little, with the changing conditions of the world, the benevo- 
 lent rule of the nobles had given way to greedy and rapacious 
 
THE ARCHONSHIP 81 
 
 exploitation of the lower classes ; the mass of the people, no 
 longer acquiescent and contented, became more and more tur- 
 bulent and revolutionary. Civil war had been threatening for 
 fifty years. Under these circumstances it is only reasonable to 
 conclude that until the time of Solon the public offices of Athens 
 were the monopoly of a narrow oligarchy. We are told that 
 officials had been appointed from year to year by the council of 
 the Areopagus,^ and the council of the Areopagus was the organ 
 of the dominant families in the state. If this had really been the 
 state of affairs in Athens -(as it probably had been), we should be 
 ready to admit that the constitutional regulations of Solon, 
 preceded by the Seisachtheia and the abolition of slavery for debt, 
 which were the necessary preliminary, introduced a political 
 order infinitely more liberal than anything which had yet been 
 known. 
 
 We have now examined the significance of the first feature of 
 the Solonian constitution : all officials were to be chosen from 
 among the members of the three upper classes. Who were these 
 officials? Did Solon introduce new offices? Apparently not. 
 All offices mentioned are earlier institutions ^ — the nine archons, 
 including the Eponymous Archon, the King Archon, the Polem- 
 arch, and the six Thesmothetae ; the Tamiae, the Poletae, the 
 Colacretae, the Eleven.^ There seems to have been no change 
 in any of these offices, except that the circle of eligibihty was 
 widened. 
 
 The next important question concerns the manner in which 
 officials were chosen. Aristotle says explicitly that the method 
 was a combination of election and sortition.^ Each of the four 
 tribes chose a list of candidates and from these combined lists 
 the required number were selected by lot. In the case of the ar- 
 
 1 Const, of Ath. viii 2. 
 
 2 On the pre-Solonian Athenian magistracies see Busolt (1895, pp. 153 ff.). 
 
 3 Const, of Ath. vii 3. 
 
 4 Const, of Ath. viii ; cf. Plut. Comp. Sol. et Publ. ii. 
 
S2 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 chons, for example, each tribe chose ten candidates, and from the 
 total number of forty, the nine archons were selected by lot. These 
 statements are open to great suspicion, especially since they seem 
 to be inferences drawn from the practices of later times. Origi- 
 nally the appointment of archons was in the power of the Areop- 
 agus, and since this method had at some time been replaced 
 by the method which has just been described, Aristotle assumes 
 that the change was introduced by Solon. But whether the as- 
 sumption is true or not, it throws very little light on the working 
 of the government. Undoubtedly the lot is the foe of special 
 privilege, and was later a characteristic of the Athenian democ- 
 racy. In the absence, however, of any information concerning 
 the method employed in the primary choice of candidates, we 
 cannot decide what advance Solon may have made over the 
 oligarchic rule of the past.^ 
 
 This is the sum of our knowledge concerning the modifica- 
 tions which were introduced by Solon in connection with the 
 magistracies of the state. We turn now to the councils. 
 
 Aristotle announces with the utmost brevity that Solon created 
 a Council of Four Hundred composed of one hundred members 
 from each of the four tribes.^ What the duties and privileges of 
 this council were, how the members were chosen, what classes of 
 citizens were eligible to membership in it, — to these questions 
 
 1 Cf. Arist. Pol. ii 12, 1274 a and iii 11, 1281 b. It appears that ancient 
 scholars were generally agreed that Solon had given to all citizens without dis- 
 tinction certain powers of control over the magistrates. It is not certain exactly 
 what these powers were ; they are stated in different forms in different places. 
 And there was a difference of opinion concerning the merit of the innovation : 
 some regarded Solon's polity as an ideal mixture of oligarchy, aristocracy, and 
 democracy ; others thought the democratic element had killed the other two. 
 Aristotle does not hold Solon responsible for the radical democracy of the fifth 
 century. One might judge from his account that he felt that it was generally 
 known what changes Solon had made in the constitution and that it was not neces- 
 sary to describe them; But one does not get the impression that he had documen- 
 tary evidence. Manifestly Solon was generally regarded as the founder of the 
 Trdrpios b-niioKpaT€la, that is, the democratic form of government obtained by elim- 
 inating the democratic excesses of the fifth century. 
 
 2 Const, of Atli. viii 4. 
 
THE ARCHONSHIP 83 
 
 he supplies no answers. Unfortunately, a few pages earlier in 
 his essay, he has ascribed to Draco a Council of Four Hundred 
 One,^ and we are completely baffled in any attempt to reconcile 
 the conflicting statements. Plutarch is more communicative.^ 
 He represents this council as an addition to the governmental 
 arrangements which was necessary in order to secure political 
 equilibrium betiveen the classes. The Council of the Areopagus, 
 we may safely believe, was an ancient institution, the old council 
 of elders, the Athenian house of lords. This council Solon re- 
 tained, but he apparently introduced certain modifications in its 
 composition and its prerogatives. Exactly how it had been con- 
 stituted in the past we do not know, but the explicitness with 
 which we are told about the organization of it under Solon argues 
 that the features which are expressly described were thought to 
 be novel. ^ In the first place, it was to be composed of all men 
 who had served as archons. This means, of course, that all 
 Athenians belonging to the property-class whose members were 
 eligible to the archonship were also eligible to the Areopagus. 
 We may believe that this new definition of membership is an in- 
 dication of much more narrowly restricted membership in the 
 past. If noble birth had been the requisite for admission to the 
 Areopagus before Solon's time, the new requisite was the owner- 
 ship of a certain amount of the soil of Attica. But the council 
 still remained the conservative element in the state. It was to 
 act as the governor in the political machine, which was to exercise 
 control over wild and revolutionary procedure. It was expressly 
 designated the guardian of the laws. No doubt it had been the 
 guardian of the la^ys in the past ; but it had been also the sovereign 
 executive of the laws. It had been the steam box and the driving 
 wheel as well as the governor in the engine of state. The magis- 
 trates had been appointed by the council ; now, the council was 
 
 1 Const, of Ath. iv 3. 2 piut. Sol. xix ; Comp. Sol. et Publ. ii. 
 
 3 Const, of Ath. viii ; Plut. Sol. xix ; Comp. Sol. et Publ. ii. 
 
84 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 composed of past magistrates who had been chosen by a larger 
 electorate. The council now played a subordinate part in the 
 administration of the state, but a part which it was eminently 
 fitted to play, both because of its historic dignity and because 
 of the naturally conservative temper of the class from which its 
 members were drawn. 
 
 Let us now return to the Council of Four Hundred. Plutarch 
 tells us that the Council of the Areopagus was not sufficient to 
 meet the needs of the time. The Seisachtheia had given the people 
 a taste of liberty, and they were in a mood to demand more liberty 
 and greater political privilege. Besides, they were probably sus- 
 picious of the Areopagus, the ancient bulwark of special privilege. 
 Though its sting had been drawn, they were still afraid of its 
 bite. This was the need which, according to Plutarch, the 
 Council of Four Hundred was created to meet. It was to be a 
 house of commons, larger and more widely representative than 
 the upper house, and its part in the government was to give 
 expression to the more progressive and liberal aspirations of the 
 community. 
 
 There was still another council in Athens, as ancient as the 
 Council of the Areopagus itself. The Ecclesia, or popular as- 
 sembly, had probably always been a vital element in Athenian 
 government, and was destined in the future to become all-power- 
 ful. In a city as small as Athens the method of representative 
 government was not necessary, or at any rate it was not practiced ; 
 the people managed their own affairs without intermediary. 
 Now we may imagine that the economic reforms of Solon, though 
 they had not transformed the people of Athens into a fierce de- 
 mocracy like that which Cleon harangued at the end of the fifth 
 century, had nevertheless aroused in them political ambitions 
 which might easily wreck the state if they were not controlled. 
 The new council, in the words of Plutarch, ''was to deliberate 
 on public matters before the people did, and was not to allow 
 
THE ARCHONSHIP 85 
 
 any matter to come before the popular assembly without such 
 previous deliberation." Its function, therefore, was to control 
 the exuberant activity of the Ecclesia; to stand in the same 
 relation to the Ecclesia as the Areopagus to the state as a 
 whole. But — and here we revert to the character of the 
 council as a popular organization — the people were not dis- 
 trustful of it, because it was their own and not associated with 
 a hereditary aristocracy. ''The city with its two councils," says 
 Plutarch, ''riding as it were at double anchor, would be less 
 tossed by the surges, and would keep its populace in greater 
 quiet." 
 
 It has been assumed throughout this discussion that the 
 Council of Four Hundred was open to the majority of Athenian 
 citizens. The Council of the Areopagus was composed of past 
 archons; the Ecclesia was open to any Athenian of any class. 
 We do not know whether any property qualification was required 
 for eligibility to the Four Hundred. But it is extremely likely 
 that all Athenians of the three upper classes were eligible, even 
 if the members of the Thetic class were excluded. 
 
 Two political privileges alone were allowed to the class of 
 Thetes. One has just been mentioned, namely, membership in the 
 Ecclesia. The other was the privilege of membership in the Dicas- 
 terion, or popular court. ^ In later times this popular court 
 was multiplied into a larger number of courts which sat in judg- 
 ment upon practically all legal disputes in Athens. It came to 
 be one of the most characteristic institutions of democratic Athens. 
 Just how it was organized in Solon's time we do not know, nor 
 do we know the extent of its prerogatives. We cannot even say 
 categorically that it was instituted by Solon. But we may say, 
 on the authority of Aristotle, first, that Solon allowed an appeal 
 from the decision of the magistrates to the popular court, and, 
 second, that he permitted members of the Thetic class to sit in it. 
 1 Const, of Ath. vii 3, ix ; Plut. Sol. xviii. 
 
86 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 Here at last we find the sovereign power in the state : ''the people, 
 being master of the juryman's ballot, became thereby master of 
 the state." ^ With this powerful instrument in their hands, the 
 people need never again fear the partial judgment of oligarchic 
 despots. They were masters of their own fate. It is not necessary 
 to assume, as some do, that the popular court had the right to 
 call a magistrate to account at the close of his term of office : this 
 practice, again highly characteristic of democratic Athens, may 
 have been instituted by Solon ; but we have no definite knowledge 
 that it was. Even without this prerogative, the popular court 
 was already a safeguard of popular liberty. 
 
 Little more can be said about the constitution which Solon 
 established. We have seen that the changes which he introduced 
 were few in number, but far reaching in effect. There is noth- 
 ing violent in his measures. Most of the old tools with the old 
 names are still in use. But beneath the surface a deep poHtical 
 revolution was enacted. Nobihty of birth and hereditary privi- 
 lege were quietly set aside, and in their place was put equality 
 of rights. But the whole transformation was carried through 
 with so much moderation that in describing it one fears to slight 
 its conservative qualities if he praises its liberality, and to do less 
 than justice to its liberality if he insists on its cautious conserv- 
 atism. If Louis XIV could say, ''I am the State," Solon might 
 with equal truth say, ''I am the Revolution." 
 
 Let us try to avoid any misunderstanding concerning the form 
 of this constitution which the ancients attributed to Solon. There 
 is no evidence whatever that he drew up a constitution in docu- 
 mentary form. Indeed, probably neither Athens nor any other 
 Greek state ever had a formal constitution. The magistracies 
 and the various governmental practices seem to have grown out 
 of custom and tradition, or out of statutory legislation. We 
 do not know just how Solon promulgated and recorded the meas- 
 
 1 Const, of Ath. ix ; Plut. Sol. xviii 3. 
 
THE ARCHONSHIP 87 
 
 ures which affected what we should call the constitution. Prob- 
 ably most of them took the form of special laws prescribing the 
 action of certain magistrates under certain conditions.^ It was 
 the laws of Solon that were recorded and which were regarded 
 as the charter of Athenian liberties. These laws seem to have 
 been arranged under the heads of the several magistrates in whose 
 province they lay. It may be that prescriptions touching the 
 eligibility to the various offices, the method of election to them, 
 and other such matters were recorded together with the laws that 
 were to be administered by them. 
 
 When Aristotle comes to sum up Solon's most important con- 
 tributions to the development of the Athenian democracy,^ it is 
 interesting to observe that two of the three are legal rather 
 than constitutional enactments. The first is the famous law which 
 prohibited the loan of money with the personal liberty of the 
 borrower for security. The second is a law granting to any one 
 who so desired, the right to bring an action in defense of any per- 
 sons who are wronged. This was a powerful blow at the feudal- 
 ism which had prevailed in the past. The nobles alone had been 
 judges in disputes between citizens, and the nobles alone could 
 carry the complaints of their clients before the judicial authori- 
 ties. The result of this was that all citizens who were not members 
 of the ruling oligarchy were entirely in the hands of their land- 
 lords or patrons and were unable to seek redress for their wrongs 
 except through their landlords, whether the wrongs proceeded 
 from outside sources or from the landlords themselves. The 
 third is the right of appeal to the popular court. 
 
 Our ancient authorities have something to say about the dis- 
 position of the laws when Solon had completed the formulation 
 of them.^ Aristotle says they were inscribed and set up in the 
 King's Stoa and that all swore to abide by them ; that the nine 
 
 1 Busolt (1895, p. 48, footnote 1). 2 Const, of Ath. ix. 
 
 3 Const, of Ath. vii ; Plut. Sol. xxv ; Herodotus i 29. 
 
 / f 
 
88 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 archons took a solemn oath to set up a statue of gold if the}^ trans- 
 gressed any of the laws; and that the laws were ratified for a 
 hundred years. Plutarch adds that the council swore that they 
 would support the laws ; he attributes the oath of obedience to 
 the thesmothetae and not to the archons. Herodotus states that 
 the laws were to stand for ten years. 
 
 We are evidently dealing here with traditions for which there 
 could be no real evidence. The oath of the archons was inferred 
 from a later practice ; ^ and the divergence between ten and a 
 hundred years indicates that there was no certain information 
 on the subject. 
 
 We can be sure that the laws were inscribed on wood, stone, 
 or possibly metal, and set up in some public place where they 
 would be accessible to all.^ It is altogether likely that Solon had 
 insured a fair trial of his measures by binding the citizens to 
 observe them for a certain period, or until they were amended 
 according to a definitely prescribed procedure. Beyond this we 
 cannot go. 
 
 In modern times Solon is known chiefly as a legislator. His 
 legislative activities have so far overshadowed all other circum- 
 stances in his life, and have so far obscured the character 
 and personality of the man himself, that his very name is in a 
 fair way to become, in our popular speech, a common noun mean- 
 ing a member of a legislative body. Even among the Greeks them- 
 selves, though his other services to Athens were not forgotten, there 
 was a tendency to think of him first as the great Athenian law- 
 giver. No doubt there is some justice in thus emphasizing his 
 work in the codification of Attic law. It may be that this work 
 had a more far reaching and abiding influence than anything else 
 that he did. But this is not by any means beyond question. 
 
 1 Cf. Const. ofAth. Iv 5. 
 
 2 For ancient opinions concerning the form of the tablets on which the laws 
 were inscribed, see Appendix 4. 
 
THE ARCHONSHIP 89 
 
 His economic reforms and the example of his integrity and of 
 his disinterested statesmanship may have meant more to 
 Athens, and therefore to the world, than his labors in Athenian 
 law. 
 
 If no categorical judgment is hazarded here concerning the 
 true merits of the Solonian reforms, this is due to the fear of seem- 
 ing to know what is really not known. The opinions of scholars 
 range from scant approval to high praise.^ The reason for this 
 variation is to be found partly in the diversity of their standards 
 of judgment, but still more in the diversity displayed in their 
 
 1 The following may be taken as typical. Wilamowitz (1893, II, 66) says : 
 " dass er ein grosser staatsmann gewesen ware, wird sein gewissen geneint haben, 
 so gut wie ^\^r es verneinen miissen. und doch hat Aristoteles ihn einen einzigen 
 unter alien staatsmannern genannt, der allein das wol des ganzen zur richtschnur 
 sich genommen. und doch hat er in der tat die demokratie Athens, wenn auch 
 nur als vorlaufer des Kleisthenes, und die athenische poesie, wenn auch nur als 
 vorlaufer des Aischylos begrtindet. dass er beides vermochte, dass seine person 
 sowol den Drakon wie den Peisistratos, ja noch den Kleisthenes in den schatten 
 gestellt hat, das dankt er der Muse, ihn allein von ihnen horte die nachwelt und 
 horen auch wir noch. ein grosser dichter war er nicht, aber ein weiser und 
 frommer und guter mensch, was denn doch mehr ist." Adler (1896, p. 129) 
 takes the opposite view : "Ich glaube im Gegensatz zu diesen Autoritaten (i.e., 
 Aristotle and Wilamowitz) die Ansicht verfechten zu miissen, dass Solon — trotz 
 seines Idealismus — als wahrhaft genialer Staatsmann anzusehen ist und als sozialer 
 Reformator grossen Stils im Gedachtnis aller Zeiten f ortzuleben verdient. Die 
 Kritiker haben viel zu sehr jenen augenblicklichen Misserfolg, der zur Aufrich- 
 tung der Alleinherrschaft fiihrte, im Auge, wahrend eine tiefer grabende soziolo- 
 gische Geschichtsbetrachtung die ganze einzige Kulturentwicklung Athens mit 
 der politischen und sozialen Reform Solons in enge Verbindung bringen und ftir 
 die fortgesetzten Wirren eine genligende Erklarung herbeischaffen wird. Solon 
 war ein grosser Staatsmann : denn er hat die schweren Gebresten der Zeit klar 
 erkannt und die Mittel zu ihrer Heilung mit starker und sicherer Hand durch- 
 gefiihrt ; seine Massregeln stellen die gewaltigste soziale Reform dar, die jemals 
 in der Weltgeschichte auf friedlichem Wege zur Ausf iihrung gelangt ist. Durch 
 ihn ist thatsachlich eine wahrhafte Bauernbefreiung grossen Stils durchgeftihrt 
 und damit der Grundstein zu der attischen Kultur, wie wir sie kennen, das Fun- 
 dament zu Athens klinftiger Grosse gelegt worden . . . Dass aber Solon wirk- 
 lich als Schopfer der Grosse Athens, wenn dieser Ausdruck auf eine einzelne 
 Person iiberhaupt anwendbar ist, angesehen werden muss, lasst sich beinahe 
 strikte beweisen." It is well to add also the wise words of Croiset (1903, 
 p. 596) : " Toutefois, I'oeuvre de Solon, oeuvre legislative et po^tique k la fois, 
 ne fut pas sterile. Elle resta, dans la vie publique, comme un id^al, que les 
 meilleurs citoyeiis aimaient a invoquer et qui leur pretait son autorit^ ; et elle 
 devint, dans la vie morale et intellectuelle, comme une source de bonnes pens^es, 
 que de grands esprits accrurent peu k peu, et qui, peut-etre, attendent encore 
 leur realisation." 
 
90 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 hypothetical restoration of circumstances for which there is no 
 direct historical evidence. Whatever may have been the virtue 
 or success of Solon's political acts, the principles and ideals by 
 which he was moved in his public career are clear for all to under- 
 stand, and, it is to be hoped, for all to admire. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 AFTER THE ARCHONSHIP 
 
 When the strenuous term of Solon's office finally came to an 
 end and all the momentous changes which he had planned were 
 finally accomplished, he himself felt content with his work. 
 ''What I promised," he says, ''with the gods' help, I fulfilled."^ 
 It may be that his own approval would have been less pronounced 
 if he had not been called upon to defend vigorously the measures 
 he had adopted. What he has to say in his own support is called 
 forth by the hostile criticism which was brought against him from 
 all sides. In such a situation it was natural that he should 
 emphasize the good in what he had done and be silent about 
 the misgivings he may have had concerning his success. 
 
 There was, as a matter of fact, considerable popular dissatis- 
 faction.^ Men kept coming to him with inquiries, criticisms, and 
 complaints. In general, the rich were angry because his reforms 
 cut too deep, the poor because they did not cut deep enough. The 
 lower classes had supposed that his professions of moderation 
 were insincere and had believed that when he once got the power 
 in his hands he would permit them to glut themselves on the good 
 things of the rich. The rich on the other hand expected him to 
 allay the popular clamor without despoiling them of any of their 
 cherished privileges and pleasures. 
 
 These complaints were met by Solon with clear-cut statements 
 in his own behalf. As before his archonship he had made pubhc 
 1 viii 6. 2 Const of Ath. xi ; Plut. Sol. xxv. 
 
 91 
 
92 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 his views concerning the needs of the state through the instrumen- 
 taUty of verse, so now when he was assailed with criticism he 
 adopted a similar means of defense. In a considerable number of 
 poems he described and justified the steps he had taken for the 
 amelioration of Athenian affairs. Of these poems not a few frag- 
 ments remain,^ and, as we have seen, they provide us with our 
 best information concerning the nature of his reforms. This 
 whole group of poems must have been written and published 
 during the first year or two after his archonship, when the issues 
 involved were still uppermost in men's minds. He says again 
 and again that he had done just what he had said he would do, 
 no more and no less. If people had formed false expectations, 
 he was not to blame. As a matter of fact, the poor had been 
 given more than they could ever have hoped for in their wildest 
 dreams ; the rich, if they could only see the magnitude of the 
 peril from which the city had been saved with comparatively 
 little loss to themselves, would feel unbounded gratitude. ''But 
 in great undertakings," says Solon, somewhat wistfully, ''it is 
 difficult to please all." ^ It may be that the people had some just 
 cause for dissatisfaction. But it is manifest that many, if not 
 most, of the complaints which were raised were due to the narrow- 
 ness and prejudice of the various groups of citizens ; and though 
 we may be disposed to be cautious and to withhold an altogether 
 favorable judgment of Solon's work, we must at any rate give 
 him our whole-hearted applause for his excellent intentions and 
 the unselfishness, moderation, and impartiality with which he 
 carried them through. 
 
 Such an attitude as that exhibited by both parties at the close 
 of Solon's archonship did not augur well for the future well- 
 being of the state. It has been remarked ^ that his ideal of 
 Eunomia depended not only on the existence of good laws but 
 also on the disposition of the people to obey them loyally and con- 
 1 vi-xi. 2 xxiii. » Pp. 66, 67. 
 
AFTER THE ARCHONSHIP 93 
 
 tentedly. The real worth of Solon's institutions could only be 
 tested by a patient trial over a number of years. Such a trial 
 apparently the people were not ready to give them. At any rate, 
 we are told that after an interval of peace lasting for only three 
 or four years, party strife was again so violent that a whole year 
 passed without the election of an archon.^ A similar period of 
 anarchy occurred again a little later. But this continued dis- 
 cord does not prove that Solon's work was of no avail. The be- 
 neficent effects of the Seisachtheia were not undone ; the written 
 code of laws still stood as a cornerstone of future reconciliation ; 
 the momentous changes in the direction of popular government 
 were not rescinded. It was too much to expect that a single 
 year's work would suffice to make over Athenian society and 
 appease all the discordant elements. The long history of demo- 
 cratic development was only just beginning. Solon no doubt 
 suffered disappointment as every champion of popular govern- 
 ment must suffer whose ideals run ahead of the ability of the people 
 to comprehend and realize them. 
 
 Sooner or later during the years which followed his archon- 
 ship Solon made up his mind to leave Athens for a time.^ Ac- 
 cording to Aristotle, he announced that he would not return for 
 ten years, thinking that he ought not to stay in Athens and ex- 
 pound his laws in person, but that the Athenians should simply 
 obey them as they were written. It has been supposed that in 
 this passage Aristotle was quoting indirectly from some poem in 
 which Solon announced his departure and declared the rea- 
 sons for it. This is a reasonable conjecture; but after all it is 
 only a conjecture, and we cannot be sure that Aristotle had such 
 direct evidence for his statements. There can be no question 
 
 1 Const of Ath. xiii. 2 por a discussion of Solon's travv?ls, see Appendix 6. 
 
94 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 about the fact that Solon went abroad ; but we do not know 
 just when he went, whether within a few months or a few 
 years of the close of his archonship, nor can we be sure that his 
 reasons were those which Aristotle gives. We are not justified, 
 therefore, in seeking causes either for praise or for blame in 
 his action. We cannot say that Solon was playing the part of 
 a coward in abandoning the field, nor can we assert positively 
 that he showed real courage in leaving his legislation to prove its 
 worth without defense or support from himself. The latter sup- 
 position is, indeed, entirely in harmony with his settled policy. It 
 was always his aim that the Athenians should live under the 
 government of their own laws : he had refused in the past to usurp 
 the place of the law by making himself tyrant, and it may well 
 be that he refused with equal firmness to serve as a meddlesome 
 administrator of a finished code. If the laws were good they 
 required no special interpretation in special cases. We should 
 be grateful for something more definite than these guesses at fact 
 and motive ; but we cannot even be sure that there was any con- 
 nection between the effects of Solon's legislation and his deter- 
 mination to go abroad for a period of foreign travel. 
 
 Aside from the possible political reasons which induced Solon 
 to go abroad, he had two definite personal motives, as our author- 
 ities tell us. He went partly on commercial business and partly 
 to see the world. Even if the biographers did not learn these 
 facts from a poem, they could be easily guessed. Solon's intel- 
 lectual curiosity lasted through life, as he tells us himself {yrjpdaKoy 8' 
 mVt TToXXa SiSaaKOfxevos) j^ and there would have been much to tempt 
 him in foreign travel, even in those days of uncertain and even 
 dangerous communication. Moreover, if he was to go at all, 
 it was almost necessary that he should provide for his pas- 
 sage by some small commercial venture at the same time. Plato 
 is said to have carried a cargo of oil when he went to Egypt, 
 
AFTER THE ARCHONSHIP 95 
 
 and it would not be surprising if Solon did the same thing. His 
 earlier experiences in trade would stand him in good stead and 
 overcome any reluctance he might have in middle life to embark 
 in new and untried undertakings. 
 
 How extended his travels were we do not know. It is certain 
 that he went to Cyprus, and there is little doubt that he also went 
 to Egypt. Visits to Sardis, Miletus, and Cilicia are also recorded, 
 but there are excellent reasons for believing that these are legend- 
 ary. 
 
 Egypt, to the Greeks, was the Old World. The civilization 
 of the Nile had had a continuous existence for more centuries 
 than men could count, and in comparison with it the life of the 
 Greeks even in the fifth century seemed new and unsettled. 
 Egypt was a land of ancient monuments and ancient traditions, 
 and in the eyes of the Egyptians the Greeks were but as children 
 whose memory ran back only a brief space. Until about the 
 middle of the seventh century B.C. this ancient land, like modern 
 Japan, had been closed to foreigners. King Psammetichus had 
 departed from the customs of the past and thrown open the 
 country to foreign traders. Immediately Greek merchants from 
 Asia Minor and Aegina began to resort to Egypt in great numbers, 
 and it was not long before there was a permanent Greek settle- 
 ment, called Naucratis, on the Canobic channel of the Nile. Thus 
 there were two attractions for Solon in the land of Egypt at the 
 beginning of the sixth century: one was the lure of the ancient 
 civilization, the other was the novelty of Egyptian friendliness 
 to the outside world. Many Greeks during recent decades must 
 have brought back wonderful tales of the newly discovered country 
 which was already infinitely old. Such tales were still interesting 
 to the Greeks more than a century later when Herodotus in writing 
 his history devoted two books to an account of Egyptian history 
 and customs. Solon, therefore, desiring to travel, went to Egypt 
 as a matter of course. Mesopotamia was remote and inaccessible 
 
96 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 without great toil ; the Greeks cities of Ionia, and probably Sardis, 
 he had visited before. There was nothing in the western Medi- 
 terranean but frontier settlements. It was to Egypt that he 
 turned without question. 
 
 We know nothing definite of what he did there. He probably 
 spent some time at Naucratis, and visited Sais, Heliopolis, and 
 other cities of the Delta. Plutarch says he studied for some time 
 with the priests in Sais; but this is probably only an inference 
 from a famous story which is told by Plato. ^ In the dialogue 
 called the Critias, which forms a sequel to the Republic and the 
 Timaeus, Critias himself is the principal speaker. This Critias, 
 it will be recalled,^ was the great-uncle of Plato, and supposed 
 to be a descendant of Solon's brother. In order to fulfill his part 
 in the large plan of Plato's tetralogy, Critias makes use of a tale 
 about a lost island called Atlantis, which many ages before lay 
 far in the western sea and was the home of a powerful state. This 
 tale, he tells us, his ancestor Solon had learned from the priests 
 in Sais; Solon had related it to the elder Critias, and he, when 
 he was an old man of ninety years, had told it to his grandson, 
 the younger Critias of the dialogue. Solon is supposed to have 
 written down the Greek forms of the Egyptian proper names, 
 intending later to compose an epic poem on the subject. He was 
 prevented from carrying out his plan by the civil disorder in 
 Athens ; but his written notes had come into the hands of Dropides, 
 the father of the elder Critias, and having been carefully pre- 
 served in the family had passed eventually into the possession 
 of the younger Critias and were even now still in existence. 
 
 Now the source of this story has been discovered in Egyptian 
 hieroglyphic inscriptions which record the victory of the Egyp- 
 tians under Rameses over some powerful people of the west. 
 
 1 Timaeus 20 d ff. ; Critias 113 a. The story is repeated by Plutarch (Sol. 
 xxvi ; cf. also Be Is. et Os. 10, p. 354 e) and alluded to by Strabo (ii 102). 
 
 2 See p. 34. 
 
AFTER THE ARCHONSHIP 97 
 
 There is small doubt, however, that it was Plato and not Solon 
 who brought back this story from Egypt. The circumstantial 
 account of its transmission through the elder Critias is simply a 
 graceful bit of fiction designed to serve as a realistic setting for 
 the dialogue. There is nothing to be learned from it about 
 Solon's experiences in Egypt, and we cannot believe on this kind 
 of evidence that he ever entertained the purpose of composing 
 an epic poem. 
 
 We can do no more, then, than carry Solon to Egypt and away 
 again ; of his sojourn there we know nothing. On his visit to 
 Cyprus a slender ray of light is thrown by an extant fragment of 
 a poem. In this fragment, which is part of a farewell addressed 
 to Philocyprus, the young king of Soli in Cyprus, Solon prays for 
 the prosperity of the king and his family and his people, and for 
 a safe return for himself to Athens. This seems to indicate that 
 Solon came from Egypt to Cyprus and received there a friendly 
 and hospitable welcome from Philocyprus, and continued his 
 homeward journey with warm expressions of regard at parting. 
 
 3 
 
 It is not to be supposed that Solon's trip abroad marked his 
 final retirement from public life. More than thirty years elapsed 
 between his archonship and his death. At some time during 
 this period (just when we do not know, but probably near the 
 beginning) he was away from Athens for an unknown length of 
 time. But he must certainly have been living at home for twenty 
 or twenty-five years. Even if we had no evidence for the fact, 
 we should still be sure in our own minds that public affairs were 
 not a matter of indifference to him during all these years. Though 
 he took no active part in politics, we should still expect to find him 
 giving much thought to it and expressing his opinions in his 
 familiar medium of verse. And this is precisely what he did. 
 The evidence is slight ; but it is enough perhaps to reveal the 
 
98 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 nature of the part he played in this period. But before we turn 
 to it, there is one small matter which must not be overlooked. 
 During the early part of the sixth century trouble had been 
 brewing about Delphi, the seat of the oracle of Apollo. This 
 locality, which lies on the steep southern slope of Mount Par- 
 nassus, was within the domain of the flourishing city of Crisa, 
 to the west, which commanded the valley of the Peneus and the 
 whole rich plain which stretches down to the Corinthian Gulf. 
 Crisa had long been levying tolls on the merchants and mer- 
 chandise which passed back and forth under her walls on the long 
 journey between the thriving cities of Euboea and their colonies 
 in the far west. She had also interfered with pilgrims to the shrine 
 of Delphi and committed depredations on the sacred property 
 itself. As a result of this, Delphi appealed for aid to the Am- 
 phictyonic Council. This ancient organization was the execu- 
 tive body of a religious league composed of a group of Greek 
 peoples living in the neighborhood of Thermopylae and Delphi, 
 who united in the common worship of Demeter at Thermopylae 
 and (later at any rate, if not from the beginning) in the adminis- 
 tration of the oracle at Delphi. The Athenians were one of the 
 constituent peoples and sent one delegate to sit in the Amphictyonic 
 Council. When the appeal of the Delphians came to the council 
 it was decided, upon the motion of the Athenian delegate, to es- 
 pouse the cause of Delphi ; and the Athenian delegate at this 
 time was none other than Solon. ^ The war was entirely success- 
 
 1 This statement rests upon fairly direct evidence. Plutarch (Sol. xi) re- 
 ports it on the authority of Aristotle's list of the victors in the Pythian jjjames 
 (i] Tiov Uv6iopikQv avay pa(t>ri). It is also attested by Aeschines in his speech 
 against Ctesiphon (iii 108). J)e Sanctis, however, does not regard the evidence 
 as reliable (11)12, p. 2(51): "E per6 incerto quel che afferma Eschuie e Aristotele 
 ripete, che la gnerra fu deliberatasu propostadel rappresentante ateniese Solone. 
 La testinionianza d'Eschine 6 qui tanto meno degna di fede in quanto un tal 
 procedcnte potcva scusare, se non giustificare, il suo modo di comportarsi nella 
 pileaautunnalt' del 340, (juando propose la guerra sacra contro Anfissa. E ris- 
 petto alia testiinonanza d'Aristotele, la scoperta della Repubblica ateniese ha 
 diniostrato che buona parte delle asserzioni storiche dello Stagirita non e fondata 
 sui documenti come prima in generale si credeva ; onde ben pu6 darsi che egli 
 
AFTER THE ARCHONSHIP 99 
 
 ful ; the city of Crisa was blotted out of existence and the broad 
 plain below was made sacred to Apollo for all time. The Pythian 
 games, too, were instituted in celebration of the victory and were 
 held every four years thereafter. The date of the fall of Crisa 
 has been much disputed. It may have been 590 or 586 or even 
 later. We do not know how long the war lasted. Consequently 
 the date of the session of the council at which Solon was present 
 is quite beyond our reach. It may have been within the decade 
 after his archonship ; it may even have been before the archon- 
 ship; and it may have been either before or after his sojourn 
 abroad. The whole matter would no doubt be interesting and 
 important enough if we had sufficient material for a full and 
 orderly biography. But, as things are, we can do no more than 
 mention this single unrelated circumstance and leave it without 
 comment. How much distinction the office of delegate to the 
 Amphictyonic Council carried with it; whether the Delphian 
 issue caused any serious debate; whether Solon took an active 
 part in it or not : such questions as these, which contain the 
 gist of the matter, cannot be answered. 
 
 In the domestic affairs of Athens, to come now to what must 
 be the closing scene in Solon's life, we find that the old question 
 of the tyranny was one of the things which occupied his attention. 
 This much we know from extant fragments of his poems. ^ More 
 than one aspiring politician essayed to make himself tyrant of 
 Athens, and Solon stoutly opposed them. He rebuked the people 
 
 abbia accolto una tradizione o un' invenzione diffusa ad arte da Eschine o da' suoi 
 amici per coonestare cio che avevano operate in Delfi con poco riguardo agP in- 
 teressi della patria." On the Amphictyonic Council, the Sacred War, and 
 Solon's part therein, see Busolt (1893, pp. 672 ff., especially p. 693) and Wila^ 
 mowitz (1893, I, 10 ff.). 
 
 1 xiii and xiv. For a discussion of Solon's activities during this period and 
 his relations with Pisistratus see Appendix 7. 
 
100 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 sharply for their folly in allowing themselves to be deceived by 
 these specious individuals, and warned them against resigning 
 to them so much power that there would be no further hope of 
 recovering their liberties. Who these pretenders to a tyrant's 
 throne were, we do not know. But we find Solon maintaining 
 his principles with the same resolution and giving public expres- 
 sion to them with the same vigor and fearlessness as in the past. 
 It is easy to believe that in the unsettled years which, according 
 to Aristotle, followed Solon's archonship there should have been 
 many abortive attempts at the tyranny. 
 
 In the end, thirty-two years after the archonship of Solon, the 
 thing happened which was diametrically opposed to Solon's 
 political ideals.^ A tyranny was finally established in Athens. 
 What Solon had steadfastly refused for himself was won by an- 
 other through clever intrigue. Pisistratus was the man who 
 finally made himself master of Athens. There are picturesque 
 legends of Solon's efforts to prevent his usurpation, but they are 
 not to be accepted as historical. The fact, however, that Solon 
 did oppose Pisistratus' s machinations cannot be doubted for a 
 moment. He had unmasked similar plots in the past, and it is 
 not likely that Pisistratus was clever enough to deceive him even 
 at his advanced age. But whatever Solon may have said or done, 
 his efforts were unavailing. Pisistratus became tyrant of Athens. 
 And in this high position, it must be confessed, he conducted him- 
 self with great moderation and accomplished much for the glory 
 of the city. Nothing would be more profitable than a detailed 
 comparison of the ideals and achievements of these two men if 
 we only had sufficient evidence for it. The one was a champion 
 of free institutions, but his plans did not lead apparently to the 
 
 1 De Sanctis (1912, pp. 257 ff.), in a page of criticism on the value of Colon's 
 constitutional reforms, attributes the failure of the constitution to the lack of a 
 strong central power. He betrays some disapproval of what he regards as 
 Solon's weakness, and some admiration for the strong government of Pisistratus. 
 So those who admire Caesar condemn Cicero. 
 
AFTER THE ARCHONSHIP 101 
 
 immediate demonstrable success of political calm and material 
 well-being; the other was a benevolent autocrat who developed 
 the resources and power of the state. It is a contrast which 
 tries one's faith in democracy. And yet in later times Solon was 
 looked upon as the founder of all that the Athenians cherished 
 most ; while Pisistratus and his sons were thought of with hatred 
 and reprobation. Conditions in the sixth century were not right 
 for a fair trial of the comparative merits of autocracy and de- 
 mocracy. The people were only just emerging from a state of 
 feudal subservience ; they were ignorant and unprepared for the 
 duties and responsibilities of self-government. Athens like other 
 Greek states had to pass out of the old order by the way of the 
 popular tyranny. She was fortunate in having a wise and benev- 
 olent despot. But it was no small thing that the principles of 
 democracy had been enunciated with so much clearness and force 
 at the beginning. These principles were never forgotten, and 
 ultimately they bore fruit. The marvelous thing is that at so 
 early a day, in the midst of the corruption of a declining aris- 
 tocracy and the ignorance of an unintelligent populace, Solon 
 should have discerned with such clear insight and maintained 
 with such resolute faith the true principle of equality before 
 the law. He was as one born out of due time, and his true 
 worth could not be understood until men had grown to his 
 stature. 
 
 There is something melancholy and depressing about the cir- 
 cumstance that in the last days of his life Solon should have seen 
 the triumph of the thing against which he had struggled so val- 
 iantly, both when it came as a temptation to himself and when 
 it came as a menace from other men. But it serves at the same 
 time to throw into sharper relief what we must have recognized 
 as the chief ornament of his character. The unselfishness and 
 perseverance with which he struggled to hold the people free from 
 the domination of lawless masters, even though he could himself 
 
102 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 have been the master, are enough to merit our high regard ; and 
 if his legislation and the instigation of his own example and of 
 his inspiring precepts did not immediately avail to realize for 
 Athens his noble ideal, we should not be blinded by this to the 
 true worth of the man.^ 
 
 1 For the traditions concerning Solon's death and burial, see Appendix 8. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 THE POEMS 
 
 The life of Solon, as we have seen, was known to the ancients 
 and is known to us only through his poems. In tracing the events 
 of his career we have been listening constantly to his voice; or, 
 when his own voice can be heard no longer, we have learned some- 
 times from the ancient biographers something of what he had 
 said. The character of many of the poems, whose very subjects 
 were drawn from the circumstances of the time, has facilitated 
 this use of them. But it is not right to treat them solely as his- 
 torical documents. We must now come to them with the wider 
 appreciation and criticism which are the due of poetry.^ We must 
 search them for the thoughts and the emotions of their author; 
 we must discern the artistic skill with which he has expressed 
 these thoughts and emotions in measured language. For Solon 
 was a life-long poet. Not that poetry was his chief business. 
 He seems to have turned to the Muses partly for amusement in 
 his lighter hours, partly for aid in the sterner tasks which he 
 undertook for the good of Athens. But they responded to him 
 with their favor, even though he refused to give his whole heart 
 to them. Plato ^ represents an admirer of Solon declaring that 
 if he had chosen to devote himself wholly to poetry he might even 
 have rivaled the great masters. But this was no doubt a partial 
 critic ; and it does little good to conjecture what Solon would have 
 accomplished if he had not been the man he was. He had a 
 
 1 On the poems, see also pp. 7-13. 2 Timaeus 21 c. 
 
 103 
 
104 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 genuine poetical gift, but he chose to use it mostly in moral 
 exhortations and political pamphlets. An Anacreon must make 
 amends for the laxity of his morals by the exquisite purity of his 
 art ; Solon atones for the occasional prosaic quality of his verse 
 by the nobility of his character and his unselfish devotion to the 
 public weal. 
 
 We must recognize at the start that in attempting a criticism 
 of Solon's poetry we are beset by the difficulty which arises from 
 the fragmentary character of the remains, and by the danger of 
 drawing general conclusions from material which comprises only 
 a fraction of his whole work. There is always a temptation to 
 find a larger significance in isolated lines than would be justified 
 by the whole poem if we had it before us. Fortunately among 
 the extant fragments there are, as we have seen, three which from 
 their greater length hold out the promise of a better understand- 
 ing of Solon's art. It is safe to say that they exhibit the develop- 
 ment of his thought during the most active years of his life. We 
 do not know whether they were really the longest of his poems, 
 but for us they are the most significant. We cannot do better, 
 therefore, than to begin our account of his ideas and his art by a 
 somewhat detailed study of these three poems. 
 
 There can be little doubt that the order in which these poems 
 are here discussed is also the order in which they were composed. 
 The sentiments expressed in the longest of the three are such as 
 to lead us to assign it to the earlier half of Solon's life, before his 
 archonship, when he was especially distrustful of the rich.^ It 
 
 1 Cf. Croiset (1903, p. 583): "line semble pas douteux qu'elle n'appar- 
 tienne k la premiere partie de sa vie. La politique ii'y tient encore aucune 
 place : Tauteur est manifestement Stranger aux preoccupations qui devaient, plus 
 tard, Tabsorber tout entier . . . il s'agissait d'orienter sa vie. Plus tard, elle 
 (la question: Est-il desirable de s'enrichir/) lui aurait paru oiseuse et peu digne 
 de son attention.'" Wilamowitz (1893, II, 314) regards the poem as a work of 
 Solon's old age, though he seems to have no evidence for this conclusion except 
 what he regards as an old man's spirit pervading the piece : " jenes wunderbare 
 gedicht, in dem der frouime des lebens und des strebeiLS summe zieht, will ich 
 hier nicht erlautern. das wiirde zu viel worte fordern, denn es ist nicht leicht, 
 
THE POEMS 105 
 
 must have been written at a time when he was interested in general 
 moral questions and had not yet become involved in the particular 
 difficulties of Athens which were his business during his term of 
 office. The stage of growing interest in public affairs is marked 
 by the second longest elegiac poem. It was in the third stage, 
 after the archonship, that the longest iambic poem was composed 
 as a defense of his actions in office.^ 
 
 The elegiac poem preserved by Stobaeus is,^ with a single 
 exception, the longest Greek poem which has survived from the 
 period which intervened between the age of epic composition 
 and the beginning of the fifth century. It is nearly twice as long 
 as the next longest fragment of Solon. It affords us a welcome 
 opportunity to study, in a more extended expression, his character- 
 istic ideas, and to judge his poetical powers as they are exhibited 
 in a more sustained effort. 
 
 A multitude of questions present themselves to the reader of 
 this poem, some touching its proper interpretation, others touch- 
 ing the correct estimation of its literary and philosophical worth. 
 An attempt to answer such questions must, of course, proceed 
 from interpretation to criticism ; we must be sure we understand 
 before we presume to praise or blame. Let us consider, then, 
 first, what Solon actually says. 
 
 falls man mehr als einzelne disticha verstehen will, dem modernen aber wird es 
 sauer, von allem rhetorischen disponiren abzusehen, auch von alien den ktinsten 
 der Kallimachos und Properz und Ovid, und sich zutraulich vor die knie des 
 alten zu setzen und seiner Muse zu lauschen, die ihn nach greisenart bald hierhin, 
 bald dahin lockt, aber immer wieder in die bahn zuriickf iihrt, die ihm die alles 
 beherrschende empfindung weist. ' mensch, lerne, dass es mit unserer macht 
 nicht getan ist, und dass der gott, der deine geschicke lenkt, wie es ihn beliebt, 
 einmal abrechnung halt : mensch, lerne dich bescheiden.' zum verstandnis des 
 baues hilft Tibull, der an der achten elegie gelernt hat ; bequemer noch hilft 
 Goethe." 
 
 1 Croiset (1903), in an admirable and most suggestive essay, describes the 
 change in Solon's moral attitude which is displayed in the poems composed in 
 the three periods of his life. The real subject of the essay is the development of 
 moral ideas through the experiences and trials of the whole community, as it Is 
 illustrated in Solon's poems. 
 
 2x1. 
 
106 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 The poem opens with an address to the Muses, which takes 
 the form of a prayer. Solon prays that the Muses will grant him 
 certain blessings which he evidently regards as essential to human 
 happiness. He makes no appeal for poetical inspiration. He 
 turns to the Muses to ask for things which were generally thought 
 to be bestowed by Zeus or some other of the greater gods. The 
 address, therefore, is different from that at the beginning of the 
 Iliad or the Odyssey. Is it merely a literary form, or is it a sincere 
 expression of faith in the power of the Muses to grant the boon 
 which was asked? Certainly it was mostly the latter; but, per- 
 haps, at the same time a little of the former. Though Solon does 
 not say explicitly, in the manner of the Homeric hymn-writers, 
 that he takes his beginning from the goddesses, yet unquestion- 
 ably the solemn apostrophe is an open avowal that the poet is 
 acting under their inspiration. He must have believed that he 
 enjoyed an unusually intimate relation with these divinities, if 
 he was moved to turn to them for aid in the general conduct of 
 his life ; poetry and the works of the Muses must have played a 
 large part in his life ; he must have felt that in some very special 
 sense he lived under their patronage and protection ; during the 
 period in which this elegy was written, at any rate, poetry must 
 have been something more to him than a pastime for idle hours. 
 
 What does he desire at the Muses' hands? Two things, of 
 which one must come from the gods, the other from men. The 
 first is happiness, especially the happiness which is produced by 
 comfortable resources ; .the second is a good name among men. 
 It is curious to observe that both these things, which the modern 
 world regards as the achievement of a man's own endeavors, are 
 thought of by Solon as unattainable without external aid. We 
 shall see later that the principal thesis of the poem is implicit in 
 this conception. 
 
 There is a corollary to the main petition. If he enjoys pros- 
 perity and a fair esteem, he expects to be in a position to help 
 
THE POEMS 107 
 
 his friends and harm his enemies, returning good for good and 
 evil for evil. This desire is expressed openly and without shame 
 and was not in any way repugnant to the Greek moral sense. 
 
 The prayer is complete in six lines. It would be hazardous 
 to assume that Solon is trying to state in this brief space the com- 
 plete formula for human life. But the lines are evidently care- 
 fully phrased to give a fairly comprehensive definition of Solon's 
 ethical position ; and when we come to review these lines after 
 studying the rest of the poem, we are surprised to discover that 
 there is latent in them a fundamental article of Hellenic faith. 
 
 After the first six lines, instead of petitions addressed to the 
 Muses, we find direct statements of fact and opinion concerning 
 various circumstances of human life. Solon is simply writing 
 down his own reflections in elegiac verse, aided, no doubt, by 
 the inspiration of the Muses, but no longer speaking to them 
 directly. 
 
 It is immediately apparent even to a hasty reader of the poem 
 that the mind of the author is much occupied with the question 
 of money and its influence on human life and character. That 
 this should have been a matter of great concern to him is not 
 surprising when we recall the abuses which prevailed in Athens 
 in the seventh century. Thoughtful men of the day must indeed 
 have believed that the love of money is the root of all evil. In- 
 stinctively, therefore, having prayed for happiness and pros- 
 perity, Solon is moved to define his position in the matter of money, 
 which is indispensable in that form of happiness for which he has 
 prayed. Without hesitation he proclaims frankly that he does 
 desire money. But there are two ways of getting it : a man may 
 get it justly and through the gift of heaven, or he may get it un- 
 justly and contrary to the will of heaven. Of money got in the 
 latter way Solon will have none ; the former is safe and sure. 
 There seems to be no doubt in his mind that heaven smiles upon 
 justice and frowns upon injustice. To say that a man's wealth 
 
108 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 has been won through just means is the same as to say that it 
 has been given him by the gods ; and, conversely, unjust methods 
 in the pursuit of riches will inevitably bring upon the offender the 
 enmity of heaven. 
 
 Solon says little of the financial fortunes of the just man. 
 Two lines suffice for this. But he describes in some detail the 
 operation of the punishment which overtakes the unjust money- 
 getter. If a man grows rich through unjust means, he soon be- 
 comes afflicted with that mental disorder which the Greeks called 
 aTTj ; he becomes blind to the truth about himself and the world 
 in which he lives ; he miscalculates his own powers in relation 
 to the power of the gods; he grows headstrong and reckless; 
 he loses the regulating force of reason and sound sense. The 
 disease is slight at the start, but rapidly grows worse. The 
 victim's behavior becomes more and more wild, more and more 
 outrageous, and final and ultimate disaster is not long delayed. 
 What the actual punishment is, we are not told. 
 
 It would seem as if Solon were describing a course of events 
 in which one circumstance follows another by the impersonal 
 law of cause and effect. But it is not so that he conceives the 
 matter. The whole affair is the work of Zeus, who uses the opera- 
 tions of nature as the means of accomplishing his own will. The 
 eye of Zeus is upon the culprit from the very beginning, and when 
 the proper time comes he strikes. 
 
 But there is an objection which can be raised to the truth 
 of this moral law. It is a matter of common observation that 
 sinners are not always overtaken by the consequences of their 
 guilt. They sometimes enjoy their ill gotten gains in peace and 
 go down untroubled to the grave. How is this to be explained? 
 Not by maintaining that punishment awaits the guilty wretch 
 in the life after death ; this doctrine of the Orphic sect had not 
 yet become current in the Greek world. To Solon, as to the 
 Hebrew lawgiver, it seemed that the unexpiated sins of the fathers 
 
THE POEMS 109 
 
 were visited upon the innocent children of succeeding genera- 
 tions. Early or late the blow is bound to fall.^ 
 
 At this point Solon's reflections take a wider sweep. He has 
 traced the operation of the moral law in the matter of the ac- 
 quisition of wealth. And the law is that men's endeavors must 
 conform to the will of the gods. Happiness and success will 
 attend him who acquiesces in their rule ; downfall and failure 
 is the portion of all who run athwart their will. But in the mad 
 rush of money-making men forget this law ; they forget the in- 
 exorable power of the gods ; they believe that they can do as they 
 will with their own ; they live without god in the world. But 
 are they alone in this ? Solon looks out upon the world and finds 
 that men of every walk in life are guilty of this same forgetful- 
 ness. They are blind to things as they are. They struggle and 
 strive and fret, heedless of the certain truth that the outcome of 
 their efforts lies with the gods alone. Solon leads before us in 
 review the various trades and professions, and shows us the world 
 bustling over its affairs, oblivious of its impotence. Toil as they 
 will, men will receive no more and no less than the gods will give. 
 
 As he contemplates the spectacle of human fortunes, Solon 
 is led to assume a more pessimistic attitude. Men are not always 
 to blame, after all, if they fail. They move forward into the 
 darkness of the future, danger besets them on every side, they 
 cannot know the proper course. One man, who strives to live 
 well according to his lights, comes to grief ; while the gods shower 
 their favors upon another who offends against every standard of 
 human conduct. 
 
 But though Solon fails to discover the divine law that governs 
 the world at large, he feels confident about one portion of ethical 
 
 1 Girard (1869, p. 203), after quoting this portion of the poem, says : " Voil^ 
 dans sa sinc^rite le sentiment paien, nullement d^tach^ de la vie r^elle, amoureux 
 des biens qu'elle comporte, mettant dans le nombre les biens d'opinion et meme, 
 puisqu'il faut avoir des ennemis, le plaisir d'etre redouts par les siens, mais se 
 repr^sentant sous une grande image la justice divine et en adorant avec soumis- 
 sion la sanction n^cessaire jusque dans ses effets les plus impitoyables. " 
 
110 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 theory. Returning to the subject which occupies the earUer 
 part of the poem, he repeats, in different words, his account of 
 the course which is inevitably followed when a man is smitten 
 with the lust for mone^^ But, this time, there is no distinction 
 between honest and dishonest riches. Wealth itself, though it is 
 given by the gods, is a poison which works subtly in the system 
 and brings about moral dissolution in the end. With these ob- 
 servations the poem comes to a close. 
 
 In this poem Solon does not present a consistent philosophy 
 nor an adequate solution of the riddle of human life. He does not 
 even attempt to do this. There are certain tacit assumptions in 
 his mind which serve as points of rest in his reflections upon the 
 fortunes of men. These assumptions we fairly recognize as the 
 commonly accepted creed of the day. If we try to formulate 
 this creed, we shall be better able to estimate the originality and 
 independence of Solon's own thought. 
 
 The efforts of men in the world are properly directed to the 
 attainment of their own happiness. They are restrained, however, 
 by certain moral principles from complete liberty of action : 
 some actions are good, some are bad, and abiding happiness can- 
 not be secured through methods which are discountenanced by 
 society. But aside from this negative restriction, men must 
 steer their way through life without a compass. The sovereign 
 control over their fortunes Ues with Zeus and the hierarchy of 
 the gods. Mortals cannot know the mind of the gods nor the 
 ultimate outcome of any course of action. Undoubtedly the 
 gods frown upon behavior which is reprobated by men ; that is, 
 the divine government follows the moral laws which are recog- 
 nized by humanity. But this tenet in the creed demands a robust 
 faith, and men are constantly baffled by the inscrutability of 
 divine purposes. One thing alone is certain : men must take what 
 the gods send. By an exercise of faith they may believe that 
 the rule of the gods is wise and regular and consistent, and that 
 
THE POEMS 111 
 
 man's problem is to discover the wisdom and regularity of their 
 rule, and to order his life in harmony therewith. But in general 
 we may suppose that the harmony of divine purposes was beyond 
 the sight of most Greeks of that time, and that they recognized 
 higher powers who, though they might be benevolent, were largely 
 capricious. 
 
 This is a fair statement of the common Greek view of life so 
 far as it is presented in this poem. Does Solon make any modifica- 
 tion in these current opinions, or any addition to them? I should 
 say that he does not. He exhibits the normal attitude of pious 
 perplexity. He makes no penetrating study of the problem of 
 human destiny; he proposes no substitute for the time-honored 
 rule of unresisting acquiescence to the decrees of heaven ; he 
 reaffirms the helpless dependence of humanity. The poem, I 
 repeat, was not written to present a new philosophy of life. 
 What then can we regard as the essential thing for which the 
 poem was written? 
 
 The moving impulse, I take it, which prompted Solon to write 
 the poem was the desire to set forth the results of his observation 
 on the moral effects of riches and the acquisition of riches. He 
 had, in his mercantile career, abundant opportunity to watch 
 the results of the passionate money -making of the day. He had 
 formed certain definite opinions concerning the inevitable moral 
 degradation which seemed to him to attend that form of activity. 
 These opinions he imparts to us in no uncertain language, and he 
 reveals the depth of his studj^ by the poetical fervor of his ex- 
 pression. On this matter he speaks with the energy and convic- 
 tion of a Hebrew prophet. But he does not confine himself to 
 this single ethical problem. He is led by it to a discussion of the 
 larger topic of human helplessness. Unquestionably the moral 
 vigor of the poem is impaired thereby; he himself feels the in- 
 stability of the opinions which he expresses in the second part 
 of the poem, and returns at the end to the sure ground of his 
 
112 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 special theme which he has worked out thoroughly. But though 
 there may be a loss in moral vigor, we cannot but admire the lively 
 picture of the world at work which he paints in the second half 
 of the poem. 
 
 Is the poem complete as we have it? Of this there is little 
 doubt. We have evidence in Clement of Alexandria to show that 
 the poem actually began with the verse which stands first in 
 Stobaeus's quotation.^ And though there is no positive evidence 
 for the end, it is not unreasonable to believe that we have the 
 closing lines. The theme is completely developed and the poet 
 recurs at the end to the subject which occupied him at the begin- 
 ning. For a moral discourse, the poem is long enough ; more could 
 easily be added to a composition so loose in texture, but one feels 
 that there would be genuine loss if the poem were further protracted. 
 
 There has been some difference of opinion concerning the merit 
 of the poem.2 Some have found in it nothing but an aggrega- 
 tion of disjointed scraps; others have regarded it as a splendid 
 work of genius. As a matter of fact it is not a splendid work of 
 genius, and there is some excuse for the charge that it is an aggre- 
 gation. The habit of sententious utterance which is incident to 
 the composition of elegiac verse, and a certain abruptness of 
 transition give one the impression of a work which, as Solon him- 
 
 1 See commentary on vs. 1. 
 
 2 Bernhardy (Griech. Lit. H, 357) expressed his disapproval in these words : 
 "Eln eigenthiimUches aggregat Hegt in fr. 5 (=12 Bergk = xl) vor, welches 
 erstlich fremdartige, durch kuhlern ton gezeichnete schlusssatze aus Theognis 
 empfangen hat, denn durch die matten distichen 39-42 verwassert ist ; endlich 
 fordert der znsammenhang, dass v. 37. 38 vor 59 eingeschoben werden." Schnei- 
 dewin (1848, p. 110) came to the poet's defeiLse, and spoke of the "einfach 
 schoner gedankengang des herrlichen gedichts." He finds the closing lines of 
 the poem highly appropriate, and does not admit for a moment that they were 
 composed by Theognis. Furthermore, he believes the poem to be complete. 
 Leutsch (1872) brings forward evidence to show that this was one of the poems 
 of Solon which became famous early, but he maintains that poetically it is one 
 of the least successful. He charges especially that the exposition is incomplete. 
 Rost, on the other hand, asserts (1884) that it belongs "zu dem hervorragend- 
 sten . . . was Solon als dichter geschaffen hat, mid uns den geist desselben be- 
 sonders getreu abspiegelt." For Wilamowitz's opinion, see p. 104, foot- 
 note 1. 
 
THE POEMS 113 
 
 self might say, is not c/xttcSos ck vcarov Trvdfxivoq h Kopv<f)T]v} At 
 
 the same time, it unquestionably springs from a single impulse 
 and possesses a genuine unity of conception. This, I trust, has 
 been made clear in the analysis of the thought which has already 
 been given. 
 
 The poem is not a work of profound inspiration. It is not 
 characterized by deep poetical feeUng or bold imagination; nor 
 does it contain moral and philosophical views of great weight or 
 originality. Nevertheless, it is an entirely meritorious perform- 
 ance. It is well written ; it exhibits a power of trenchant ut- 
 terance; it is graced by truly Hellenic balance of phrase; it 
 reveals a ready instinct for metaphor and personification ; and 
 above all, it includes an extended simile of great beauty, of which 
 even Homer would not be ashamed. We may justly be grateful 
 to Stobaeus for its preservation, both because of its own intrinsic 
 worth, and because it is one of the most important documents 
 for the history of Greek ethical thought in the sixth century. 
 
 The next longest of Solon's poems, the elegy quoted by De- 
 mosthenes to shame his rival Aeschines with a picture of the 
 sturdy morality of the first Athenian statesman, forms a striking 
 sequel to the poem which has just been discussed. In the first 
 of the two poems Solon gives utterance to broad philosophical 
 reflections without any particular application of them. It is an 
 exposition of his theory concerning the curse of riches. There 
 is nothing to indicate that the poem is a result of his observations 
 in Athens alone. In the second poem he comes directly to the 
 state of affairs in Athens and shows how the theory which he had 
 previously expounded finds practical appUcation within his own 
 unhappy city. 
 
 1 Wilamowitz (1913, p. 257) attributes the diflBculty of interpretation to the 
 paratactie structure and the absence of illuminating particles. " Dass die Fahig- 
 keit zu denken," he says (p. 258), "der Ausdrucksfahigkeit so weit voraus ist 
 (was die Erga des Hesiodos ebenfalls so schwer macht) erhoht den Reiz dieser 
 Erstlingsfriichte moraliscber Dialektik." 
 
114 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 Athens is threatened with impending ruin. But, saj^s Solon, 
 the gods are not to blame ; Athena is faithful and just in her 
 devotion. The responsibility lies with the men of Athens them- 
 selves. Avarice and greed, and the moral degradation which 
 they entail, are bringing the state to destruction. Thereupon 
 Solon describes with burning indignation the rapacity of the rich 
 and the sufferings of the poor. It is not a question of abstract 
 ethics now, but an appalling reality which he sets before the reader. 
 And he has discovered, he thinks, both the cause and the cure. 
 
 The poem was written with the definite purpose of urging 
 upon the Athenians the only remedy which would restore the 
 health of society. Lawlessness is the cause of the mischief and 
 a law-abiding spirit will be its cure. He proclaims with great 
 eloquence the virtues of Eunomia as a panacea for the evils which 
 afflict the state. The poem is not a querulous lament over an 
 inevitable decline. It offers a constructive policy which will 
 lead to better things. His program includes the recognition of 
 sound laws, both moral and civil, equitable administration of 
 them, and loyal obedience to them. It may seem as if Solon's 
 recommendations were still vague and intangible.' But we 
 know that he made proposals definite and concrete enough to 
 lead to his appointment as dictator. Meanwhile in the present 
 poem he enunciated the broad policy which should be the guide 
 in the reconstruction of society. 
 
 This poem is more forcible and vigorous and better constructed 
 than the first. Here there is no doubt and uncertainty in the 
 reader's mind. The thought proceeds by logical steps from the 
 beginning to the end. The philosopher is now the statesman 
 but still the poet. Passing from the universality of ^Urj, he 
 now preaches the practical expedient of No/aos. 
 
 The third poem of the group shows Solon in the midst of his 
 work, putting into practice the principles which he had pro- 
 claimed in the second. Dictator of Athens, he had had the 
 
THE POEMS 115 
 
 opportunity to right the wrongs which he had described with so 
 much energy. This he claims to have done. There is no place 
 now for philosophical reflection. In terse iambic meter, in con- 
 crete and vigorous language, he recounts the steps he has taken 
 for the amelioration of Athenian affairs. Poetic imagination does 
 not fail him : he can still conceive of the august figure of Aikt; as 
 a witness at the bar of time. And he writes with an assured 
 mastery of composition. But the contrast in tone and spirit 
 between the first long elegy and this later iambic poem is striking 
 enough. This later style, as far as we can see from the extant 
 poems, is most characteristic of Solon. The intimate associa- 
 tion between his poetry and the public life of Athens is the thing 
 which chiefly distinguishes him from the other elegists who wrote 
 of human fortunes in general.^ 
 
 Though Solon did not fail to observe the essential unhappiness 
 of human life, he did not yield to the despair of the pessimist. 
 He felt that there was a way in which men could adjust themselves 
 to their environment so as to save themselves from much of the 
 suffering with which they were afflicted. Lack of wisdom, of 
 intelligence, of foresight, of self-control, he believed to lie at the 
 bottom of human unhappiness. Men failed to see things as they 
 were. They were themselves to blame for much of their suffering. 
 Others laid the blame for human suffering and the injustice which 
 prevails in the world on the gods. Some, like Theognis, cried out 
 bitterly against the capricious cruelty of the gods. Not so Solon. 
 He did not, indeed, make the rash boast that he had discovered 
 the divine purpose which guides the action of the gods. The 
 
 1 Girard (1869, p. 190), speaking of the martial elegies of Tyrtaeus and the 
 political poems of Solon, observes: "Quel fait inouT dans I'histoire ! et quel 
 peuple que celui ou cet art d' imagination, que la civilisation des ages suivants 
 devait releguer parmi les jouissances litt^raires, se retrouve ainsi a deux si6cles 
 d'intervalle comme I'arme la meilleure du patriotisme ! " 
 
116 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 will of the gods is inscrutable, and their ways are past finding out. 
 But Solon had faith to believe that the gods are just. Their 
 workings are long and slow; they alone can discern the end. 
 Man's condemnation of the gods is due to hasty judgment of un- 
 completed work. The gods sometimes let men have their way 
 for a space, and then men blame the gods for the results of their 
 own folly. The mind of Zeus is not quick to wrath for each offense. 
 But sooner or later punishment comes for transgression. Since 
 it is only too evident that punishment does not always come within 
 the lifetime of the transgressor, Solon, like the author of the 
 Hebrew decalogue, found the explanation in the fact that children 
 suffer for the sins of their fathers. Everywhere he shows full 
 respect for the gods, and the gods are the ancient gods of the 
 Greeks. There is no allusion in his poems to the crude and worldly 
 myths which were attached to their names. How Solon was 
 affected by these tales we have no way of knowing. The gods 
 whom he knows are omnipotent, inscrutable, just, scarcely per- 
 sonal. There is no evidence that he had passed through the 
 travail of religious doubt in order to reach this pure conception, 
 stripped as it was of popular absurdities. Pindar, Aeschylus, 
 and Euripides were going to find perplexities enough. But 
 Solon seems to have held instinctively a dignified faith and not 
 to have troubled his head over the puzzles of theology. 
 
 Human error springs from ignorance and folly. Failing to 
 discern the incontrovertible order of things, men refuse to ac- 
 quiesce in their own drab existence. What the gods give, they 
 refuse, and they seek something different from what destiny has 
 allotted them. They are stirred with hopes which they them- 
 selves have no power to fulfill. They defy the established prin- 
 ciples of society, sanctioned alike by gods and men. Spoiled by 
 success, they yield to temptation, defy the law, and seize ruth- 
 lessly whatever they desire. One form of error is mere passive 
 stupidity ; the other is active defiance of the law of moderation : 
 
THE POEMS 117 
 
 but both alike are folly. The common path of moral degenera- 
 tion leads from extravagance and excess, through insolence and 
 arrogance, to madness and infatuation. One can save himself 
 from this headlong descent only by moderation and self-control. 
 The path of righteousness is indeed a strait and narrow path : 
 on the one side are the dangers of a stunted existence, on the other 
 the dangers of excess. Between the two, man can be saved only 
 by the guiding principle of moderation and self-control. Solon 
 held to this principle consistently throughout. In his earlier 
 years he emphasized the evils of extravagance and avarice and 
 the disaster which results from them; after his archonship he 
 thought more of the folly of stupidity. But it was always d<f>po(Tvvrj 
 which lay at the root of Athenian troubles. 
 
 As men are led into error by folly, so they are saved from 
 error by wisdom. Salvation comes by ckXvo-is a<f>poavv7}<;. Through 
 wisdom men can understand their own powers and limitations; 
 they can understand the orderly course of the universe and see 
 that it may not be safely transgressed ; wisdom will not, indeed, 
 assure them happiness ; but it will assure them the largest measure 
 of happiness which the gods and fate will allow. With this they 
 must be content. Any effort to force an increase is presumption 
 and leads to moral decline and eventually to ruin. Men may 
 strive for all good things so long as they conduct themselves in 
 accordance with the divinely appointed order. In this way they 
 will win the approval of the gods and the praise of men. Dis- 
 obedience to the moral law, dStKta, is inevitably punished by the 
 higher powers. 
 
 In the famous interview between Solon and Croesus, Herod- 
 otus put into the mouth of Solon a speech which reads like a 
 paraphrase of Solon's philosophical opinions. He must have 
 borrowed directly from the poems the ideas of which the speech 
 is composed. The sources of many of them can still be seen in 
 the extant fragments ; others he may have drawn from poems 
 
118 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 which are now lost. It seems fair to suppose that the speech is 
 something in the nature of an informal summary of Solon's doc- 
 trine as Herodotus found it in his own poems, and, as a summary, 
 we cannot afford to overlook it : ^ 
 
 Oh! Croesus, thou askedst a question concerning the condition of 
 man, of one who knows that the power above us is full of jealousy, and 
 fond of troubUng our lot. A long hfe gives one to witness much, and 
 experience much oneself, that one would not choose. Seventy years 
 I regard as the limit of the life of man. In these seventy years are con- 
 tained, without reckoning intercalary months, twenty-five thousand 
 and two hundred days. Add an intercalary month to every other year, 
 that the seasons may come round at the right time, and there will be 
 besides the seventy years, thirty-five such months, making an addition 
 of one thousand and fifty days. The whole number of the days contained 
 in the seventy years wiU thus be twenty-six thousand two hundred and 
 fifty, whereof not one but will produce events unlike the rest. Hence 
 man is wholly accident. For thyself, oh! Croesus, I see that thou art 
 wonderfully rich, and art the lord of many nations ; but with respect to 
 that whereon thou questionest me, I have no answer to give, until 1 
 hear that thou hast closed thy life happily. For assuredly he who pos- 
 sesses great store of riches is no nearer happiness than he who has what 
 suffices for his daily needs, unless it so hap that luck attend upon him, 
 and so he continue in the enjoyment of all his good things to the end of 
 life. For many of the wealthiest men have been unfavoured of fortune, 
 and many whose means were moderate have had excellent luck. Men of 
 the former class excel those of the latter but in two respects ; these last 
 excel the former in many. The wealthy man is better able to content 
 his desires, and to bear up against a sudden buffet of calamity. The 
 other has less ability to withstand these evils (from which, however, 
 his good luck keeps him clear), but he enjoys all these following blessings : 
 he is whole of hmb, a stranger to disease, free from misfortune, happy in 
 his children, and comely to look upon. If, in addition to all this, he end 
 his hfe well, he is of a truth the man of whom thou art in search, the man 
 who may rightly be termed happy. Call him, however, until he die, 
 not happy but fortunate. Scarcely, indeed, can any man unite all these 
 advantages : as there is no country which contains Avithin it all that it 
 needs, but each, while it possesses some things, lacks others, and the best 
 country is that which contains the most ; so no single human being is 
 complete in every respect — something is always lacking. He who 
 
 1 Herodotus i 32 (Rawlinson's translation). 
 
THE POEMS 119 
 
 unites the greatest number of advantages, and retaining them to the day 
 of his death, then dies peaceably, that man alone, sire, is, in my judgment, 
 entitled to bear the name of "happy." Buc in every matter it behooves 
 us to mark well the end : for oftentimes God gives men a gleam of hap- 
 piness, and then plunges them into ruin. 
 
 In this speech there seems to be only one false note, and that 
 is at the very beginning. There is nothing in the poetry of 
 Solon which we still possess to justify us in believing that he 
 regarded the power above us as ''full of jealousy and fond of 
 troubling our lot." He may have entertained this belief; but 
 there is something in it repugnant to the general conception of 
 the world and of the gods which is revealed in the poems. It 
 seems far more likely that Herodotus himself, consciously or un- 
 consciously, imported into his paraphrase of Solon's thought, 
 the idea which is so characteristic of his own philosophy. He 
 attributed to Solon, says Plutarch,^ his own view concerning the 
 nature of the gods. But with this exception, the resemblance 
 between the speech in Herodotus and Solon's own poems will 
 be manifest to all. 
 
 On the model of the orderly universe and contented human 
 acquiescence therein, Solon conceived his ideal of political salva- 
 tion. That men may live together happily, it is necessary that 
 they should estabUsh a system of wise laws and give them their 
 ready obedience. Selfishness, arrogance, and caprice have no 
 place under a reign of law. We have seen how Solon endeavored 
 to provide for Athens this Utopian state, and how, to a great 
 extent, he failed. But he did not fail because his ideal was wrong. 
 He failed because the problem which he set himself was so great 
 a one that though the world has puzzled over it for twenty-five cen- 
 turies the solution has not yet been found. But the world is more 
 sure than ever that the means which Solon proposed for its solu- 
 tion is the right one. A reign of law, in which there shall be wise 
 
 1 De Herodoti malignitate 15, p. 858 a. 
 
120 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 laws and prompt and ready obedience to them, is the goal towards 
 which men have more and more consciously directed their efforts. 
 It is no slight thing that Solon discovered the formula for the 
 organization of human society which is still applied to-day with 
 ever increasing success. 
 
 The common habit of the great Greek poets, of Homer, Pindar, 
 and the tragedians, was to allow their reflections on human life 
 and men's relation to the higher powers that govern the universe 
 to reveal themselves through concrete and vivid mythical narra- 
 tives. Or, at least, they provided ample mythical illustration 
 of their ideas. In the main, the substance of Greek poetry is 
 Greek mythology, infused with a spirit of philosophical reflec- 
 tion. But in Solon's poems, in the extant fragments at least, 
 myths have no place. He does not read his lessons of morality 
 and religion in the legendary adventures of the heroes of the race. 
 Nor yet does he present his ideas concerning personal and social 
 virtue as an abstract ethical system. They appear in dramatic 
 setting in the poems which deal with the conditions which pre- 
 vailed in Athens. They are not merely moral maxims flung out 
 in a void, but a set of practical principles which guided him in 
 his public life. We miss the charm of personal character and 
 personal incident which legend supplies, but we have in place 
 of it a vivid contemporaneousness which serves the same purpose 
 of imparting to Solon's poetry the necessary life and reality.^ 
 
 The fair-minded reader will not fail to perceive a genuine 
 poetical inspiration in the fragments of Solon's poetry. He will 
 be embarrassed to some degree by the occasional nature of some 
 
 1 Cf. Wilamowitz (1893, II, 60) : "die Fran9oisvase entziickt uns durch die 
 epische erzahluiigskuiist ilirer bilder ; der abglanz der ganzen grosseii sageiiherr- 
 lichkeit rulit aiif ihr, die ini iniitterlande noch alle herzen beherrschte. in 
 loiiieii war sie .schon verblasst ; die deniokratie hatte die iiaclikommen der heroen 
 zuriickgedraiigt, mid Mimnernos koiinte die sage bereits, eiii vorlaufer der Alex- 
 aiidriner, zu spielendem schmucke verwenden. bei Solon tritt sie ganz und gar 
 zuriick. dem pomposeii weseu des rittertumes ist seiu eiiifacher sinu vollends 
 abgeneigt." 
 
THE POEMS 121 
 
 of the poems and Solon's preoccupation with contemporary affairs. 
 This is no doubt a hindrance to the universahty which charac- 
 terizes all great poetry. But it has just been remarked that this 
 very circumstance gives to Solon^s work a certain dramatic 
 reaUty, the lack of which makes Theognis's sententious poems, for 
 example, somewhat dry reading. One of the chief merits of 
 Solon's poetry is its intense moral earnestness and the undoubted 
 importance of the issues involved. It is instinct with the strong 
 feehng and true emotion of a generous-minded patriot. It is not 
 the light product of a politician's idle moments nor yet the mere 
 instrument of a place-seeker. It is the sincere and unaffected 
 outpouring of feelings which sprang from the very core of his exist- 
 ence. Solon the statesman and Solon the poet were not two men 
 but one and indivisible. The moral vigor of the statesman was 
 the inspiration of the poet. Such conditions may not produce 
 the greatest poetry, but they may produce poetry of a high merit 
 even though of a humbler sort. 
 
 All the moral earnestness in the world, however, could not have 
 made real poetry if there had not been something of poetic vision, 
 some fire of imagination to kindle in the reader some warmth 
 responsive to the glow in the heart of the poet. Such imagina- 
 tive power Solon possessed even in a notable degree. It shows 
 itself principally in the wealth of metaphor which is to be found 
 in the fragments : a demagogue extracts a profit from political 
 agitation as if he were getting the butter from the milk ; shrewd 
 men walk with the tread of a fox ; a political schemer gets power 
 into his hands as a fisherman catches fish in his net ; wealth follows 
 dishonest men with reluctance ; public disaster issues from ambi- 
 tious and unscrupulous men as lightning flashes from a thunder 
 cloud ; social demoralization climbs over the garden wall and 
 brings affliction into the life of private citizens. Here are examples 
 enough of Solon's open eye and keen vision. And we should not 
 forget the two fine passages which are perhaps the best in the 
 
122 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 poems that survive : the splendid comparison of the justice of 
 Zeus with the sudden spring wind which drives away the clouds 
 and vapors and makes the world clean again ; and the glowing 
 eulogy of Eunomia with its series of striking images. Solon 
 could not match perhaps the poignant vividness of Archilochus, 
 but he is superior in this regard to all the other elegiac and iambic 
 poets of the early age. Furthermore, this imagery is not an arti- 
 ficial embellishment ; it is spontaneous and unaffected. Solon 
 has no tricks and graces of style. His poetry is sincere, straight- 
 forward, intent upon the serious business in hand, and no effort 
 is wasted on ornamentation. 
 
 There is a marked versatility in Solon's manner of expression. 
 He has equal skill with the trenchant epigram, which is character- 
 istic of the elegiac couplet, and with the longer graceful phrase 
 which is not bound either at the beginning or the end by the exi- 
 gencies of the meter. At times he writes with something of the 
 condensed suggestiveness of Sophocles; again his utterances 
 remind one of Archilochus by their force and bluntness.^ With 
 true Attic ease and grace his style adapts itself naturally and with- 
 out constraint to changing moods. 
 
 The language of the elegiac poems was the conventional modi- 
 fied epic speech which was employed by all elegiac poets of the 
 period. Countless words and phrases are taken from Homer. 
 The direct successor of epic poetry, elegiac poetry still adhered 
 closeh^ to the old style in spite of the wide difference in tone 
 and purpose. But one feels no constraint or lack of ease in 
 Solon's employment of the conventional speech. He uses it 
 naturally and handily as a tool to which he had grown well 
 accustomed. The course of his thought is never dominated by 
 
 1 Cf. Wilamowitz (1898, II, 01) : "der rechte nr.chfolger Homers imd der 
 rec'lite Atlieiier ist er vollends in deni wiivS ilin von deni lonier Archilochos' 
 scheidet, dem nnver^leic.hlich grosseren aber an den personliclisten irdischen 
 klebenden dichter : der sinn fiir die durcliarbuituni; der ziifalligcn wirkliclikeit 
 zur typischen wahrheit." 
 
THE POEMS 123 
 
 the epic tradition. When the language of Homer is inadequate 
 to his new uses, he easily mingles with it words out of the 
 natural speech of the day. In the iambic and trochaic fragments 
 he passes almost entirely from under epic control. In these we 
 recognize the forerunners of the perfected speech of the Attic 
 drama of the fifth century.^ 
 
 When one reflects upon Solon's work as a poet in Athens in 
 the sixth century, certain questions thrust themselves forward 
 for which it is difficult to find satisfactory answers. Was Solon 
 the only man in Athens who was using poetry for political pur- 
 poses? Where did he acquire the habit of expressing his views 
 on pubHc affairs in verse? Was pohtical controversy regularly 
 carried on by means of partisan poems ? There is not the shghtest 
 hint that other men in Athens were writing poetry. Solon never 
 speaks as if he were replying to the written statement of an op- 
 ponent. Poets are indeed mentioned by him in the list of pro- 
 fessions which he gives in his longest elegiac poem. It may be 
 that the making of verses was common among the Athenians of 
 the day : or it may be that Solon was alone in his use of this power- 
 ful instrument. At any rate we know nothing of any poetry but 
 Solon's. Possibly his early travels had given him a unique 
 opportunity to master the art of composition in its home in Asia 
 Minor, so that he could bring it back and use it among his own 
 people. These are only conjectures; but it is well to pose the 
 
 1 The judgment of Nageotte (1888, p. 166) on the poetical art of Solon de- 
 serves to be quoted for its justice and its moderation : " Ce qui 6tait bien k lul 
 encore, c'est le caract^re calme, serein, de son exposition, la facility amiable 
 avec laquelle il manie ses pens^es. On sent tout de suite, en le lisant, qu'on a 
 change de region et qu'on est sous le ciel de I'Attique. Point de tension ni 
 d'effort, une gi-ande sobri^t^ d'images, de comparaisons, une langue saine, claire, 
 un style sans pretention qui ne craint pas de descendre parfois jusqu'aux limites 
 de la prose ; et sous cet ext^rieur simple, une grande experience des clioses, un 
 esprit avise, une ame eiev^e et droite, un cceur profond^ment humain, voil4 ce 
 qu'est la po^sie de Solon, qu'il ne faut ni placer trop haut ni mettre trop bas. 
 Quoi qu'en aient pu penser quelques Ath^niens, ce qui lui manqua pour ^galer 
 Hom^re, ce ne fut pas seulement le loisir, mais le talent. Solon n'est pas un 
 grand artiste, pas plus de reste que Tyrt^e. II n'a pas le g^nie cr^ateur d'Archl- 
 loque, mais c'est un honnete homme qui sait ^crire en vers." 
 
124 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 questions at least, if only to show how slight our knowledge of 
 Solon's world is after all. 
 
 It is often said that Solon used poetry to accomplish results 
 which would in the modern world be effected by prose pam- 
 phlets. Since the art of composition in prose was not yet known, 
 it did not occur to him to express his ideas and publish them other- 
 wise than in verse. There is truth in this ; but there is something 
 more to be said. The counterpart in the ancient world of the mod- 
 ern pamphlet was the harangue. Men defended their policies and 
 attacked their opponents in public speeches. The ancient Greek 
 political instrument was oratory. In later times, when prose pam- 
 phlets were issued, they still took the form of speeches. Solon 
 himself says at the beginning of the poem called " Salamis " that 
 he has come with a poem instead of a speech. The notable thing is, 
 not that he employed verse instead of written prose, but that he 
 appealed to the people through poetry rather than oratory. He 
 may have been an orator, too. We know nothing about this. 
 In public life, he must have found it necessary often to make 
 public addresses. But the question remains why he made use 
 of verse at all. The skill had been gained through his practice 
 of writing poems on the subjects which were common among the 
 elegiac poets — love, the fortunes of men, the ways of the gods, 
 the shortness of life, human follies. Possessing this skill he chose 
 to use it for political ends. Certain advantages are manifest 
 in this practice. The persuasive power of a speech extends no 
 farther than the speaker's voice and ends with the speech itself. 
 A poem may be repeated again and again ; it may be carried 
 everywhere ; its rhythmical sentences linger in the mind. It is 
 especially valuable for the slow molding of popular opinion. It 
 makes a permanent appeal to the feelings. It was no doubt 
 Solon's most effective instrument in the gradual propagation of 
 the ideas which must be implanted in men's minds if the reforms 
 which he had in view were to be successful. 
 
THE POEMS 125 
 
 It is surprising that the ancient authors made so httle of the 
 fact that Solon was the first Athenian poet. One would think 
 that in view of the primacy of Athenian letters in the fifth century, 
 Athenian writers would have spoken with interest, if not with 
 pride, of the poetical work of their great lawgiver. There may have 
 been, undoubtedly there were, other poets in Athens in the sixth 
 century ; but they were comparatively insignificant. Solon, pre- 
 eminent as a statesman, was also in some measure preeminent as 
 a poet. He is one of the few elegiac poets whose poems have 
 been preserved. And yet no attempt was ever made by the 
 Athenians to claim him as peculiarly a poet of Athens and the 
 first of an illustrious line. His poems were not neglected : they 
 were sung at festivals and took their place by the side of the other 
 great poetry of the past. It would seem as if the Athenian 
 abandonment of any claim to proprietorship was an example of 
 what may be called the Panhellenic attitude of the Greeks to- 
 ward their literature. In politics, union and harmony were im- 
 possible among the jealous Greek states ; but in literature there 
 seemed to be always an instinctive internationalism. All great 
 Greek poets and philosophers belonged to the whole Greek world 
 in common. Greek writers moved easily from place to place. 
 Their books enjoyed equal favor and equal authority throughout 
 the world. Ionian Homer, Boeotian Hesiod, Lesbian Sappho, 
 Spartan Tyrtaeus, Sicilian Empedocles, Macedonian Aristotle, 
 belonged to all Greeks in common. Literature, like language, was 
 a bond which held together politically discordant communities. 
 Literature embodied the spirit of the race, and however much 
 they quarreled among themselves, the Greeks always felt that 
 in spirit they were more closely related to one another than they 
 were to any foreign people. Solon's poetry forms a part of this 
 common Greek possession ; when one thinks of him as a poet it 
 seems almost accidental that he was an Athenian — and this in 
 spite of the fact that so much of his poetry was bound up with 
 
126 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 Athenian affairs. "Our Solon," the Athenians might say when 
 they thought of their great lawgiver and the founder of their 
 democracy ; but as a poet they did not look upon him as the 
 founder of an Athenian school or the first of a line of Athenian 
 poets. 
 
 On one occasion, at the celebration of the Apaturia, according 
 to Plato's story in the Timaeus, some of the poems of Solon had 
 been recited in the prize contests for boys. As it happened, the 
 elder Critias was present, and one of the bystanders remarked to 
 him that in his opinion Solon had not only been the wisest of 
 men but also the noblest of poets. In saying this he may have 
 been expressing his own real opinion, or he may simply have 
 wished to say something agreeable to the old man who was proud 
 of his relationship to Solon. At any rate, Critias was much 
 pleased, and asserted that if Solon had carried out his plan of 
 composing a poem on the story of Atlantis, he would easily have 
 made a place for himself by the side of Homer and Hesiod. 
 
 Now Plato, whose attitude toward the poets has always been a 
 subject of discussion, was criticized in antiquity for this extrava- 
 gant praise of Solon. But Proclus pointed out,^ what is perfectly 
 obvious, that the favorable judgment was not his own, but merely 
 put into the mouths of certain characters in his story. Not satis- 
 fied with this, however, Proclus goes on to show that the epithet 
 which has been translated " noblest " really belonged to Solon by 
 good right. This Greek word, iX€vdepiu)TaTo<s, is untranslatable in 
 its connotation. It is related to the word which means " free," 
 cAcv^cpos, as the Latin liheralis is related to liber, and it describes 
 the ideal character which can only be attained by a free man 
 in contrast with a slave. The English word " noble " has a simi- 
 lar connotation in contrast with ''mean." Proclus maintains 
 that Solon deserves the title by virtue of his fearless freedom 
 in thought and expression. Most poets, he says, in their strug- 
 1 See references on p. 11, footnote 3. 
 
THE POEMS 127 
 
 gle for the mot juste, only succeed in distorting their lines; 
 and some through the variety of their conceits lose the real point 
 of what they are trying to say. Solon is not guilty of either 
 offense, and so deserves the title, even though Critias is the judge. 
 It is hardly possible that Plato chose the word iXevOepLo^s as 
 an epithet, whether it expresses his own judgment or not, without 
 some recollection of Solon's lifelong struggle in the cause of free- 
 dom. It unites in the happiest manner what is best in Solon's 
 work as a statesman and as a poet. In the one capacity, he was 
 a high-minded, loyal, and unselfish supporter of the principle of 
 political and economic freedom; in the other he was a frank, 
 sincere, and unaffected artist, who instead of being a slave to his 
 technique wielded it with supple dexterity. Our remembrance 
 of Solon will not be far wrong if there lingers in our minds, in 
 connection with his name, the epithet which Plato chose — 
 
 SoAtov 6 eAev^epios. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 
 I. Text and Translation 
 
130 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 I 
 Plato Amatorcs 133 c : OlaO' apa, rjv 8' iyco, 6 tl eariv to 
 <f>Lko(TO(^6lv ; Yldvv 76, e(f)r). Ti ovv eartv ; €(f)7)V iyco. Tt 8' ciXXo 
 <ye Tj Kara to SoXcdi^o? ; ^oXcov yap ttov elire — 
 
 I yrjpdaKco 8' atet ttoWol 8t8acr/cd/xej/09 * 
 
 Kal ifiol SoKel ovtco'; del ')(prjuaL ev ye tl fxavOdveiv tov jxeWovTa 
 (^iXoao^rjaeiv^ Kal vediTepov ovTa Kal irpea^VTepov^ Xv o)? irXeldTa 
 ev TU) 13 LO) fJ'dOrj. 
 
 II 
 
 Plato Lysis 212 de : Ovk dpa earl <f>iXov Ta> (fiiXoOvTi ovBev 
 /JLT) OVK dvTL(^iXovv. OvK €OLKev. Ou8' dpa (f)LXt7r7roL elaLv ou? av 
 ol LTTTroL /JLT) dvTL^iXdiaiv^ ovSk (^iXopTvye^^ ovK av ^iXoKVve^; ye Kal 
 (^CXoLVOi Kal (fytXoyv/JLvaaral Kal (f>LX6ao(f>oi, dv /irj rj ao<f)ia avTOv^ 
 dvTK^iXrj. 7} (f)LXovat fxev ravra eKaaroL^ ov pbevroi (fyiXa oWa, 
 dXXd -yjreuSeO' 6 7roLTjTrj<i, 6? €(f)7] 
 
 II 'OX^tO?, a> TTolSe^ T€ (j)LXoi KOL fJiCt)l>V^€<; 1777701 
 
 Kal Kvve^ dypevTol kol feVo? aXXooanof; ; 
 
 Ovk ejJLOtye BoKel^ rj S' 09. 'AXV dXrjOrj SoKel Xeyeiv croi ; Nai. 
 To (f)LXovfjLevov dpa rw (^lXovvti (^lXov earlv^ co<^ eouKev, w Mei/efcz^e, 
 edv re (f>iXrf edv re Kal fiLarj. olov Kal rd vecoarl yeyovora TratBia^ 
 rd fjL€v ovSeTTco cfiiXovvra, rd Be Kal /jLLcrovvra^ orav KoXd^yraL vtto 
 
 I 
 
 Testimonia. — Schol. Sophocles Antigone 711. Schol. Plato Republic \\\\ 
 530 d. Plutarch Solon ii 2 ; xxxi 3. Suidas, s.v. yrjpavaL. John Siceliotes in 
 Walz Rhetores Graeci vi 201. Zenobius iii 4. Diogenianus iii 80. Gregory of 
 Cyprus ii 69. Apostolius v 40. Tatian Oratio ad Graecos 35 ad fin. 
 
 yr}pdaKu> d' aiei: alei yrjpdaKU) Schol. Plat. Rep. 8': om. B, Diogenianus, 
 Greg, of Cyprus, Apostol. 5' atet: yap del John Sic. TroXXa: Trdvra reading 
 of L in Schol. Soph. Ant. 
 
 II 
 
 Tkstimoxia. — Theognis 1253-6. Lucian Amoves 48. Ilermias In Plat. 
 Phaedr. p. 38. 
 
 1. y: (3 Ilermias MSS. (corrected by Ast.). <pi\oL: v^oi Lucian. 2. koL 
 K^ves dypevral : OTjpevTai re Kvves Theognis. ^^vos dWodairSs : ^^voi dWodairol 
 Theognis. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 131 
 
 " Do you know, then," said I, ^ what is meant by the pur- 
 suit of wisdom ? " 
 
 " Certainly," said he. 
 
 " What is it ? " I asked. 
 
 " Is it not the sort of thing which is implied in the saying 
 of Solon ? He said, you remember, ' As I grow old I am ever I 
 learning many things that are new.' I, too, believe that a man 
 who is engaged in the pursuit of wisdom, should follow Solon's 
 example and always have in hand some particular subject of 
 study, both in his youth and in his later years, so that during 
 the course of his life he may learn as great a variety of things 
 as possible." 
 
 II 
 
 "Then nothing is dear to a lover unless it returns the 
 lover's affection ? " 
 
 " Apparently not." 
 
 "Then men are not fond of horses unless the horses are 
 fond of them, nor of quails nor of dogs nor of wine nor of 
 gymnastics, nor of wisdom, unless wisdom returns their love. 
 Or perhaps we should say that men are fond of all these things, 
 but that the things are not dear to them ; in which case the 
 poet is wrong who sings : ' Happy is he who hath children II 
 dear and horses of uncloven hoof and dogs for the chase and a 
 friend to receive him in a foreign land.' " 
 
 " I do not think so," said he. 
 
132 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 Tr)? /JLr)Tpo<; rj virb rou irarpo'^^ o/xo)? Koi fMcaovvra ev eKeivw ru) 
 XP^^V TrdvTcov fjLaktard iari rol^i yovevai (jylXraTa. "^fjioiye Sok€l, 
 €(f>r], OVTCO^ ^x^tv. 
 
 III-V 
 
 Aristotle Constitutioii of Athens 5 : roiavrri^ Be tt)? Td^€(i)<; 
 ovai)^ iv Trj iroXireLa^ kol roiv ttoWcjv BovXevovrcov rol^ 0X170^9, 
 dvrearr) roU yv(opi/jLOL<; 6 Srj/JLO^;. Icrx^pd^ Se rrj? ardaeco^; ovo-rj<; 
 KOI iroXvv xpovo^ dvTiKaOriixevwv dWrj\oi<;^ eiXovro kolvt) htaX- 
 XaKTrjv Kol dp^ovra ^oXcova koX TrjV 'jroXnelav iirerpe'^av avTw 
 7roir)(javTi rrjv iXeyeiav ^? ianv dp^f) 
 
 III TivaxTKcOy Kai fJLOL (f)pepo<; evhoOev aXyea Kelrac, 
 
 7rpea/3vTdTir]p iaopwv yalav 'laoi^ta? 
 KXivoixivrjv ' 
 
 iv 17 irpcs €KaT€pov<; virep eKarepcov fjudx^rac koX Bia/jLcfyLa^rjTel kol 
 fjLerd ravra kolvt) irapaivel Karairaveiv rrjv ivearcjaav <^iXovLKLav. 
 r)V B* 6 ^oXcov TTj fxev ^vaet fcal Trj So^y roiv 7rpd)TCOV^ rrj 3' ovaia 
 Koi roU TTpdy/iaai roiv /xeacov^ o)? €K re tojv dXXcov o/JLoXoyelrat Kai 
 at'To? iv TolaSe roi<; Trocrj/jLaatv fiapTvpel^ Trapacvcov rol^ irXovcy Iol<^ 
 /JLT) irXeoveKTelv • 
 
 IV viJL€L<; S' rjavx^dcravTes ivl (f)p€crl Kaprepov rfTop, 
 
 0% TToWoiv dyadcov et? Kopov rjXdaaTe, 
 iv fji€TpLOLaL TiOecrOe pueyav voov ovre yap rjixei^ 
 7Teicr6pie6\ ovO^ vpuv apria ravT ccrerat. 
 
 Kol o\ft)9 aiel ttjv alriav rr}? ardaeco^ avdirrei rot's irXovaloL's' Sio Kai 
 iv cipxy Tr)? iXejeia^; BeSoLKevai (jyrjal 
 
 V TTJV re <^i\apyvpir)v rrjv 9* vireprj^aviriv, 
 
 o)? hiCL ravra rrj^ eydpa^; ivearcoarjf;. 
 
 Ill 
 
 3. K\Lvofx4vqv Wilcken: Kaivoix^vrjv Sandys : Kap<poiJ.^vr]v Diels. 
 
 IV 
 
 4. TavT : irdpT Sandys. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 133 
 
 *' You think the poet is right ? " 
 
 ''Yes." 
 
 " Then that Avhieh is beloved, is dear to the lover, appar- 
 ently, whether its own feelings be those of love or even of 
 hate. Babies, for instance, who do not yet love any one and 
 who even hate their mothers and fathers when they are pun- 
 ished by them, are nevertheless just at the moment when they 
 hate their parents, more dear to them than at any other time." 
 ''It seems to me to be so." 
 
 III-V 
 
 The organization of the state being such as I have de- 
 scribed, the many were the slaves of the few, and, in conse- 
 quence, the people rose in opposition to the upper classes. The 
 feud was a violent one, and the opposing factions were pitted 
 against one another for a long time. In the end, by common 
 agreement, they elected Solon as archon, to act as arbitrator 
 between them, and they intrusted him with the task of revis- 
 ing the constitution. His elegiac poem had already appeared ,' ■ 
 which begins : " I am not unaware ; and pain lies heavy at my m 
 heart as I watch the oldest of Ionian states sinking lower and 
 lower." It is this same poem in which, presenting arguments 
 for both sides, he champions first one party and then the other, 
 and ends by counseling both alike to put a stop to the prevail- 
 ing spirit of contention. Solon himself was a man who by 
 birth and reputation belonged to the highest class ; but his 
 business activities and his limited means place him in the 
 middle class. The main evidence for this statement, which is 
 generally recognized to be true, he gives himself in this same 
 group of poems, where he urges the rich not to be greedy : 
 
 Testimonium. — Plutarch Solon xlv 2 : dXX' avrbso ZdXojv okvwv <prj(n rb tt/jw- 
 Tov axj/aadai. ttjs TroXireias /cot 5e5oiKti)S twv fiiv ttjv 0i\ox/!>T7/iaTtai', tQp d^ tt)u 
 V'F€pr](paviav. 
 
134 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 VI-XI 
 
 Aristotle Constitution of Athens 12: ravra 8' on tovtov top 
 rpoirov ea^ev oX r dWot avfK^covovai irdvre'i koI avro^ iv ry iroi- 
 7]<Tei /JLe/JLvrjrac irepl aurcou iv TotoSe' 
 
 VI ^VH'V ^^^ y^P ^Soj/ca rocrov yipa<; ocraov dirapKei, 
 Tifirjq ovT d(f)ekcov ovt inope^afMevo^' 
 ot 8' €l)(^op SvuajJiii' /cat ^pruxaaiv rjcrav dyiqTol^ 
 KoX Tola icfypoLcrdfjiiqi' fjLTjSev det/ce? e^eiv 
 6 ecTTrjv 8' dix<^i^akcou KpaTepov (TaKo^; dfji(j)OTepoLcnp, 
 viKav S' ovK elaa ovheripov^ aSi/cw?. 
 
 irdXiv 8' d7ro<j>atv6/jL€vo(; irepl rov ttXt^^ov^^ w? aurO) hel 'X^prja-Qat' 
 
 VII SrJ/i-o? 8' 0)8' av dpicFTa avv rjyepuoveacnv cTrotro, 
 /xr)T€ \lrjv dve6ei<; fJLyjre /3iai,6fJi€vo^. 
 
 TiKT€L yap KOpO^ vf^plV^ CTaV TToXv^ 6X/3o<; €TTr)TaL 
 
 duOpcxiJTOLGiv 6croL<; fjLrj v6o<; dpTLO<; tj. 
 
 Kol irdXiv 8' eTep(o6C irov Xeyet irepl rayv Biavei/Jiaa-OaL T7]V yijv 
 l3ovXofi6vcov' 
 
 VIII ot 8* €<^' dpirayrj <jvvrj\6ov, eXTTtS* el^ov dcjivedv, 
 
 Ka^oKOVT/ efca(TTo? avrcov oX/Sov evprjcreiv ttoXvv, 
 Kai /x: K(t.TiXXovTa Xeio)? rpa^vv eKc^aveiv voov. 
 ^avvjL fxev tot i(f)pd(Tai'TO^ vvv 8e /xoi ^oXovfjuepoi 
 
 VI 
 
 Testimonii:m. — Plutarch Solon xviii 4. 
 
 1. y^pas : /cpctros riutarch. dwapKei: ^TrapKet Plutarch (corrected by Coraes). 
 
 VII 
 
 Testimonia. — 1.2. Plutarch Comparison of Solon and Publicola ii 3. 
 3. Clement of Alexandria Strom. VI ii 8, 7 f. Diogenianus viii 22. Schol. 
 J'indar OL. xiii 12. 3.4. Theogiiis 153 f. 
 
 2. ^la^S/xevos : irie^dfxevos Plutarch. 3. yap : rot Tlieognis, Diogenianus, 
 Schol. Pindar. iroXi/s : /ca/cy Theognis, Schol. Pindar. 7ro\i>$ dXfios ^ir-qrai : ica/cc? 
 ivSpl irapeir) Diogenianus. 4. avdpilnroiaLv 6<tois : avdpibiri^ Kal Sry Theognis. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 135 
 
 **Calm the eager tumult of your hearts. You have forced IV 
 your way forward to a surfeit of good things. Confine your 
 swelling thoughts within reasonable bounds. For we shall not 
 comply with your present disposition, and you yourselves will not 
 find it meet for your own interests." In general, he puts the 
 blame for the dissension upon the wealthy class, and that is why 
 he says, at the very beginning of the poem, that he fears their 
 " covetousness and insolence," implying that the hostile feelings V 
 which were prevalent were due to these causes. 
 
 VI-XI 
 
 All the authorities are agreed that the results of Solon's re- 
 forms were as I have described them. But he has alluded to 
 them himself in several of his poems. One such passage runs 
 as follows : 
 
 " To the common people I have given such a measure of VI 
 privilege as sufficeth them, neither robbing them of the rights 
 they had, nor holding out the ope of greater ones ; and 1 have 
 taken equal thought for those who were possessed of power and 
 who were looked up to because of their wealth, careful that 
 they, too, should suffer no indignity. I have taken a stand 
 which enables me to hold a stout shield over both groups, and 
 I have allowed neither to triumph unjustly over the other." 
 
 In another passage he explains what he believes to be the 
 right way of dealing with the people : 
 
 " The populace will follow its leaders best if it is neither vil 
 left too free nor subjected to too much restraint. For excess 
 giveth birth to arrogance, when great prosperity attendeth 
 upon men whose minds lack sober judgment." 
 
 Again in another place he speaks of those who desired a re- 
 distribution of the land : 
 
 " They who gathered to share in the spoils entertained vast VIII 
 hopes. Every one of them expected to make his fortune, and 
 thought that I, though I might prattle mildly now, would reveal 
 
136 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 5 Xo^ov otpdaXjjLola^ opojcri Trcti^re? axrre StJlot^' 
 ov \peci)v' CL fjLev yap etna, avv Oeolcnv r^vvaay 
 aXXa o ov poLTrjP eepoop, ovOe fxoL Tvpavvihofi 
 apSdv€L /3iCL TL y^e{et^', ovSe TTieipa^ ^Oovo<; 
 7raT/>t8o9 KaKoiaiv €aOkov<; icroixoipiav ^X^^^- 
 
 TrdXtv Be koI irepl ty}^ dTTOKOTrrjf; rcov '^pecjv fcal rcov hovXevovrayv 
 /jl€v TTporepov, iXevOepcoOevroiv Be Bid rrjv o-eta-d^^Oeiav' 
 
 IX iyo) oe, tcoi^ pep ovveKa ^vvrjyayov 
 
 Srjpov, TL TovTOiv TT p\v Tv^^lv eVavc^a/x^7^'; 
 avppapTvpoirj TavT av eV Si/ciy ^R^^^^ 
 prjTiqp pbeyiCTTr) Saipopcup 'OXvpTTLCjp 
 5 apicTTa, Trj pekaiva, rrjf; iyco ttotc 
 opovf; dvelXop TroXXa^^ TreTTT^yoras* 
 irpoaOev he hovkevovaa^ vvv ekevOepa. 
 TToXXov? 8* \\Oijpa<; TrarpiS^ el<; SeoKTirov 
 dvTjyayov TrpaOevTa^, dXkov iKSLK(o<;, 
 10 dXkov St/cato)?, Tovs 8* dvayKaiTjf; vtto 
 
 ^petoi)? (f)vy6vTa<;, yXaxrcrav ovKer ^ Xttlkj^v 
 levTas, CD^ av TToWaxj) TrXavcopevovS' 
 Tov<; o evuao avrov oovkiiqv aeiKea 
 e^orra?, r^Orj SecnroTcov rpopevpevov^, 
 
 VIII 
 
 Testimoxia. — 4.5. Phitarch Solon xvi 2. 6.7. Aristides, vol. 2, p. 536 
 (Dindorf). 
 
 1. apir ay rj (XvvrjXdoy lUchiirda : apirayala-iv fjXdop Sundys. 6. Si fji^v yap eiTra: 
 A fji^v yap AeX-TTTa (CJai.sford omits yap) Aristides. 7. &\\a : d/ia (&\\a Gaisford) 
 Aristides. 
 
 IX 
 
 Testimonia. — 3-27. Aristides xlix 397 f., vol. 2, pp. 536-538 (Dindorf). 
 6.7. Plutarch Solon xv 5. 11-14. Plutarch Solon xv 5. 16. Plutarch Solon xv 2. 
 
 5. TTjs : tJs Ai'isti(l(^s (corrected by Scaliger and Brunck). 11. xP^'o^^^ <P^- 
 ybvTa^ : XRV^I^f^^ X^yovras Aristides, ovk^t : ovk IMutarch. 18. 8ovXir)y : SovXelrjv 
 3 MSS. of IMutarch : SovXoavvrjv vuli;. of Plutarch : BovXelrjs (corrected to5ovXir]vhy 
 Jiruiick, to dovXelrjp by Canter) Aristides. 14. ijdrj 5ea-iroTibv: ijdr) {ijdr} conj. Bergk) 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 137 
 
 a nature stern enough in the end. Idle were their notions then, 
 and now they are all angry with me and look at me with side- 
 long glances as at an enemy. They have* no reason to do so. 
 What I promised, with the gods' help I fulfilled ; other things 
 I did not thoughtlessly undertake. I should find no pleasure 
 in a thing which was achieved through the exercise of a tyrant's 
 power, nor should I be glad to see the rich soil of the fatherland 
 divided equally among the good and the bad." 
 
 In still another passage he speaks of the cancellation of 
 debts and of those who from their former state of servitude had 
 been restored to liberty by the act of disburdenment : 
 
 *' Turning now to my own case, and considering first the IX 
 objects for which I brought the people together, you ask me 
 why I stopped before I had achieved those objects ? The an- 
 swer to this question may be found in the corroborative evidence 
 which will be given before the tribunal of Time by the black 
 Earth, the supreme mother of the divinities of Olympus. I re- 
 moved the stones of her bondage which had been planted every- 
 where, and she who was a slave before is now free. I brought 
 back to their own divinely founded home many Athenians who 
 justly or unjustly had been sold into slavery in foreign lands, 
 and I brought back those whom destitution had driven into 
 exile, and who, through wandering long abroad, no longer spoke 
 the Attic tongue ; and I restored to liberty those who had been 
 degraded to slavery here in their own land and trembled at 
 their masters' whims. These things I accomplished through 
 arbitrary action, bringing force to the support of the dictates 
 of justice, and I followed through to the end the course which 
 I promised. On the other hand, I drafted laws, which show 
 equal consideration for the upper and loAver classes, and provide 
 a fair administration of justice for every individual. An un- 
 scrupulous and avaricious man, if he had got the whip hand of 
 the city as I had, would not have held the people back. If I 
 had' adopted the policy which was advocated by my opponents 
 
138 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 15 i\ev9epov^ eOrjKa. ravra fjuev KpareL, 
 
 ofxov l^ir)v re /cat Slktjv avi/apfjLoaa^, 
 
 ipe^a /cat SirjkOov ct)9 VTTe<j^6p.rjv . 
 
 decrpLOV^ 8' 6poLa)<; tw /ca/cw re /cdya^w, 
 
 evOelav els eKacTov appoaas Slktjv, 
 20 iypaxfja. Kevrpov 8' aXXo? cL? eya> Xay8cu^'5 
 
 KaKO(l)paSij<; re /cat cf)LkoKTijp(t)P dprjp, 
 
 ovK av Kareax'^ Srjpov el yap rjOeXov 
 
 a rot? evavTioiaiv rjvSavep rore, 
 
 avOis 8* a TolcTLv ovrepoi (^pacrataro, 
 25 TToWiov av dvSpcov 'qS' e)(y)pa)Orj ttoKis. 
 
 Tojp ovveK dXKrjv TrdvToOev iroievpevos 
 
 COS ev Kvcrlv TroWrjcnv e(jTpd(f>r)i' Xvkos- 
 
 Kal ttoXlv ouetSi^cov TTyDO? TO.? varepov avrcjv fxefJiy^L^otpia^ 
 apL^orepcov 
 
 X S-qpo) pep el ^prj SiaffydSr):/ oveiSicrai, 
 
 a vvv e^ovo'iv ovttot o^OaXpoZcriv av 
 evhovTes elSov. 
 
 ocroi he peil^ovs /cat yStaz^ dpeivoves 
 5 alvolev av pe /cat <^i\ov TroioCaTO. 
 
 el 'yap ri^ dWo^ (j)7]al ravTrj^; tt}? t£/x>}? eTV^ev, 
 
 XI OVK av /careicr^e Srjpov ouS' enavcraTO, 
 
 TTplv dvrapd^as map e^elXev ydXa. 
 iyo) 8e TovTOJV axrirep iv jLterat^/itoi 
 0/309 KaTeaTrjv. 
 
 deairSTas Aristides. 10. 6fxov : p6fxov Sandys. 18. 6/xoicjs : o/xolovs Aristides. 
 24. ovrepoi (ppaaalaro : dr^pois 5pa(Tai 6ta Aristides. 20. a\K7]v: dpx^'' Aristides. 
 TToievfjLevos: KVKev/xepos Aristides. 27. iroWria-iv: TroXXara-cj/ Aristides. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 139 
 
 then, or if thereafter I had consented to the treatment which 
 their opponents were always phinning for them^ this city would 
 have lost many of her sons. This Avas the reason why 1 stood 
 out like a wolf at bay amidst a pack of hounds, defending my- 
 self against attacks from every side." 
 
 Again he reproves the complaints which were made by both 
 parties at a later time : 
 
 " The common people (if I must give public utterance to my x 
 rebuke) would never have beheld even in their dreams the 
 blessings which they now enjoy. . . . All the stronger and 
 more powerful men in the city would sing my praises and seek 
 to make me their friend." 
 
 For if another man, he said, had obtained this office, '' he xi 
 would not have held the people back, and he would not have 
 rested until by continued agitation he had got the butter from 
 the milk. But I set myself up as a barrier in the debatable 
 land between the two hostile parties." 
 
 X 
 
 1. 8ia(()d5r)v Condos : 8ia(f>pd5r)p papyri. 
 
 XI 
 
 Testimonium. — 1.2. Plutarch /Soiow xvi 2. 
 
 2. dvTapd^as : civ rapd^as Plutarch. iriap Plutarch : irvap papyri. i^eiXev 
 i^^V Plutarch. 
 
140 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 XII 
 
 Demosthenes De falsa legatione 254 ff. : Ae7e h-q ^ol Xu^cdv 
 Kol ra rov ^6\covo<i iXeyela ravri, Xv lStjO* on kol ^6\(ov ifMiaei 
 Tov^ oXov^ oi/TO? [/.c, Aeschines] avOpayirov; . . . 
 
 EAEFEIA 
 
 XII 'HfierepT] Se ttoXi? /caret fxev Ato? ovttot oXeira^ 
 
 aiaav koI jjLaKoipojv decjv </>peVa? dOavdrcop' 
 TOiTj ydp pueydOvpiO<^ eiricrKOTro^ o^ptfjiOTrdTprj 
 IlaXXa? 'A07]vaL7] )(^lpa<; virepOev e^eC 
 5 avTol he ^Oeipeiv pieyakrjv ttoXlv dcfypaSirjcnv 
 dcTTol fiovXovTai ')(^p'qiJLaaL TreiOofievoLy 
 Sijfjiov 6^ rjyejxovdiv aSt/cog voo^, olcriv eTOijxov 
 
 v^pLO^ Ik jjieydXr]<; dXyea TToWd nadelv' 
 ov ydp eTTLO'TavTaL Kare^etv Kopov ovSe 7rapovaa<; 
 10 ev(j)poavi'a<; Koo-fxelp Sairo? eV rjcrv^irj. 
 
 TT\ovTOvaiv 8' aSt/cot? epy/JLacn Trei06p.evoL 
 
 ovO* lepoiv KTedv(x)v ovre tl hnqpLoa iojv 
 <^eih6p,evoi KkiiTTOvaiv icf) dpirayf) dWoOev aXX.09, 
 
 ouSe ^v\d(T(TovTai (Tejipd OefxeOka At/cr/?, 
 15 rj aiyojcra o-vvoiSe rd yiyvopueva irpo t iovTa, 
 
 Tco 8e y^povct) TrdvTco^ rjkO^ diroTeLcrofxevr). 
 TOVT 17817 irdarj TrdXet ep^erai ikKo<; d(f)VKTOP' 
 
 €19 8e KaKYjv Ta)(eaj<; rjkvOe Sov\oo'vpr]v^ 
 
 Xll 
 
 13. K\4irTov(Tiv ^0' apirayy : ' iure suspecta ' Butcher (marks with daggers) : 
 d(papirayy FBQYr. 14. d^fiedXa Ai/ctjs Hergk : ALktjs d^fiedXa codd. 16. dtrorei- 
 (TOfi^vrj : diroTKTOfji^vr} B corr. : diroTKraix^vrj COdd. cett. 18. -^Xvde : desperavit 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 141 
 
 XII 
 
 Read, if you please, these elegiac verses of Solon. You will 
 see from them, gentlemen, that Solon, too, despised men of his 
 sort : 
 
 " The ruin of our state will never come by the doom of Zeus XII 
 or through the will of the blessed and immortal gods ; for Pallas 
 Athena, valiant daughter of a valiant sire, is our stout-hearted 
 guardian, and she holdeth over us her protecting arms. It is 
 the townsfolk themselves and their false-hearted leaders who 
 would fain destroy our great city through wantonness and love 
 of money. But they are destined to suffer sorely for their out- 
 rageous behavior. They know not how to hold in check their 
 full-fed lust, or, content with the merriment the banquet 
 affords, to take their pleasure soberly and in order. . . . They 
 are rich because they yield to the temptation of dishonest 
 courses. . . . They spare neither the treasures of the gods nor 
 the property of the state, and steal like brigands one from an- 
 other. They pay no heed to the unshaken rock of holy Justice, 
 who, though she be silent, is aware of all that happeneth now or 
 hath happened in the past, and, in course of time, surely cometh 
 to demand retribution. Lo, even now there cometh upon the 
 whole city a plague which none may escape. The people have 
 come quickly into degrading bondage ; bondage rouseth from 
 their sleep war and civil strife ; and war destroyeth many in 
 the beauty of their youth. As if she were the prey of foreign 
 foes, our beloved city is rapidly wasted and consumed in those 
 secret conspiracies which are the delight of dishonest men. 
 
 "These are the evils which stalk at home. Meanwhile the 
 poor and needy in great numbers are loaded with shameful 
 bonds and sold into slavery in foreign lands. . . . Thus 
 public calamity cometh to the house of every individual, and 
 a man is no longer safe within the gates of his own court, 
 which refuse him their protection. It leapeth over the garden- 
 
142 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 17 (TToicnv €ix(f)vkov TTokeyiov 6^ evhovr eVeyetpei, 
 20 69 ttoWCjv ipaTTjv co\e(T€v yjXlkltjp- 
 
 e/c yap SvcFfxepecop ra^j^ew? TToXvrjparov olcftv 
 
 Tpv)(eTaL ev avvo'^ois roi^ ahiKovai (fyiXai^. 
 TavTa jxev ev ^TJP'Cp crrpecfteTaL KaKoi- tojv Se Trevi^pcjv 
 iKvovvTai TToXXol yoiav i<; dkXoSaTTrjv 
 25 TTpaOevTef; hecrpioiai t aeiKekioiai Se^eVre?. 
 
 ovTCii S-qixocnov KaKov ep^eTai ot/caS' efcctcrrw, 
 avXeioi S* er* €)(€lv ovk e9e\ovcn Ovpai, 
 'I v\jjr]Xov 8' vnep €pKo<; virepOopev, evpe Se Travroi^y 
 el /cat rt9 (j)euyo)v ev p^vxV V ^otXa/xoi;. 
 30 ravTa StSafat 6vfjio<; ^ A6r]vaLov<; jxe /ceXeuet, 
 o)<; KaKOL TrXelcTTa TrdXet Svcrpofxir] Trape^ei, 
 evpoixLT) 8' evKocTfJia koI apna ttolvt aiTO(^aiveiy 
 
 /cat 0* a/xa rots ahiKoicr djOK^trt^r^crt 7re8a?* 
 Tpa\ea Xetati^et, Travel Kopov, v^piv dfiavpol^ 
 35 avatz/et 8' dr')75 dvOea (fyvofxeva, 
 
 evOvvei 8e 8t/ca9 cr/coXta?, v7Tep7](l)avd t epya 
 
 irpavvei, iravei 8' epya 8t^ocrracrtT79, 
 Travel 8' dpyaXer;? epiSo<; )(^6kop, ecrrt 8* utt' aur^? 
 TTavTa /car' dvdpatTrov^ dpTia /cat Trivvrd, 
 
 *AKOveT (o dvBpe'; *A67jvaloL Trepl tojp tolovtcop dvdpuyTrcov ola 
 SoXcr)!^ Xeyet^ koX Trepl twi^ ^eaiz^ 01/9 <^?;(7t r^i^ ttoXlv crw^eiv. 
 
 Butcher ("fort. ■^TaYe — ■^Xi'^e ex 16 repetitum"). 19. iireyeipeL vulg. : iireyeipeiu 
 BQ : iirayeipeip FQ. 22. 0aat5 Bergk : 0^015 QY : 0iXoi;s Vulg. 28. ttclvtcos 
 correctiuii (!x cod. IJodlejaiio : iravTas vulg. 29. Kai anonymus in margine libri 
 Lessingiani : ye codd. y 6a\dfxov Schneidewin : rj daKdjxi^ vulg. 33. Kai 6' dfia 
 O. Schneider : Kai dafxa Butclier. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 14? 
 
 wall, however high it be, and surely findeth him out, though he 
 run iiid hide himself in the inmost corner of his chamber. 
 
 " These things my heart prompteth me to teach the Athe- 
 nians, and to make them understand that lawlessness worketh 
 more harm to the state than any other cause. But a law-abiding 
 spirit create th order and harmony, and at the same time putteth 
 chains upon evil-doers ; it maketh rough things smooth, it 
 checketh inordinate desires, it dimmeth the glare of wanton 
 pride and withereth the budding bloom of wild delusion ; it 
 maketh crooked judgments straight and softeneth arrogant be- 
 havior ; it stoppeth acts of sedition and stoppeth the anger of 
 bitter strife. Under the reign of law, sanity and wisdom pre- 
 vail ever among men." 
 
 You hear, gentlemen of Athens, what Solon has to say about 
 men of this kind, and about the gods, to whom, in his opinion, 
 we owe the preservation of the state. 
 
 / 
 
144 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 XIII-XIV 
 
 Diodorus Siculus ix 20 [Exc. Vat. p. 21] : Xeyerai Be ^oXcov 
 Kal TrpoeiTrelv rol^ * Kdr)vaioL<; rrjv iaofJievTjv Tvpavviha hC iXejeicoV 
 
 XIII e/c i'€cl>ekr)<; TreXerat x^^^^*^ ix4vo<; tJSc x^^^(>V^^ 
 
 PpovTT) 8* €/c XafXTTprj^ yiyverai aaT^ponrj^;' 
 dvSpcov S' e/c fxeyaXoiv ttoXi? oXXvrat, els Sc piovdpyov 
 SrjfjiOf; diSpeLTj SovXaavvr^v eireaev' 
 5 \irjv 8* i^dpavT ov pdhiov icm KaTa(T\eiv 
 vcTTepov, dXX' riht] ^py) {irepl) Trdvra voeiv. 
 
 Kal fjLera ravra TvpavvovvTO<; €<f)r)' 
 
 Xiy el 8e TTeTTOvOare Xvypd Sl vfjueTeprjv KaKorrjTa, 
 
 fjLT) Oeolcriv TovT(x)v ixolpav eVajLtc^epere' 
 avTol yap tovtovs 7)v^7JcraT€ pvo'ia h6vTe<;, 
 Kal Sid TOVTO KaKT^v eerier e oov\o(Tvvrjv . 
 5 vpiicov 8' €19 p-ev €KaaTO<; dkcoweKos l^vecri ^aivei, 
 avpiracnv 8' vplv ^aui^o? eveari v6o<^' 
 et? yap yXaxrcrav opdre Kal els enos aloXov duSpos, 
 €19 epyov 8' ovhev yiyvop^evov ^XeireTe. 
 
 xm 
 
 Tbstimonia. — 1.2. Plutarch Solon iii 5. 1-4. Diogenes Laertius i 50; 
 ApostoliiLS vi 03 c. 3.4. DiodoriLS Siculiis xix 1, 4. 
 
 1. TT^XcTttt : (f>^peTai Diogenes LaertiiLS, Apostolius. x^^^f^s Plutarch, Di- 
 ogenes LaertiiLS, Apostolius : daXdrTrjs cod. Diodori. 3. 5' : om. Diodorus xix 
 1, 4. ets . . . 8ov\o(Tvi'tji' Diodorus xix 1, 4, Diogenes Laertius, Apostolius : 
 iK , . . 8ov\o(Tvv7}s cod. Diodori ix 20. fiovdpxov : rvpdvvov Diodorus xix 1, 4. 
 
 4. didpeir): &i8pi.s iujv Diogenes Laertius (ap. Bergk): dtSpis uiv ApostoliiLS. 
 
 5. \Itjv Schiieidewin : Xelrjs cod. i^dpavr ov Sclineidewin : e^epaira cod. : i^ap- 
 divT ov Becker-Dindorf-Vogel (ex coniectura Schneidewiui). 0. Trepl supplevit 
 Dindorf. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 145 
 
 XIII-XIV 
 
 It is said, furthermore, that Solon foretold to the Athenians 
 the tyranny which was imminent, in the following elegiac verses: 
 
 '^ Out of the cloud come snow and hail in their fury, and XIII 
 the thunderbolt springeth from the lightning's flash : so from 
 great men ruin issueth upon the state, and the people through 
 their own folly sink into slavery under a single lord. Having 
 raised a man to too high a place, it is not easy later to hold him 
 back : now is the time to be observant of all things." 
 
 Afterwards, when the tyranny was established, he said : 
 
 " If ye have suffered the melancholy consequences of your XIV 
 own incompetence, do not attribute this evil fortune to the 
 gods. Ye have yourselves raised these men to power over you, 
 and have reduced yourselves by this course to a wretched state 
 of servitude. Each man among you, individually, walketh with 
 the tread of a fox, but collectively ye are a set of simpletons. 
 For ye look to the tongue and the play of a man's speech and 
 regard not the deed which is done before your eyes." 
 
 XIV 
 
 Tbstimonia. — 1-8. Diogenes Laertias i 51 f. Nicetas Choniates De 
 rebus post captam urbem gestis 772 (Migne Patrologia Graeca cxxxix 968). 
 1-4. Plutarch Solon xxx 6. 5-7. Plutarch Solon xxx 2. Clemens Alexan- 
 drinus Stromata I ii 23. 1. 
 
 1. Xi;7pa : Seiva Diogenes Laertius, Nicetas. 2. deoTaip : rt deocs Plutarch, 
 Diogenes, Nicetas. toOtuiv Plutarch, Diogenes, Nicetas : ra^Trjp Diodorus, 
 Becker-Dindorf-Vogel. /xoipav : fMrjviv Plutarch. 3. pvaia Diogenes, Nicetas : 
 pijfxaTa Diodorus, Plutarch, Becker-Dindorf-Vogel. 4. tovto : TaOra Plutarch, 
 Diogenes, Nicetas. eo-xere : fo-xcre Diogenes : ^crxere Nicetas. 5. fj.^v : omisit 
 Clemens. 6. x^Cws Plutarch, Clemens : Kov(f)os Diodorus, Becker-Dindorf-Vogel. 
 7. €7ros ai6\ov : ctttj aifx^Xov Plutarchus, Diogenes, ClemeiLs : cttos aioXov Nicetas. 
 Hie versus a Plutarcho ante distichum praecedentem positus est. 
 
146 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 XV 
 
 Philo De opificio mundi 104 : ra^ rjXiKCa^ ravra^ aveypayjre 
 Kol ^oXcov 6 Twv ^KOrjvaiwv vofioOeTT]^ iXeyela iroLr]aa^ rdSe' 
 
 XV Xlai? fjiev avrj^Qf; icov en vtJttlo^ €pKO<; o^ovtcou 
 
 (f)V(Ta^ iK/3dWei TTpoijov iv enr eTecnv' 
 Tov^; 8' irepov^ ore Srj reXecrr] 6eo^ eiTT iviavTOvs, 
 r)^rj<; iK(f)aLveL cnjpara yiyvoiiiviqs' 
 6 TTj TpiTOLTT) he jeveiov ae^ofxevcov en yvicav 
 \a\vovTai^ -)(^poirj<; auOo^; dfxeL^ofJiei'r)^' 
 TTj Se Terdprr) ird^ rt^ ev i^SofjudSi piiy dpicTTO^ 
 
 IcT^v, TjVT aVSpe^f cnjfJLaT ix^ovcr dpETrj^' 
 TrepLTTTTj o copiov dvhpa ydfxov fxefxprjixei^ov elvai 
 10 KOI TTaiocx)v tprjTeZv eicroTTicrco yeverjv' 
 
 T'Q §' e/cT]7 TTepl irdvTa KarapTveTai v6o<^ di^Syoo?, 
 
 ovO epoeiv eu Ofji(i)<; epy airaKafxva uekei 
 inTa 8e povi' kol ykcoaaav iv ifihofjidaLv fiey* dpicrrof; 
 OKTOJ T' dficfyoTepcov recrcrapa /cat 8eV err)' 
 15 Trj 8* ivdrrj en puev hvvarai, fxaXaKcorepa 8' avTOv 
 TTpos fJLeyaXrjv dperrjv yXwcrcrd re /cai cro(f)Lr)' 
 TYjv SeKdTYjv 8' €L Tt? TcXecTa? /caret fjuerpop i/coiro, 
 ovK av aoj/Do? iojv pioipav ^\ol Oavdrov. 
 
 XV 
 
 Testimonia. — Clemens Alexandriniis Stromata VI xvi 144, 4 ff. Aposto- 
 lus xiv 94. Anatolius wepl 5e/cd5o5 p. 37, Codex Parisinus 1843 ap. Cramer 
 Anecd. Graeca i 46. 
 
 1. 6Ti: 6 (TTt Anatolius. 2. iv ^irr : ^ttt' A;/ Cramer. 3. reX^cr?; Schaefer : 
 TeKiari Philo (FG): reX^aei Philo (ceteri), Clemens, Apostolius, Anatohus, 
 Cramer. 4. iKcpalvei : de 4>a'LveL Apostolius, Cramer : 5^ (papeiarjs Clemens : 5' 
 iipdvT] Anatolius. a-qfj-ara : (nrip/xaTa Clemens, yiyvofiivrjs : yivofiiv-qs Apostolius, 
 Anatolius: 7eij'o/i^j'77s Cramer: 71 ^o/a^j/wj' Clemens. 5. rpiTdrT? : xpirT? Cramer. 
 yiveiov: 7^veia Apostolius : 7^j'6i Cramer : 76^10;/ Anatolius. de^oM^'"*"': de|6/ie;'oi; 
 Clemens : al^ofx^uojv Anatolius. ert Ber^k : inl Philo et testimonia omnia. 
 yvlu}v: 7utcl;»' AnatoliiLS, Cramer: yevvuv Clemens. 6. Xaxvovrai xpo^V^' Xd^vov 
 T fxvv (Is AnatoliiLs. 7. wds Clemens, Anatolius : Trats Philo, Apostolius, 
 Cramer. e^dofxdSi fi^y Clemens : ipdofiddeaaiv Philo (FG), Cramer : e^dofxd- 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 147 
 
 XV 
 
 These periods in human life are also recognized by Solon, 
 the lawgiver of Athens, in the following elegiac verses : 
 
 " A boy, before he cometh to man's estate, and while he is XV 
 still a child, getteth and loseth his rampart of teeth within the 
 first seven years. When god bringeth the second seven to a 
 close, the signs of budding manhood begin to show. In the 
 third period, a downy beard appeareth, though the limbs have 
 not reached their full growth, and the boyish bloom of the com- 
 plexion fadeth. In the fourth period of seven years, every man 
 is at the prime of his physical strength. . . . The fifth period 
 is the season for a man to bethink him of marriage and seek off- 
 spring against the future. In the sixth, experience of every 
 sort carrieth his mind on to perfection, and he feeleth no longer 
 the same inclination to the wild pranks of youth. In the 
 seventh seven, he is at his prime in mind and tongue, and also 
 in the eighth, the two together making fourteen years. In the 
 ninth period, though he still retaineth some force, he is feebler 
 both in wisdom and in speech and faileth of great achievement. 
 If a man attaineth to the full measure of the tenth period, the 
 fate of death, if it come upon him, cometh not untimely." 
 
 Seo-tv Anatolius : e^Sd/xaa-LvVhilo (AB), Apostolius : e/35o/xd5' iarlv Brunck, Cohn. 
 
 8. i]v T Clemens : 7; t Philo (MHFiGi), Anatolias : rj t Philo (ABF2G2), Aposto- 
 lius : o'i T Philo (L) : ■§ t Cramer. c-fjixaT' exovai. : /xer^xofct Anatolius. 
 
 9. ujpiov : (bpri Apostolius. 10. daoirlaoi Clemens : e^oTriaw Pliilo, Apostoliiis, 
 Anatolius, Cramer, Cohn. 11. trepl: Kara Cramer. KarapTverai: KarapTijveTai 
 Clemens, Apostolius. 12. ov8' : ip 8' Cramer. ^pSeiv id o/xQs: iaidecu ed' bpLoiwi 
 Clemens. airaKaixva d^Xec : dird\aiJ.v' id^Xei Apostolius : (ipya) /xdraia d^XcL Cle- 
 mens : (jepya) aTrdXai/jiva Anatolius. 13. /xey dpiaros : txer dpicrrais Apostolius, 
 Cramer. 14. oktio t Mangey : oktu 5' Philo, Clemens, Apostolius, Cramer : 
 6ts oKToj 5' Anatolius. d/j-cpoT^pwv Mangey : dp.<f)6Tepa Philo, Apostolius : 
 
 rp 
 
 d/jLcpdrepov Cramer : dp.(f)o Anatolius. riaaapa Kal dcK : reaffepeKaibeK Cramer : 
 T^aaapes Kal dt] Anatolius. 15. /i^v: fiijv Philo (M), Cohn. fiaXaKdorepa : ixerpi- 
 
 rp 
 
 d)T€pa Clemens : /xaXaKU} Anatolius. 16. irpos : €<ttl irpbs Anatolius. yXdaad re 
 Kal (T0(pl7) : aQfid re Kal Svvafxis Clemens, re : t6 Anatolius. 17. t^ SeKdrrj 5' 6t€ 
 St? TeX^CTT) Oebs 'itrT ipiavrovs Clemens, ttjv deKdrrju : ry deKdrrj Apostolius (vel ttj 
 SeKaTT)), Cramer. 5' e! ns : 8^ dans Anatolius. 18. icbv : erj Anatolius. exot : 
 exei Clemens, Apostolius : exwv Anatolius. 
 
148 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 XVI 
 
 Plutarch Solon ii 2 : irXovrov 8' ovk eOav^a^ev [sc. o So\a)i/], 
 aWa Acat (^rjatv Ofioiay^ irXovrelv a) re 
 
 XVI TToXu? apyvp6<; icTTLV 
 
 KOL ^pvcro9 /cat ^179 7rvpo(f)6pov ireSCa 
 LTTTTOL 0^ TjixLovoL Tc, /Cat o) fjiova TavTtt TrdpecTLV, 
 yacTTpi T€ /cai TrXevpfj /cat noalp a/3pa iraOeiv, 
 5 TratSd? r' '^8e yvi^at/cdg, €7717 1^ /cat raur' ac^t/CT/rat, 
 77^17, crui' 8* a>yDT7 yiyverai apfJLoSia. 
 
 XVI a Tavr' a(f)evo^ 6v7]Toiai' tol yap irepLCJcna iravTa 
 
 Xpyjp^cLT e^cDv ovhei<; epx^Tau €t9 *Ai8e&j, 
 ovo^ av OLTTOiva Oioov<; OdvaTov (f)vyoL ovOe ^apeta? 
 10 vovcrov<; ovSe KaKov yrjpas iirep^opievov. 
 
 XVI 
 
 Testimonium. — Theognis 719-724 (quoted also by Stobaeiis iv 33, 7). 
 
 1. labv rot irXovTovaiv Sry {6(toi$ Stobaeus) woXvs dpyvpds icrriv Theognis. 
 3. fidva raOra : to. S^oura Theognis (rdde iravra Stobaeus). 4. irXevprj: irXevpah 
 Theognis. 5. ^wrju kuI ravr : Srav 8^ Ke tQv Theognis. 6. 7^/377 I. M. L. : 7^/3r; 
 Plutarch, Sintenis. ijfiy avv 5' cbprj : tj/St; <rvv 8' iopj} Plutarch, Sintenis : wprj aw 5* 
 tJ/St/ Theognis. dp/j-dSia Bergk : dpfiovia Plutarch : apfioSia Theognis (apii68iov 
 Vatic. 915), Sintenis. 
 
 XVI a 
 
 Testimonium. — These four verses follow immediately after Solon xvi in 
 Theognis and may be fairly regarded as part of Solon's poem. All ten verses 
 are quoted by StobaeiLS (iv 33, 7) under the name of Theognis. 
 
 8. 'AlSeu : diSriv Stobaeus. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 149 
 
 XVI 
 
 He was never dazzled by riches. Indeed, he says that the XVI 
 riches of him who "hath much silver and gold, fields of 
 wheat-bearing land, horses, and mules, are no greater than his 
 whose only possessions are these : stomach, lungs, and feet that 
 bring him joy, not pain ; the blooming charms, perhaps, of boy 
 or maiden ; and an existence ever harmonious with the chang- 
 ing seasons of life." 
 
 In these things is the true wealth of mortal men ; for no XYI a 
 man, when he passeth to Hades' realm, carrieth with him all his 
 vast hoard. No ransom that he can give enableth him to es- 
 cape death or dire disease or the creeping evil of old age. 
 
150 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 XVII-XIX 
 
 Plutarch Solon iii : on 8' avrov iv tt) twv irevi^rcov fieplhi fjidX- 
 Xou Tj TT) TOiv irXova L(DV erarre, hrfKov ecmv Ik tovtcov 
 
 XVII TToXkol yap TrXoirrovcn KaKoC, dyaOol Se irevovTai- 
 
 dXX' r)fxel<; avroicr ov StafJieLxpoixeOa 
 ttJs dp€Trj<; top ttXovtov, eVet to fxev efiweSop aleu, 
 ^pT7/xaTa 8' dvd pojTTOiv aXXore dkXo^ ^X^^' 
 
 . . . eviOL Be (paaLv, on ical tov'^ v6/jlov^ €7r€)(^6Lp7]crev evreCva^i et? 
 €7ro9 e^eve'yKelv, fcal Sta/jLvrj/jLovevovai ttjv ap'^rjv ohrco'^ e'^ovaav 
 
 [XVIII] UpojTa fxev ev^^cofjieaOa Au KpoviSy f^aaikrji 
 
 OecrfJiol^; rotcrSe tij^v dyaOr^v koI /cuSo? oTrdaaaL. 
 
 . . . iv Se Tol^; (^vaiKol'i aTrXoO? eaTi Xiav koI ap')(^alo^, o)? BriXov 
 kic tovtwv 
 
 eK v€(f)€X7]<; TreXeTai ')(^l6vo'^ fjuevo^ rjhe ')^aXd^r)^' 
 /3povTr) 8' i/c Xa/JLirpd'^ jLverac darepoTrr]^;. 
 
 ^^^ i^ dpejjicov 8e OdXacrcra rapdaaeTaC rjv Si ris avrr^v 
 
 fjLT) KLpfj, Trdvraiv iarl St/catorarTy. 
 
 XX 
 
 Plutarch Solon viii 2 : eXeyela Be Kpvc^a avvOeh fcal jxeXeTrjaa^^ 
 wcTTe Xeyetv diro ar6/jLaT0<;, e^eTr-^BTjcrev et? rrjv djopav d(f)vco ttlXC- 
 Blov 7repL6e/JLevo<;. 6')(Xov Be ttoXXov avvBpafiovTO'^ dva/Sd^; eVt top 
 Tov Kr)pvK0<; XiOov ev o)By Bte^rjXOe rrfv iXeyelav, ^? eaTtP cip')(r)' 
 
 XX AuT09 KTjpv^ rjXOov d(f)* lfjLepTrj<; SaXafJilvo^^ 
 
 KocTfJiov iireajv (pSrjp dvT dyoprj<s Oefxepo^. 
 
 TOVTO TO TTOLTifJLa SaXtt/il? eTnyeypaTTTai ical (TTi-)((iiv eKaTOV ecTi^ 
 '^aptevTQx; irdw ireiroirjpievov. 
 
 XVII 
 
 Tkstimonia. — 1-4. Theo,£,nii.s315-318. 2-4. V\\\tdi>TQ\\ De tranquillitate animi 
 13, p. 472 0. IMutarcli Quornodo ({uis suos in virtute sentlat profectus G, p. 78 c. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 151 
 
 XVII-XIX 
 
 That he rated himself a member of the chiss of persons in 
 moderate circumstances rather than among the rich, is clear 
 from the following : 
 
 " Many undeserving men are rich, while their betters are XVII 
 poor. But we will not exchange what we are for what they 
 have, since the one abide th while the other passe th from man 
 to man.*' 
 
 . . . Some say that he attempted to write his laws in 
 hexameter verse before publishing them, and these are given as 
 the opening lines : 
 
 " First pray we to King Zeus, son of Cronus, that he grant [xvill] 
 good luck and glory to these ordinances." 
 
 ... In scientific matters he held simple and old-fashioned 
 views, as one may see from the following : 
 
 " Out of the cloud come snow and hail in their fury, and 
 the thunderbolt springeth from the lightning's flash." 
 
 " The sea is tossed by the winds : but if no wind stir it, it XIX 
 is of all things the most peaceable." 
 
 XX 
 
 He secretly composed a poem in elegiac verse. Yhen, after 
 he had committed it to memory, he rushed out suddenly into 
 the market place, with a small cap on his head, and when a great 
 crowd had gathered, he mounted the herald's rostrum and 
 chanted the poem which begins : 
 
 " As my own herald have I come from beloved Salamis, to XX 
 sing you a poem I have fashioned in lieu of a speech." 
 
 This poem, which is one hundred lines long, is entitled 
 " Salamis," and is a very beautiful composition. 
 
 Basilius Magnus Sermo de legendis libris gentilium ii 177 (= vol. 31. p. 575 
 Migne). 2.3. Plutarch De capienda ex inimicis utilitate 11, p. 92 e. 
 1. yap : tol Theognis. 2. avroia : tovtois Theognis. 
 
152 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 XXI-XXII 
 
 Plutarch Solon xiv 5 f. : tovtwv ovSev i^e/cpovcre tov ^oXcova 
 rr)? avTov irpoaipea-eco^, aXka irpo^ fiev rov^; (f>L\ov(; elirev, w? Xeye- 
 rai, KoXov fiev elvai T7)v rvpavvlha yaypiov^ ovk e')(€Lv Se airo^aacv, 
 TT/oo? Se <t>a)KOV iv rol<; iroir^p^aai ypacfxav 
 
 XXI el Se yrjs, (t>v^^\ icjieicrdiJLrjv 
 
 ov Ka6r]\jjdiJir)p fxidva^ kol KaTaicr^vva'; KXeos, 
 ovSev atSeu/xaf irXiov yap &Se vuKijcreLV So/ceo) 
 5 irdvTa^ dv0 pmirov^; 
 
 odev evBrjXov, on Kal irpo tt)? vo/xoOecria^ /JLeydXi^v Bo^av el'x^ev. 
 a Se (^vyovTO's avrov rrjv rvpavvLha ttoXXoX KarayeXSyvre^ eXeyov^ 
 yey pac^ev ovrco^;' 
 
 XXII OVK €(j)V ^okcoi^ /^aOvcfypcoj^ ovSe ^ovXijeL^ dvrjp' 
 
 iaOXd ydp Oeov hih6vTO<; avro? ovk eSefaro* 
 TTEpL^akcov 8' dypav^ dyacr9€l<; ovk iiricnTacrev /xeya 
 hiKTvovj OvfjLOv 6* djjiapTrj Kal (f)peva)v d7rocr(j)a\€L<;. 
 5 rjOeXov ydp Kev Kparrjcra^, ttXovtov d(f)0ovov Xa^cou 
 Kal Tvpavvevaa^ ^ KOrjvcDv puovvov rjpLepav /xta^', 
 daKos varepop SeSdpOac KaiTiTeTplcfyOaL y€vo<;. 
 
 raura roi/? ttoXXois kol ^avXov<; irepX avTOV ireirolrjKe Xeyovra^. 
 
 XXIII 
 
 Plutarch Solon xxv 5 : 
 XXIII epyfjiaai yap ev /LteyaXot? Tracrtv dhelv xaXenov, 
 
 0)9 avT6<; €Lpr]K€. 
 
 XXII 
 
 5. ■^^cXoi/ Xylander : ■^^eXev Plutarch, Sintenis. 7. do- ^6s Bergk (ex codici- 
 biLs (luibiLsdaiii a Sintenis Jieglectis) : avrbs codices plurimi, Sinteiiis. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 153 
 
 XXI-XXII 
 
 None of these things shook Solon from his resolution. He 
 remarked to his friends, as the story goes, that the tyrant's 
 seat is a fine place, but that there is no way down from it ; 
 among his poems there is one addressed to Phocus, in which he 
 says : 
 
 '' If I spared my fatherland and did not lay hold upon a des- xxi 
 potism of harshness and force, staining and defiling my reputa- 
 tion thereby, I feel no shame for that. I believe that in this 
 way I shall so much the more show my superiority over other 
 men." 
 
 This passage shows clearly that he enjoyed considerable dis- 
 tinction even before the adoption of his laws. When he turned 
 his back on the tyranny, many people ridiculed him in language 
 whose tone he has preserved in the following lines, which he 
 puts into the mouth of one of his critics : 
 
 " Solon is not gifted with wisdom and sagacity. God put XXII 
 good things into his hands, but he failed to grasp them. He 
 cast his net and caught his fish, but, in his wonder and delight, 
 he did not draw it in : both his courage and his wit were un- 
 equal to the occasion. If I could seize the power, acquire vast 
 wealth, and be lord of Athens for but a single day, I would give 
 my body to be flayed for a wineskin and consent to the annihi- 
 lation of my race." 
 
 This is the opinion which, in Solon's own poem, the ignorant 
 majority is supposed to express concerning him. 
 
 XXIII 
 
 For, as he says himself, " in great undertakings it is difficult 
 to please all." 
 
 XXIII 
 
154 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 XXIV-XXV 
 
 Plutarch Solon xxvi : Trpwrov fiev ovv eh AXyvirTov a(f>Uero 
 
 XXIV NetXou inl TTpo^orjcn Kava)^LOo<; iyyvOev aKTrj^. 
 
 . . . Koi auTO^ oe fxe/jLvyrat to 3 avvoLKLa/JLOU [sc. rou tmv ^oXcov 
 
 TMV eV KuTrpo)]" 7rpoaa<yopevaa^ yap ev ral<; eXeyeiai? rov 
 
 ^iXoKvirpcv ^ ^ 
 
 [^cLvacrcrcDV 
 
 XXV vvv 8e' (i>r)orL^ av puev ^oXiouaL noXvi' ^(povov IvOdh* 
 
 TijvSe ttoXlv vat :l<; kol yzvo<; vpilrepov' 
 
 avrap 6/xe ^vv vrji Oorj K\eLvrj<; olttj vrjaov 
 
 dcTKYjOrj TrepLTTOL Kvirp <; loare^avo^' 
 
 5 OLKLCTfJia) o inl r^oe ^dpiv koX /cDoo? OTTct^ot 
 
 icrOXou KOL vocTTOv TTarptS* €9 rjpL^Teprjv, 
 
 XXVI 
 
 Plutarch Comparison of Solon and Publicola i 4 : en rolvvv 
 oh TT/Do? ^(.p^vepvov avTei7ro)i> ire^A ^poi^ov ^(d')<^ eTTLTre^coi^rj/ce, 
 
 XXVI /xT^Se piOL a/cXaucrrog 9duaTo<; /xdXot, aWa ^iXoiaiv 
 
 KaWeiTTOLpLL ^aj^wi' dXyea kol crroi^a^as, 
 
 evhaipova rov TioirXuKoXav dvhpa iroiel. 
 
 XXV 
 
 Testimonium. — 1-4. Fiia ^rait (Westermann, p. 53). 
 
 XXVI 
 
 Tkstimonia. — Stol)aeus IV liv {ireol rrivdovs) 3. Cicero Tusculanae Dispu- 
 tationes i 40, 117 (a Latin translation of the couplet). 
 
 2. KaWeiiroLijn Stobaeus, Cic^ero (lirujuamus): TroiT^o-ai/it Plutarch, Sinteni.s. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 155 
 
 XXIV-XXV 
 
 First he went to Egypt and spent some time (to borrow his 
 own words) "at the outpouring of the Nile, hard by the Can- XXIV 
 obic shore." 
 
 . . . He mentions the consolidation* himself in the elegiac 
 poem addressed to Philocyprus, in which he says : 
 
 " Now mayest thou reign long over the people of Soli, and XXV 
 may their city long be the dwelling-place of thee and of thy 
 race. And may Cypris of the violet crown carry me in a swift 
 ship unscathed from the illustrious isle, shedding upon these 
 habitations glory and honor, and granting to me safe return to 
 my native land." 
 
 XXVI 
 
 Furthermore, the lines which form a part of the reply which 
 he addressed to Mimnernus concerning the duration of human 
 life — " May my death come not unlamented, and may I leave XXVI 
 to my friends when I die a heritage of grief and tears " — argue 
 that Publicola was a happy man. 
 
 * I.e., of the city of Soli in Cyprus. 
 
156 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 XXVII-XXVIII 
 
 Plutarch Amatorius 751 c : 6 Aacfyvalo^; ' ev ye vrj A/' ' ecfyj] ' rov 
 ^6\o)vo<; i/JLvria6ri<; kol ')(^priaT60V avrw yvoy/xovL rov ipcoTL/cov avhpo^^ 
 
 XXVII ecrO* rj^T)^ iparoiaiv eV avOeai 7Taiho(^ikri(Trj 
 
 ixrjpcov lfjL€Lpa)v /cat yXvKepov aTOfxarof;. 
 
 . . . oOei^, ol/xat, Koi 6 ^6\(ov iicelva fxev eypayjre veo^ wv en 
 Koi ' a7repijiaTo<i ttoWov /jLearo's ' (W9 o liXaTcov <f)r}aL' ravrl Be 
 7rpeaffvTr}(; yevofjievo^, — 
 
 XXYIII ipya 8e Kv7Tpoyevov<; vvv pioi <^iXa /cat Alovilxtov 
 
 Kol Movcrewi^, a TiOrja avhpdcnv ev(j)pocrvva<;, — 
 
 coairep i/c ^aX?;? Kal ^et/-tw^'09 Kal rcbv TrachiKcav epojTcov ev tlvl 
 yaXrjVT) rrj irepl ydfiov Kal (fyiXoaocfyiav Oefievo^i rov pCov . . .' 
 
 XXIX 
 
 Pollux Onomasticon x 103: koi tyhiv he avrrjv [sc. tt^v Ov- 
 eiav^ KeKXrjfcaai ^oXcov re ev toI<; ld/jL0OL<i Xeycjv, 
 
 XXIX cnrev^ovo'i o ol p.ev lyOiv^ ol oe (TL\(f)iov, 
 
 ol 8* 6^o<^, 
 Kal €TL aa^earepov 'AvTL(pdvi]<i ktX. 
 
 XXVII 
 Testimonia. — 2. Athenaeus xiii 602 e. Apuleiiis De ma^/ia 9. 
 
 XXVIII 
 
 Testimonia. — Plutarch Solon xxxi 3. Plutarch Septem mpientum convir- 
 vium 13, 155 f. Hermiae Alexandriiii in Platoiiis Phaedrum SchoUa, p. 38 
 (Couvreur) (= p. 78 Ast). Volumina Herculanea xi 52 (vid. Gomperz, Wiener 
 Studien ii 7 f.). 
 
 1. Kvirpoyevovs : KTITPOTEX . . . Vol. Herculan. 2. TLd-qa : ridricnv 
 Hermias. 
 
 XXIX 
 
 1. (xirevbovai. 5' Casaubon: trevalb' Dindorf (MSS. reported by Bergk thus: 
 irevalb' vulgo, C : ffirevaiba B : <r7rei;5' A). 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 157 
 
 XXVII-XXVIII 
 
 " Your allusion to Solon," said Daphnaeus, '* is entirely 
 apropos. He may be taken as an authority on amorous men. 
 You recall the lines : 
 
 '• While, in the fair garden of youth, one is stirred by the XXVII 
 love of boys, burning with desire for sweet lips and rounded 
 limbs.' 
 
 . . . For this reason I believe that Solon wrote the verses 
 which I have just quoted when he was still quite young and, as 
 Plato says, 'teeming with life.' These others he must have 
 produced in his later years : 
 
 'In the works of Dionysus and the Muses and of her who XXYIII 
 was born in Cyprus now is my delight, for they bring men joy 
 and cheer.' 
 
 He had escaped from the surge and tempest of the love 
 which men feel for boys and brought his life into the still waters 
 of wedlock and philosophy ..." 
 
 XXIX 
 
 It [^.e., a mortar] is also called ljSl^ by Solon, who says in 
 his iambics — 
 
 " Some are devoted to reels, some to highly flavored dishes, XXIX 
 and some to sour wine " — 
 
 and still more clearly by Antiphanes, etc. 
 
158 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 XXX 
 
 Phrynichus the Grammarian Ecloga ccclxxiv : kol yap 
 iTLTVo^ TO 6KK€KOfcta/ji€vov CTt KoX vvv fcoKKCova XeyovaLv ol TToWol 
 6pOcb<>. Kal yap ^oXcov ev toI<^ Troir^fxaai ovrco ^(^prJTaL^ — 
 
 XXX KOKKojva^; aXXo9, drepof; Se cn^cra/xa. 
 
 XXXI 
 
 Clement of Alexandria Strornata V xii 81, 1 : aocjicorara 
 TOivvv yeypaTTTac rep ^6\(ovi ravra irepl Beov- 
 
 XXXI yvcofxoavvqf; 8* dc^ai^e? '^akeTTcoraTOP icrri vorjo-at 
 
 jxirpov, o 817 TTOLVTcov 7T€LpaTa fJLOvvov e;)(ei. 
 
 XXXIl 
 
 Clement of Alexandria Stromata V xiv 129, 6 : eU6T(D<; dpa 
 'LoXayv 6 *AOrjvalo'!i ev rat? i\ey€iaL<;^ Kal aiVo? KaTaKo\ovdr)aa<^ 
 'Ho-tdSo), 
 
 XXXII TTOLVTrj 8' dOavdrcov d(j)avrj^ v6o<; dvOpcoTTOicnv^ 
 
 ypd(f>6L. 
 
 XXXllI 
 
 Athenaeus Deipnosophistae xiv 645 f: FOTPOS on TrXa- 
 /covvTO<; eZSo? o So\ft)i^ eV toZ? 'laftySot? (fyrja-LV 
 
 XXXIII TTLVOVCTL KOL TpCJyOVCnV ol fJL€V tT/Ota, 
 
 ol 8' dprov avTOiv^ 01 8e avpLfxeixLypiivov^ 
 yovpov^ (j^aKolcTL' KeWi 8' ovTe TrefXjxdTcov 
 direcTTLv ovSep, dcrcra t dvOpconoLcn yrj 
 6 (f)€peL jJLeXaLva, Trdvra 8' d(j)96i'(o<; irdpa. 
 
 XXXI 
 
 Testimonhm. — Tlieodoretus i 73. 
 2. iravTOJv : trdvTa Theodoretus. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 159 
 
 XXX 
 
 Tlie kernel which is extracted from a pine-cone is still called 
 KOKKwv by most people, correctly ; for Solon uses the word so in 
 his poems : 
 
 ''Pomegranate-seeds one, and another sesame." XXX 
 
 XXXI 
 
 Very profound, therefore, is the following observation of 
 Solon concerning (iod: 
 
 " Difficult indeed is it to conceive the inscrutable measure XXXI 
 of his wisdom, within whicli alone abideth the power to bring 
 all things to fullillment." 
 
 XXXII 
 
 It is not surprising, therefore, that the Athenian poet Solon, 
 too, should say in one of his elegiac poems, following Hesiod : 
 
 " At every turn the mind of the immortals is hid from XXXII 
 men. " 
 
 XXXIII 
 
 That a gouros is a sort of flat cake is apparent from the fol- 
 lowing iambic lines by Solon : 
 
 " They drink their wine, and with it they nibble itria^ or XXXIII 
 artos^ or gouroi mixed with lentils. There one finds no lack of 
 sweetmeats or of all the other good things which the black earth 
 bears for men : everything is at hand in abundance." 
 
 XXXII 
 
 Testimonium. — Eusebius Praep. Ev. xiii 688 c. 
 irdvTTi : Trdfiirap Eusebius. 
 
 XXXIII 
 
 4. oddev, daaa r Ahrens : oiid' ivaaaev MSS., Kaibel (oiiS^v &<7(t &p VL, ac- 
 cording to Bergk). 
 
160 
 
 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 XXXIV-XXXV 
 
 Diogenes Laertius i 47 : r)V he ra iXeyela ra fxaktara Ka6a- 
 ylrdfjLePa tcjv 'Adrjvaicov rdSe' 
 
 XXXIY €Lr]v Srj tot iyco ^o\e'ydvSpiO<; rj '%LKiviTy)<^ 
 
 dvTL y ' A$r)vaLOv, iraTpih^ d/x€ti//a/xej^09* 
 ah\ia yap dv (j>dTL<; rjSe /xer' dvOpoiiToiai yivoiTO 
 'Arrt/cos ovtos dprjp to)v SaXafJLLvacjieTwv. 
 
 XXXV 
 
 XXXYI 
 
 XXXVII 
 
 iOfxep €19 SaXa/xii^a, fxa^^rjcroixepoL irepi vrjcrov 
 lfxepTrj<^ ^akeirov t oXa^o^ dTTcocrofJiepoL. 
 
 XXXVI 
 
 Diogenes Laertius i 49 : /cal rj y8ouX?J, TieiaLaTparihai oWc?, 
 fxaiveaOai eXeyov avTOV 66ev elTre ravri' 
 
 Setfei dkrjOeLTjs e? fxecrov ip^ofxivrj^;. 
 
 XXXVII-XXXVIII 
 
 Diogenes Laertius i 60 f. : (fyaal S' avrov koI yLifxvepvov ypd- 
 ylravTO^y 
 
 At yap uTep vovcrwv re koX apjaXecov /jieXeBcovecov 
 
 e^T]KOVTa€TT] fXolpa Ki')(Ql OaVUTOV, 
 
 eiTLTLixoivra avro) elirelv 
 
 dW^ el fxoi Kav vvv en TretcreaL, efeXe tovto, 
 fjLTj^e fieyaip* otl aev toIov iirei^paadpuqv^ 
 
 XXXIV 
 
 Testimonium. — 1.2. Plutarch Prcterepta gerendae repuhlicae 17, 813 f. 
 4. ^a\a/xiva(t)eTu>v Ls. Vossius et Hei'lliailll : "^oXauij' dip^vTwi' vulg. : SaXa- 
 fjLiv d<p^TU)u Stephani codd. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OP SOLON'S POEMS 161 
 
 XXXIV-XXXV 
 
 The elegiac verses which most stirred the feelings of the 
 Athenians were as follows : 
 
 " Then may 1 change ni}^ fatherland and become a native of XXXIV 
 Pholegandros or Sicinos instead of an Athenian. For I should 
 soon be hearing men say : '• He is of Attica, one of those who 
 gave up Salamis ! ' '' 
 
 And again : 
 
 " Let us go to Salamis and fight for the island of our hearts XXXV 
 and rid ourselves of the bitter shame." 
 
 XXXVI 
 
 The council, which was composed of partisans of Pisistratus, 
 said that he was mad ; whereupon he spoke as follows : 
 
 " This madness of mine a little time will reveal to the men XXXVI 
 of the city in its true meaning, when the truth itself cometh out 
 into the open." 
 
 XXXVII-XXXVIII 
 
 This story also is told of him. Mimnernus had said in one 
 of his poems : 
 
 " May it be my lot to live a life untroubled by illness and 
 anxiety and to die in my sixtieth year." 
 
 XXXV 
 
 Testimonia. — Apostolius ix 6 b. Arsenius xxxi 52. Schol. Demosthenes 
 De falsa legaUone 251 (ed. Dindorf, vol. viii, p. 438). 
 
 2. T : omisit Schol. Demosthenes. diruao/j.ei'oi : dTrwo-d^ei'ot Apostolius, 
 Arsenius, Schol. Demosthenes. 
 
 XXXVII 
 
 1. TovTo BFi : TovTov PF2, Cobct, Dlels (sc. (xtIxov). 2. toIov MSS. : Xyov 
 
162 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 /cat fxeTaTTOLTjaoVj AtyvacrraSr^, wSe 8' aetSe* 
 oySajKOPTaeTT] fiolpa kl^ol Oavdrov. 
 
 Tbiv he ahofievwv avrov iart rdSe' 
 
 XXXVIIl] Il€(j>v\ayfJievo<; dvhpa eKaaror opa 
 
 fjLTj KpvTTTov iy\o<; e^CxiV KpahiTj 
 (jyatSpcp TrpoaeveTTTj irpocrcoTra), 
 yXwcrcra oe ol of^^ojjivOof; €/c 
 6 ixekaiv7)<; ^pevo<; yeycjvjj. 
 
 XXXIX 
 
 Proclus On the Timaeus 25 f : r) fiev laropia rj Kara to '26- 
 Xcovo^ jevo^ Kal rrjV YiXdrcovo^ irpo'^ avrov avyyevetav roiavrr) rt? 
 iariv 'Fj^7]K€aTL8ov Trat^e? iyevovro 26X(ou /cat Apco7ri8r}<;, koI 
 ApcoTriSov fxev }LpiTLa<sy ov fxrjVfiove'uei fcal 26\cov iv rf) 7roir)(Tei 
 Xeycov 
 
 XXXIX eiTTepevai KpiTLT) ^avOorpi^i Trarpo^ aKoveiv' 
 
 ov yap apapripoo) TTeiaeTai rjyepopi' 
 
 KpiTLOv Be KaXXato-;^/309 Kal T\av/c(oi>, K.aWaL(T^pov Be av Kpiria^ 
 
 OVTO<^. 
 
 xxxvn 
 
 BiT^k, Cobet. 3. XL-yvaaTdb-r) Berg^k ex Suida : vai-yiacxTabT] W : ayiaa-raSi Pl : 
 aiyiaffTaSi F. 
 
 xxxvm 
 
 2. 67X0S MSS. : ex^os Cobet (" Casauboniis Menagiusque coni/' — Hiibner). 
 5. fJLeXaivTjs : fxeXavijs Cobet. 
 
 XXXIX 
 
 Testimoma. — 1.2. Schol. Plato Timaeus 20 e. 1. Aristotle jR^eioric i 15, 
 1375 b. 
 
 1. eiir^ixevai : eiTreii' /xoi Aristotle. ^avOdrptxi- '• 7ri;p/36Tpix' Aristotle. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 163 
 
 Whereupon Solon rebuked him in the foUowing lines : 
 
 '' But if even now thou wilt be persuaded by me, strike this XXXVll 
 out and take no offense because I find matter in thee to criticize. 
 Change thy poem, thou scion of sweet song, and let the strain 
 run thus : ' May it be my lot to die in my eightieth year.'" 
 
 Among his lyrics is the following : 
 
 "Watch, with caution, every man, lest he have a sword [XXX VI ii | 
 hidden in his heart while he speaketh to thee with glad coun- 
 tenance, and lest out of a black soul his tongue utter words of 
 double meaning." 
 
 XXXIX 
 
 The prevailing view concerning the family of Solon and his 
 relationship to Plato is substantially as follows. Execestides 
 had two sons, Solon and Dropides ; and Dropides' son was 
 Critias, whom Solon himself mentions in the poem containing 
 the verses : 
 
 " Say to Critias of the golden locks that he should hearken xxxix 
 to his father ; if he follow his advice, he will find him no lack- 
 brained guide." 
 
 The sons of Critias were Callaeschrus and Glauco, and 
 finally Callaeschrus' son was the Critias of the present passage. 
 
164 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 XL 
 Stobaeus Eclogae iii 9 {ir^pX SiKatoavvr]^^, 23 : SoXoji^o?. 
 
 XL MvrjfxoavvT)^ /cat Zrjpo<; OXvyLiriov ayXaa reKva, 
 
 Movcrai TlteptSeg, k\vt€ fiou ev)(o^evcx)' 
 oX/Sop jJiOL 77/309 Oeajp fxaKcipayv hoje koX irpo^ andpTajp 
 avO pcoTTOiv alei ho^av ^X^^^ dyaOijv, 
 5 elvai 8e yXvKvv cSSe c^iXoicr', e^^potcrt Se niKpov, 
 TOLCTL pikv alholov, TolcTi Se SeLPov ISelv. 
 XP^jf^oLTa 8' Lfjieipa) fxeu eyeiv^ dSt/cw? 8e TreTrdcrdaL 
 
 ovK iOeko)' iravTO)^ varepov rj\6e Slkt]. 
 ttXovtov 8* ov fJLev Swctl OeoL, TrapayiyveTai dpSpl 
 10 €/x7re8o9 e/c vedrov 7TvOfjLei>o<; et9 Kopv(f>y]i'' 
 
 6v o dvop€<^ fjLaiojPTaL v(j)' v^pLo<;, ov /caret Kocrpiov 
 
 epx^eraLy aXX' dSiKota epyixaai Tret^ojutez^o? 
 ou/c iOekoiv eneraL' ra^ew? 8' dvapuicryeTai drrj' 
 dp)(r} 8* ef 6\iyov yiyverai coare irvpo^, 
 15 (j)\avpr] fxkv to irpcoTOu, dvurjpr) 8e TeXevra' 
 ov yap 87) ^' SvrjToZa v/3pio^ €pya vreXet. 
 dXXct Zeu9 TrdvTOiv i(f)opa TeXo<;, i^aTTivrj<^ 8e 
 
 cocTT dvefjio^; v€(f>€Xa<; alxpa SiecrKeSacrev 
 r}pLv6<;, 69 TToi'TOv TrokvKvp.ovos dTpvyeroLO 
 20 TTvOp^eva KLT/7J(Ta<;, yrjv /cctra 7Tvpo(j)6pov 
 
 8r;oj(Ta9 /caXct epya, Oecov €So<; aliTvi' iKdvei 
 ovpavov^ alOpiiqv 8' aurt? e6r]Kev iSeiv' 
 
 XL 
 
 Testimonia. — 1. Clement of Alexandria Strom. VI ii 11, 2. 7.8. Plu- 
 tarch Solon ii 3 ; Gomp. Sol. and Publ. i T). G5-70. Tlieoijnis 585-590 ; Stobaeus 
 iv 47 {irepl rQ)v trap i\iri5a), KJ (the verses are here assi^i^ned to Theof?ms); Bois- 
 sonade Anecd. Graem vol. 4, p. 455. 71-76. Theoi^niis 227-232. 71. Aristotle 
 Folitics i 8, 125(5 1), 34; riutarch JJe cnpiditate dimtiarum 4, 524 e ; Basilius 
 Magnus Senno de lej/endis lihris (/entiliiim 183. 
 
 11. fxaioivTai l.M.L. : tl/jlCjctiv S M"^ A, Heiise. 13. drT] A^: Att) other 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 165 
 
 XL 
 
 O ye fair children of jNlemory and Olympian Zeus, ye Muses XL 
 of Pieria, hear me as I prayo Grant, that J may be blessed with 
 prosperit}^ by the gods, and that among all men I may ever en- 
 joy fair fame ; tliat 1 may be as a sweet savor to my friends and 
 a bitterness in the mouth of my enemies, by tlie ones respected, 
 by the others feared. Wealth I do indeed desire, but ill-gotten 
 wealth I will not have : punishment therefor surely cometh 
 Avitli time. Wealth Avhich the gcxls give, cometh to a man as an 
 abiding possession, solid from the lowest foundation to the top; 
 but that which is sought with presumptuous disregard of right 
 and Avrong, cometh not in the due course of nature. It yieldeth 
 to the persuasion of dishonest practices and followeth against its 
 will ; and soon there is joined thereto blind folly which leadeth 
 to destruction. Like fire, it taketh its beginning from small 
 things; but, though insignificant at first, it endeth in ruin. 
 For the works of unprincipled men do not continue long. Zeus 
 watcheth all things to the end. Often, in the spring season, a 
 wind riseth suddenly and disperse th the clouds, and, stirring up 
 the depths of the surging, barren sea, and laying waste the fair 
 works of the husbandman over the surface of the corn-bearing 
 earth, cometh to the lofty habitation of the gods in heaven and 
 bringeth the blue sky once more to view ; the sun shineth forth 
 in his beauty over the fertile earth, and clouds are no longer to 
 be seen. Like such a sudden wind is the justice of Zeus. He 
 is not, like mortal men, quick to wrath for each offense ; but no 
 man who hath an evil heart ever escapeth his watchful eye, and 
 surely, in the end, his justice is made manifest. One man 
 payeth his ^penalty early, another late. If the guilty man him- 
 self escape and the fate of the gods come not upon him and 
 overtake him not, it cometh full surely in aftertime : the inno- 
 cent pay for his offense — his children or his children's children 
 in later generations. 
 
 V 
 
160 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 XdfjLTTeL 8* rjeXCoLO fxevos Kara Triova yaiav 
 
 25 TOLavrr) Tiiqvo^ TreXerat ricrt?, ovh^ i(f)' iKdcTTO)^ 
 cjcnrep OviqTO<^ dvrfp, yiyveraL 6^v)(oko'i' 
 alii 8* ov e keXijOe 8ta)Lt7rey3e9 o(Jtl<^ akirpov 
 
 OvjjLov €)(€', 7rdvTa)<; 8' e? T€Xo<^ i^€(j)dvr]' 
 aAA o /xsz/ avTLK eTeiaev, o o vcTepov ol oe (pvycoaip 
 30 a^Toi /AT786 OeoJT/ fjiolp^ iinovcra kl^jj, 
 
 rjXvOe TrdpTO)'? avTi<;' dvaiTioi epya tlvovctlv 
 
 ri TTolSef; rovTOiv rj yevo^; i^oiricro). 
 dvrjTol 8' a>8€ voevfiev, o/xoi? aya^o? re /ca/cog t€, 
 iureivoyv avTO<; So^ai/ e/ca<TT09 ^X^^^-i 
 35 TT/otV Ti TTaOelu' Tore 8' avTiK oSvpeTaC d)(pL 8e rovrov 
 ^daKovTe^; KOv<^ai<; iXirLcn TeprTOfxeOa. 
 ^wcrrt? /xej^ j^oucrotcrt^' vtt' dpyakerj(Ji TnecrOfj, 
 
 o)? vyirf^ ccrrat, roGro KarecfypdcraTO' 
 aXXo9 8etXo9 eoit' dyaOos SoKel efjifxevai dvyjp, 
 40 /cat fcaXo9, fxopcj^rjv ov ^apUacTav e^wr. 
 
 €t 8e Tt? d-^pyjjjiojv, 7revLr)<; Se fiLP epya yStarat, 
 
 KTTJcrecrOaL 7rdvTa)<^ x/^T^/xara ttoXXo, 8oK:€r. 
 cTTreuSeL 8* dWoOev aXXo?" 6 /xei^ Kara ttoj^toi' dXarat 
 eV vTjvalv xpTjl^cov otfca8e KepS3<; dyecv 
 45 l^OvoevT, dvep^niai (j>opevixevo<; dpyakioicnv^ 
 (^eihoiky^v ^VXV'^ ov^efiLav Oipuevo^' 
 aXXo9 yi^j^ TCfxvcop iroXvSzvSpeov et? eviavTov 
 karpeveiy toIclv KafnrvX' aporpa /xeXet* 
 
 MSS., Hense. 27. oii e Hermann, llense : oUre S. 31. aCns Brunck, Hense : 
 ayr^K S. 32. if y^vos i^oTrlau) correction by second hand in cod. Tar. 1985, 
 Ilense : Tjyeabvwv dwlau) S. 34. ivreivwv I. M. L. : iv dTjvrjv S^ : iv 5'qvfiv S 2, Tr., 
 Voss : iiv br)vr)v llense. exeu/ I. M. L. : exei MSS., Hense. 35. avrlK Bamber- 
 f^er, Hense : ai5Tts S. 42. KT-fiaeadai Bergk, Hense : KT-qaaadaL S. iravTws con- 
 jecture in mari^in of (Jesneri, Hense: irdvTuv S. 48. Totffi.v : Tot<rt S. /xAet 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 167 
 
 Thus all we men of mortal mold, good alike and bad, think, 
 by straining every nerve, to win a fair name, each man for him- 
 self by his own unaided efforts, until something befall him from 
 without : then straightway cometh pain. Till then like gaping 
 fools we amuse ourselves with empty dreams. He who is worn 
 by cruel disease pondereth ever how one day he will be whole ; 
 another, who is a coward, thinketh himself brave ; another still 
 counteth himself handsome, though he have no beauty of body ; 
 if one be penniless and subject to the toils of poverty, he as- 
 sureth himself that he will sometime win great riches. 
 
 One man seeketh Avealth from one source, another from an- 
 other. This one wandereth in ships over the fishy deep in his 
 eagerness to bring honie a profit, the sport of the cruel winds, 
 staking his life ungrudgingly. Another, whose labor is with 
 the curved plow, cleaveth the fertile soil, drudging the year 
 round like a slave. Another learneth the arts of Athena and 
 skillful Hephaestus and gathereth a livelihood by the work of 
 his two hands. Another, trained by the grace of the Olympian 
 Muses, understandeth to the full the sweet art of minstrelsy. 
 Another hath been endowed by the Lord Apollo, who worketh 
 from afar, with the gift of prophecy ; and, if the gods attend 
 upon his ways, he discerneth, while it is still far off, the evil 
 which approacheth his fellow. But it is sure that neither bird 
 nor sacrificial victim will avert what Fate ordains. Others are 
 physicians and practice the craft of Paeon, who knoweth many 
 drugs. But no success crowneth their work : often great suf- 
 fering groweth out of a little pain, and none can bring relief by 
 administering soothing drugs ; often, again, one who is over- 
 come by cruel disease may be straightway restored to health 
 merely by the touch of a hand. 
 
 Destiny bringeth to mankind both good and evil, and the 
 gifts which come from the immortal gods are not to be refused. 
 Danger, we may be sure, followeth all the works of men, and 
 none knoweth, at its beginning, which way an undertaking will 
 
168 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 aXXo9 ^AOrjpaiTjf; re kol 'Hc^atcrrou 7roXvTe)(pea) 
 60 epya 8a€t9 ^eipolv fuXXeyerac ^iorov^ 
 
 dXXo<; ^OkvfJLTndSajp Movaecui^ irdpa Swpa 8t8a^^et9, 
 
 IjxepTTJf; (Tocf)L'r]<; jxerpov iiricTTdpievof;' 
 dXXov pdvTiv edrjKev dva^ eKdepyo^; * AttoXXcop^ 
 €yvoi 8' dv^pl KaKov TiqXodev ip^opievov^ 
 55 (h crvpopapTijaajcrL Oeoc Ta 8e popcnp.a TrdvTO}^ 
 ovre Tt9 olcopo<^ pvaerai ov6^ Upd' 
 aXXoL ^alctj^'o? 7ToXv(f)app.dKov epyov e^ovre^ 
 
 lr)TpoL' KOL Tola-' ovSev eireari TeXo<;' 
 TToXXdKL 8' ef oXtyy]^ 68^179 peya yiyverai dXyo<^, 
 60 KovK dv Tt9 XvaaiT rjTTia (f)dppaKa Sov^' 
 
 Tov 8e /cafcatg vovcroici KVKcLp.ei'ov dpyaXeau^; re 
 
 dxpdpevo^ ^eipOLv alxjja riOiqcr vyirj. 
 
 pLOipa Se TOL 6vr)Toicn KaKov (fjepeu rjSe /cat ecrOXov' 
 
 Owpa 8' d(f)VKTa Oecov yiyverai dOavdrojv. 
 
 65 irdcTi 8e roL Kiuhvvo^ in epypacrtVy ovSe T19 olSev, 
 
 fi p^iXXei a^rjcreiv, ^prjpaTo^ dp^op^evov 
 
 dXX' 6 pep ev epheiv 7reLpcopiepo<; ov irpovorjcraf; 
 
 et? I'eydXrjp drrjv kol xaXenrfv eirecrev, 
 Tco Se KaKOJS epSopTL Oeo<; irepl Trdvra SlSojctlv 
 70 crvvTv^irfv dyaOrjv^ eKXvcriv acjypocrvvr]^. 
 
 ttXovtov 8* ovSep reppa irecfyacrpepop dpSpdcrt /cetrat* 
 
 OL ydp vvv rjpecov TrXeZcrrov e^oucrt /3lop, 
 8i7rXacrtct)9 aTrevSovcn' tl<; olp Kopeaeiev diravTa^ ; 
 KepSed TOi dvriTola ayiracrav dOdvaTOC 
 75 drrf 8' ef avrcop dpa(f)aLPeTaL, rjp oirorap Zeu? 
 TrepipTj Teicropevrjv, dXXore dXXos ^X^^' 
 
 conjecture in margin of Gesner 1, Hense : fi^vei S. 50. epya 8aeis cod. Par. 19852, 
 HeiLse: epyaXa els S^Yroh.: epyaXaelvTr.i 6p7aXaeis Voss. 51. Moi'tr^wi' Brunck, 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 169 
 
 turn. One man, though he is trying to acquit himself well, 
 falleth unaware into great and dire misfortune. Another, who 
 playeth his part ill, is blessed with good luck by the gods and 
 granted release from his folly. 
 
 No visible limit is set to wealth among men. Even now 
 those among us who have the largest fortune are striving with 
 redoubled energy. AVhat abundance of riches could satisfy us 
 all? Increase of goods cometh to mortals by the gift of the gods. 
 But out of it appeareth the madness which leadeth to destruc- 
 tion, and when Zeus sendeth this madness as a punishment to 
 men, it lighteth first upon one and then upon another. 
 
 Hense : Mova-duv S. 65. Trda-i 84 : iraa-iv Theognis, Stobaeus iv, Boissonade. 
 oUev : oJde Stobaeus iv, Boissonade. 66. ■^ or ^ S, Tr. : rl Voss : ttt} or woT 
 Theognis, Stobaeus iv : tto? Boissonade. /xiXXet axvf^^i-f : cx'n'^^'-v ixiWcL Theognis, 
 Stobaeus iv, Boissonade. xrvi^o-tos : irp-rjyfxaTos Theognis, Stobaeus iv, Boisson- 
 ade. 67. e5 '4pbeLv : evdoKLfxeiv Theognis, Stobaeus iv, Boissonade. 69. /caxws S^ : 
 AcaXiDs S2, Tr., Voss, Theognis, Hense: KaXbv Stobaeus iv, Boissonade. ^p- 
 dovTi : iroievvTi Theognis : ttolovvti Stobaeus iv, Boissonade. wepl :. /caXa Stobaeus 
 iv, Boissonade. Sidioaiv : rt'^Tjo-ij' Theognis : t/^t/ci Stobaeus iv, Boissonade. 70. 
 dya6r}v : dyadQv Stobaeus iv, Boissonade. iKKvaiv : ^k8v<tlv Stobaeus (SA), Bois- 
 sonade. 71. dvbpdai KciTat : dvdpwiroLffi. {v) Theognis, Plutarch. 72. ij/xeup : 
 TjfxCjv Tlieognis. 73. SiTrXao-^ojs : dLirXdaiov Theognis. 74. K^pded roi dv-qroU ijira- 
 <rav dddvaroi : xPVI^o-'''"- '''=' OvrjTols yiuerai dcppoavvq Tlieognis. 75. avrCjp : avT^s 
 Theognis. oirdrav : oTrore Theognis. 76. Teia-ofxivrjv : Ti.<Top.€VT]v S, Hense ("rec- 
 tiusei'*, lie says) : reipo/xewts Theognis. aXXore Theognis : &\\ot4 t S (one inferior 
 MS. has dWoT dv dXXos exet) : dWorev Hense. 
 
170 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 XLI 
 
 Stobaeus Eclonac iv 34 (irepl rov ^lov on ^payv^ ktX)^ 23 : 
 ^oXcovo'^. 
 
 XLI owSe /xa/ca/39 ouSet? TreXerat j3poT6<;^ dkXa iroviqpoi 
 
 7raz^re<?, octou? dvy]Tov<^ iJeXto? KaOopa. 
 XLII 
 
 Choi'icius ijKcofJLLov et? ^apKiavov eiriaKOwov VaCpf)'s^ A6yo<i /3 
 (ed. Boissonade, p. 107): 77} /i.e^' 7a/3 toZ? ivotfcovaiv eTrio-rarai 
 <f)€p€iv oaa TLKTOVcrtv wpat^ vwria re iraaa kol /cadeL/JievT], koI. to tov 
 
 XLII XiTrapT) KovpoTp6(\)0<;- 
 
 XLIll 
 
 Photius, s. V. 
 
 XLIII Kiy^dveiv to eTre^ievaf ovrco^ ^6\(ov. 
 
 XLIV 
 
 Photius, s.v. 
 
 XLIV pOvV TO TJSvafjLa- ^oXcov. 
 
 XLV 
 
 Diogenianus ii 99 : 
 XLV \\p^(t)v OLKove Kal 8i/catwg /caSt/co)? : 
 
 €K Td)V TOV ^6\covo<; eXejeicov TrapaiveTiKr). 
 
 XLVI 
 SchoL [Plato] de msto 374 a: WWd tol^ c5 ^wKpaTe^., ev rj 
 iraXaid TrapotfiLa €)(^€L, otl ttoWcl ■xjrevSovTac clolSoi.^ TrapotfiLa, 
 
 OTi 
 
 XLVI 77oA.Xa \\}evhovTai ololSol. 
 
 . . . ifJLVijcrOj] TavT7]<s Kal ^i\6'^opo<i iv 'At^/^o? a /cal ^oXcov 
 'E\e7€iat9 /cat UXdrojv ivTavOa. 
 
 XLI 
 
 L /xd»caps Stephanas ; /ici*cap MSS., lleiise. 7r6j'77/9ot Grotius, Hense : 7ro;/T7poi 
 (without accent) vS : irovripol M A Tr. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 171 
 
 XLI 
 
 Perfect bliss is a state denied to mortal men ; wretched are XLI 
 all they upon whom the sun looks down. 
 
 XLII 
 
 The land skilleth to bear for them who dwell therein all that 
 the seasons yield, sloping gently down, Avith smooth, wide- 
 stretching lawns, and, as Solon hath it, " an abundant nurse of XLII 
 children." 
 
 XLIV 
 
 povv : the seasoning. Solon. XLIV 
 
 XLV 
 
 " Obey the magistrates whether their commands be just or xLV 
 unjust " : a hortatory proverb from Solon's elegiacs. 
 
 XL VI 
 
 But the old proverb is a sound one, you know, Socrates, 
 that bards are guilty of many falsehoods.] Proverb: "Bards XLVI 
 are guilty of many falsehoods." ... It is quoted by Philo- 
 chorus in his History of Attica^ Bk. i, by Solon in one of his 
 elegiac poems, and by Plato here. 
 
 XLV 
 
 Testimonia. — Apostolius iv 3. Arsenius v 60. Kramer (qui incerti 
 auctoris collectionein proverbiorum Vaticanam ipsius manu descriptam ad Schei- 
 dewinum misit) ii 32. 
 
 'ApxcDi' Apostolius, Arsenius, Kramer : "Apxw;' Diogenianus. Kal 5tKaL(a% 
 KaSiKOJS : kBlv diKrj kolv jxtj blKt). 
 
 XLVI 
 
 Testimonia. — Aristotle Metaphysica i 2, 983 a, 2. Plutarch Quomodo 
 adulescens poetas audire debeat 2, 16 b. Gregorius Cyprius, Cod. Mosq. v 100, 2. 
 Macarius vii 19. Apostolius xiv 41. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 
 II. Commentary 
 
This line was often quoted, as may be seen from the number of Testi- 
 monia, and, like other famous sayings, often incorrectly. The sentiment, 
 with explicit reference to Solon, recurs in two other passages of Plato, be- 
 sides the one in which it is directly quoted. In the Laches (188 ab) Nici;is 
 expresses his opinion that the observance of Solon's principle, like the So- 
 (;ratic dialectic, tends to keep a man's mind alert : old age alone will not bring 
 wisdom. Again, in 189 a. Laches accepts the truth of Solon's words, but 
 he desires a slight amendment : yrjpdaKiov TrokXa SLSdaKeadaL lOeXm viro 
 )^7jaT(av fjLovov. Socrates himself, in the Republic (vii 536 d), denies tlic 
 truth of the words : SoAwi/i yap ov TreiaTeov to<s yijpdaKwv rt? ttoAAol Swaro? 
 fiavOdveiv, dAA' rjTTOV rj Tp£)(tLv, vuov 8k TravTC'* ot /xcyaAoi Koi ol ttoAAoi ttovol. 
 Dio Chrysostom (xviii 254 M) evidently had the words in mind when be said : 
 Kcu yap Tiou TraAatoiv ol dpKTTOL ov fiovov dKpdt,€iv fiav6dvovT€<i, oAAa Kai 
 yqpda-KCLv t<f)a(rav. Cicero {De Senectute 8, 26) puts an allusion to the saying 
 into the mouth of the elder Cato : "ut et Solonem versibus gloriantem vide- 
 mus, qui se cotidie aliquid addiscentem dicit sen em fieri, et ego feci, qui litteras 
 Graecas senex didici." Valerius Maxinuis (viii 7, 14) borrows Cicero's 
 translation with a slight variation. 
 
 8i8a(TK6p.€vo<;, which is paraphrased twice in Plato by p-avOdveiv and in 
 Cicero by ddcHscenteni, is used as in Tyrtaeus xi 27 ^i^aa KicrBui TroXep^t^eiv ; 
 Soph. A7it. 356 d(TTvv6povs 6pya<s iBiSd^aro, and Phil. 1387 BiSdaKov fiy 
 dpaa-vveadai kukoI's. The middle voice of this verb more commonly means 
 " to provide for the teaching of another." 
 
 II 
 
 The mistake referred to by Socrates (\f/ev8e6' 6 ttoltjtt^s:) would lie in say- 
 ing that a man is happy by virtue of possessing things which are not dear to 
 him. This quotation persuades Menexenus that things which are incapable 
 of returning love may still be dear. Jowett, in his translation of Plato, lias 
 misunderstood the passage and mistranslated the couplet. His translation 
 
 175 
 
176 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 runs as follows: "Or shall we say that they do love them, although they 
 are not beloved by them ; and that the poet was wrong who sings, ' Happy 
 the man to whom his children are dear, and steeds having single hoofs, and 
 dogs of the chase, and the stranger of another land.' " Tliis makes nonsense 
 of the verses : a man is happy, not because he is fond of children and horses 
 and dogs, but because he possesses them. But it is clear that both Socrates 
 and Menexenus think the verses both reasonable and true. It is hard to 
 discover what relation Jowett perceives between the quotation and Socrates' 
 rather whimsical argument ; and the matter is made still more puzzling by 
 his mistranslation of the phrase ov /x^vtol ^t'Aa ovra, " although they are not 
 beloved by them." This translation begs the question : we do not know 
 whether to. <f)i\a is equivalent to ra <f>L\ovvTa. 
 
 A correct understanding of the passage must be based upon three obser- 
 vations : (1) TO (f>LXovis a tertium quid, not identical with either to <f>LXovv 
 or TO <f>LXovfxevov ; (2) dAAa shows that the quotation is intended to give the 
 positive aspect of the negative in ov /xeVrot <^t Aa ovra, " these things are not 
 dear, hut the reverse of what the poet claims for them" ; (3) <^tAot in the 
 first line of the couplet can be naturally taken only as an attribute and not 
 as a predicate. 
 
 Hermias definitely attributes the couplet to Solon ; but he takes it in an 
 erotic sense : ws KaAov tov ipav fJLvrjfxoveveL At'ycov oA/?tos <5 TratSes ktA. Lu- 
 cian quotes the first line with a slight change which gives it a distinctly erotic 
 turn : w TratSes vc'oi kol /jnovv^^eq lttttol. But in the Li/sis there seems to be 
 no erotic implication ; indeed, the reference which Socrates makes to the love 
 of parents for their babies seems to indicate that TratSes ^tAot means a man's 
 own children. But where did the erotic notion first come from ? In the 
 second book of Theognis, among his other erotic verses, we find the follow- 
 ing (1253-6): 
 
 "OA/5io?, CO 7ralSe<; re (\>1\ol koX ficovv^^e^ Ilttttol 
 (drjpevrai re Kvve^; koI ^evot aWoBairoL. 
 
 "Oo"Tt<? ^T] Trat^a? re (f)L\€l kol ficow^^^a^ Xttttov^ 
 Kal Kvva^^ ov irore ol Ov/jlo'^ ev eix^poavvrj. 
 
 Here the second couplet makes it certain that <^t Aot in the first couplet must 
 be taken as predicate and that TratSt? are not the happy man's own children. 
 In both of these points Theognis' understanding of the words ditfers from 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 177 
 
 what may on a fair analysis be regarded as Plato's understanding of them. 
 What is the explanation ? Theognis saw the possibility of a double entendre 
 in Solon's lines, and, to bring out the vulgar sense, wrote a neat couplet 
 of his own and tacked it on to Solon's lines to make a quatrain, slurring 
 everything in the line but TraiSe? and <^lXoi in order to make his joke by 
 means of a syntactical pun. Even in this passage in Theognis, T. Hudson 
 Williams (in his commentary) insists that <^t Aot is at first naturally taken as 
 an attribute, and that it is the second couplet which gives the syntax an 
 unexpected twist. But I cannot agree with him that in Plato's quotation 
 also ^cAot is to be taken as predicate. 
 
 Heindorf 's note is as follows : " Videlicet ut exeat sententia, quam Solon 
 ne somniavit quidem, versuum horum structuram, neglecto plane sermonis 
 USU, hanc statuit : "OX/Slo^; w TratSe? re elal cfiiXoi kuI /x,(ovv;(es lttttol elal 
 cfiiXoL etc. Cuiusmodi interpretationis aliud est luculentum exemplum in 
 Alcibiad. ii 147 d, antiqui certi auctoris, licet non Platonis, libro." Ast 
 (Platons Lehen und Schriften, Leipzig, 1816, p. 432) speaks of the "uner- 
 traghche sophistische Verdrehung der so verstandlichen Solonischen Verse." 
 Stallbaum says: " Recte vero Heindorf observavit praeter mentem ipsius 
 poetae </)t Aot etiam ad lttttol et kwc? referri. . . . Talia ingeniosi vel pro- 
 tervi lusus exempla in Platonis sermonibus multa inveniuntur, ut miremur 
 Astium 1. c. p. 4.32 in ea re haesisse." 
 
 The verses could hardly have been taken in the sense advocated by 
 Steindorf without some protest from Menexenus or some indication of the 
 perversity. Furthermore, this construction of the verses is not necessary for 
 Socrates' argument, as has been shown. He is reminded of the line by his 
 own words ^lXlttttol and (^lAoKwe? and quotes it as something universally 
 believed. If a novel construction was to be put on the quotation in order 
 to make a point in the argument, we should certainly have been given some 
 warning. 
 
 2. Kwes dypevrat : the commoner word (which is used by Theognis) is 
 drjpevTat, which appears in Hom. //. xi 325 Kval OrjpevrfjaL, and xii 41 kv- 
 vco-o-t KOL avSpda-L OrjpevTrjaL. ayp(.vTrj^ is not used by Homer or Aeschylus. 
 Sophocles (Oed. Col. 1091) has tov aypevrav 'AttoAAw. In Anth. Pal. vii 
 171 ay pevToX KoAa/xot means a hunter's trap of reeds. 
 
 2. ^€vos dXAoSaTTos : oAXoSaTro? more commonly means a foreigner in a 
 foreign land. Here it is a man who, though he is at home, is a foreigner 
 
178 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 from the point of view of the writer. Cf. Horn. II. iii 48 fjLLxOeU aXXoBa- 
 TTOLai. (of Paris' sojourn among strangers in Sparta), and xix 324 (said by 
 Achilles) 6 8' dWoSaTraJ ivl Srjfxu) \ eivcKa piye&xvr}? 'EAevT^s Tpioalv TroAe/xii^w. 
 
 Ill- XI 
 
 References: Bergk (1860, 1881) ; Croiset (1903) ; Crusius (1891) ; Fracca- 
 roli (1893); Haupt (1859); Hiller (1883, 1886, 1888); Hude (1891); Jebb (1897); 
 Keil (1892); Larsen (1900); Leutsch (1872); Ludwich (1903); Lugebil (1884); 
 Murray (1889); Niemeyer (1891); Piccolommi (1892); Piatt (1896, 1898); 
 Richards (1893) ; Sitzler (1879, 1894, 1897, 1900, 1907); Stadtmuller (1882) ; 
 Wilamowitz (1893, 1902) ; Wilcken (1895); Class. Rev. (1891). 
 
 Ill — V 
 
 These three fragments are probably from the same poem, or at any rate 
 from the same group of poems, in which Solon gave expression to his views 
 concerning the causes of the desperate conditions in Athens, which he later 
 tried to remedy during his archonship. Possibly vii belongs to this group, 
 as well as xii and xviii. For the historical circumstances, see pages 40 ft". 
 Crusius thinks that v is to be taken closely with iii : " intellego res Ath- 
 eniensium dilabentes aspiciens omnium malorum quasi radices esse avaritiam 
 et superbiam." This is unlikely because, according to Aristotle, Solon says 
 that he fears these things. It is a mere guess without any real support, 
 
 III 
 
 There is a slight anacoluthon in these linos : the participle iaopiov is 
 attached in sense to Kat fxoL ^pcvo^ evSoOtv dA.yca KelraL ; in construction to 
 yiyvwa-Kii), which fixes the subject of the sentence as the first person. The 
 turn which the sentence takes sets off yiyvduTKoi and gives it a certain 
 solemnity as of a warning or a threat. 
 
 1. dXyea keltixl : cf. Hom. //, xxiv b'1'1 oAA' aye 8ry kit ap' €^ev eVt 
 Opovov, aXyea 8' ifX7rr)<i \ iv dvpa^ KaraKO-crOia earro/xci/ d;^i/uyaei/o( Trep. 
 
 2. Thucydides (i 2 and 12) speaks of Atlicns as the mother-state of the 
 lonians in Asia Minor and the Aegean islands. In Homer also (//, xiii 685) 
 the Athenians are called 'Idoi/e?. Cf, Keil (1892, p. 39, footnote 1): "Die 
 Worte dieser Eiegie . . . sind iibrigens eine recht erhclJiche Instanz 
 gegen die Annahme, dass die Athener erst im 5. Jahrh. infolge des 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 179 
 
 Bundesreiches die ioiiischc Dodekapolis als airoLKM Athens beanspnicht 
 hatten. So alt wie die fx-qxpoiroXi^ lainn kciiie awoiKia sein ; sie ist die 
 TrpecrySiTciTT;. " 
 
 3. yalav . . . KXivojxivqv : a rather violent figure to express the decline 
 of the fortunes of a state ; " urbs inelinari potest," says Blass, "non terra 
 item." But he himself compares Aesch. Fers. 929 f., 'Ao-ta 8e ;(^o>v . . . 
 €7rt yovv KeK^LTai. 
 
 IV 
 
 In these lines Solon has the quality of ficyaXofjipoa-vvr] in mind. The 
 rich and successful persons in the state are men who form large plans and 
 have the ability to carry them through (fxiyav voov), who are energetic and 
 aggressive (Kaprepbv yrop). Such persons are admirable except when they 
 exercise no restraint over their powers. 
 
 1. ■^(Tvxd(TavT€<s : this verb, normally intransitive, is transitive in tliis 
 tense alone, says Sandys, comparing Plato Bep. 572 a : ■^avxdaa'; fiev tw Svo 
 elSr}, TO TpiTov h\ Kivr^cra?. 
 
 2. Cf. Tyrtaeus xi 10 (Bergk) afX(^orip(jiv 8' €t? Kopov ^Aacrare ; Her. ii 
 124 es Tracrav KaKorrjra eAao-a?. 
 
 '^. iv fierpLOLaL TLOeaOe fxiyav voov : there seems to be no exact parallel 
 to tliis. The general sense is clear, but it is by no means certain what 
 should be done with TcOeo-Oe. (1) It may be used in its fundamental sense, 
 '•put," "place," "put your mind in moderate affairs," i.e., "confine your 
 mind, etc." The figure, however, seems rather violent. (2) It may have a 
 suggestion of the idiom ttoAc/xov TiSea-Oai, the emphasis being upon fxiyav. 
 Cf. Plat. Menex. 243 e rov re 7rpo5 rov^ iv 'EAevcrivt ttoAc/xov 0)5 /xcT/otw? 
 iOevTo. "In temperate ways calm the tumult of your ambition." But 
 neither of these parallels is decisive for the interpretation of the present 
 passage. 
 
 4. dpria : a favorite word with Solon ; found also in vii 4, xii 32, 39. It 
 appears to have a meaning something like that of vyn^<; in its figurative 
 senses. 
 
 V 
 
 If Plutarch (Sol. xiv 2) is thinking of the same poem from which Aris- 
 totle is quoting, his words would imply that Solon had already been thinking 
 of the office of dictator before composing the poem and that he was personally 
 
ISO SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 afraid of the rich. Aristotle seems to think he was afraid of the rich as per- 
 sons dangerous to the public welfare. Aristotle uses the quotation as proof 
 that Solon blamed the rich entirely for the civil disorder ; Plutarch thinks it 
 is an indication of Solon's reluctance to accept the office. Aristotle takes 
 both cf)t.XapyvpLav and vTrepr)<t>avLav as qualities of the rich ; Plutarch accuses 
 the rich of <j>L\oxpr}iJMTLav and the poor of v7r€p7}<f>avLav. In this probably 
 Aristotle is right, because Solon recognized the V7reprj<l>avtav of the lower 
 classes only after his legislation had been adopted. On this fragment, see 
 Wilamowitz (1893, I, 303, footnote 22). 
 
 VI 
 
 This fragment belongs to one of the group of apologetic poems composed 
 after the archonship. For the circumstances see pages 91 ff. 
 
 1 . ycpa? : properly a special privilege conferred upon a king or a noble : 
 Hom. 0(L vii 1 50 yepa? $' 6 tl Syj/jlo^ cScukcv ; Thuc. i 1 3 irporepov 8* -^(Tav 
 iirl pyjt6l<: yipaa-L Trarpt/cat /BaatXelaL. Solon speaks of the rights of the 
 people as a ye'pas bestowed by the lawgiver, ri/otrj in the next line means 
 practically the same thing. Both words are used collectively. 
 
 2. eTTope^a/zevos : the active appears in Hom. //. v 225 et Trep av avre \ 
 Ztvs iirl TvSdSr] AiofxySt'C kvSos op^irj', the middle commonly means "stretch 
 out towards," "reach for." 
 
 4. The infinitive with icfypaa-d/jirjv in the sense of " plan " or " contrive" 
 is found also in Hom. II. ix 347 oAA', ' OSvcrev, avv aot re kol aWota-tv y8a(ri- 
 XevaL I (ftpa^ia-Od) vT^eacnv aXe^efxevaL Srj'iov irvp. The commoner construc- 
 tion is oTTOJs with the future indicative. 
 
 5. Solon's figure is a little vague. He represents himself as offering to 
 both parties the protection of the same shield. This could only be protection 
 against outsiders. But what Solon evidently intends to express is that his 
 laws are for the common service of both parties and make it impossible for 
 either one to take an unfair advantage of the other. There is no thought of 
 danger from the outside, but true harmony within the state is best displayed 
 by presenting a united front to external aggression. 
 
 VII 
 
 These lines might have been written either before or after the archonship. 
 But the fact that they are quoted by Aristotle in immediate connection with 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 181 
 
 \i and viii, which unquestionably were composed after the archonship, 
 makes it likely that they too belong to the later group. Besides, they seem 
 to have been written at a time when Solon was no longer disposed to hold 
 the rich responsible for all that was wrong. The passage is an indication 
 of astonishing moderation in the popular reformer. Previously the leaders 
 of the state had forced the people to do their will ; it would have been 
 natural for the reformer to go to the other extreme and give the people un- 
 due power, but Solon here points out the danger of putting unlimited power 
 in irresponsible hands. 
 
 2. That Solon felt the first of these two warnings to be rather more 
 important than the other is shown by the trend of the next two lines. 
 
 3 f. This idea, in the same or similar words, may have been proverbial 
 even before Solon, as it surely was aftei'ward (see the passage in Clement 
 referred to in the Testimonia). The scholiast on Pindar, in quoting the 
 line, refers it to Homer. Diogenes Laertius (i 59) quotes, among tlie 
 apophthegms attributed to Solon, the following : koI tov /xkv Kopov vtto tov 
 ttXovtov yevvaaOaL, rrjv Sc v^piv vtto tov Kopov. 
 
 4. dpTLo<i : see note on iv 4. ocots v6o<s dpTLo<i y ^ rot? dpTi<\>pocriv = 
 TOtS a-(i)cf>po(TLv. 
 
 VIII 
 
 These trochaics and the two other trochaic fragments, xxi and xxii, may 
 belong to the same poem. They are all in defense of Solon's refusal to deal 
 with the political situation in a more high-handed and arbitrary manner. 
 
 1. i<f}* dpTrayrj avvrjXdov: for €<^' dpTrayfj cf xii 13; Her. i 68 iirl 
 KttKw ; iv 164 €771 SLa4>0oprj. The plural, e<^' d/jTrayat?, which is probably 
 the reading of the papyrus, is not satisfactory. For (rvvrjXOov, cf. iwyyayov 
 in ix 1 ; both verbs seem to refer to some united action on the part of the 
 common people under the leadership of Solon. 
 
 1. Bucherer says : " d<t>vedv, reiche HofFnung, d. h. Hoffnung auf Reich- 
 tum." This is surely wrong. 
 
 3. KWTtWovTa Xeto)? : cf. Theogn. 852 6<s tov kTa\pov | fxaXOaKo. kcdti'AAojv 
 c^aTTttTar e^cXct. 
 
 5. koiov 64>6aXp.ol<i 6pu)(n: cf. Anacreon 79 (Bergk) TrcoAe ®pr)KLr], tl hrj 
 /xe Xoiov 6fXfxa(TLu ySAcTrovcra | VT/Xeois (f)€vyus, SoKCts Se fi ovSev clSevaL 
 (TO^ov ; 
 
182 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 IX 
 
 For the subject of this poem see p. 11 4 f. It is possible that ix, x, and 
 xi all belong to the same poem. 
 
 In 1880 two sheets of papyrus were discovered, containing, on both sides 
 of both sheets, what are now known to be four fragments of Aristotle's 
 Constitution of A thens. These sheets are now in Berlin. One of the four 
 pages contains the greater part of the present poem, as it was already known 
 from the oration of Aristides. There was some uncertainty at first in 
 identifying the four fragments, and it is not necessary now, since the dis- 
 covery of the London papyrus, to recall the philological ingenuity which was 
 displayed in the criticism of these slight forerunners. One observation made 
 by Bergk, however, should not be overlooked. Writing in 1881, he ex- 
 pressed the opinion that in so condensed a work as the Constitution of 
 Athens Aristotle would not have given a whole page to a citation from 
 Solon's poems, and that the citation must have been introduced by a later 
 reader in support of Aristotle's statements. This opinion is not disproved 
 by the fact that the same citation appears in the London papyrus, but it is 
 rendered more improbable. Perhaps it would be more reasonable to infer 
 that Aristotle set an extraordinarily high value on Solon's poems as histor- 
 ical documents, since he was willing to include so many extracts from them 
 in so brief a work. 
 
 In the translation of the words of Aristotle which are introductory to 
 ix, I have employed Professor Perrin's happy rendering of o-cLaaxOaay "dis- 
 burdenment," for which I express obligation. 
 
 1 f These two lines have been a battle ground of conjecture. The 
 chief difficulty lies in the last word of vs. 1, where the reading of the pa- 
 pyrus is not absolutely certain. Kenyon read a^ovrjXaTov ; Blass, i[v^vrjya- 
 yov ; Wilcken (1895) says $vv^yayov is " unzvveifelhaft." Buchholtz-Pcpp- 
 miiller adopt the reading of Wilamowitz-Kaibel's second edition of the Con- 
 stitution of AthenSy though the latter editors did not retain it in their third 
 edition : 
 
 iyo) Se TOiv /jlcv eiveic a^ovrjXarcov 
 Srj/jLov Tt TOVTCOP TTplv TV')(^6LP, eTravcrd/jirjv^ 
 avfjLfiapTvpoLjj ktX. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 183 
 
 The best defense of this is given by Wilamowitz (1893, II, 310) : " Wes- 
 wegen ich, als ich den wagen des staates lenkte, aufgehort habe, ehe der 
 demos etvvas hiervon bekam, das soil mir vor dem richterstuhle der ewigkeit 
 die mutter Erde bezeugeu ; " to which is added in a footnote, " Der auf bau 
 der gedanken wird durch die paraphrase deutUch ; aiov-qXaretv wird 
 nicht bezweifeln, wer Kivrpov Xa^^v am schhisse dieser gedankenreihe 
 20 beachtet." 
 
 Since it is now generally admitted that d^'ovr/Aaroi/ is not the actual 
 reading of the papyrus, it seems hardly reasonable to maintain unnecessarily 
 in the text a reading like a^oi/i/Aarcov which manifestly is now no better 
 than a conjectural emendation. The verb docs not, I believe, exist else- 
 where. Furthermore, Jebb points out that the first two verses probably do 
 not belong to the same sentence as avfji/jLapTvpotr), because Aristides begins 
 his quotation with a-v/jL/jLapTvpotr]. 
 
 Hiller-Crusius adopt a suggestion of Wessely which ingeniously combines 
 the figure of the chariot with the sounder reading : 
 
 iyo) Be Tcov fxev ovveic a^ov rj'ya'yov^ 
 Brjfiop TL TOVTcov irpXv rv^elv iiravad/JLyv. 
 
 It will be observed that the change from ovvcKa ^wryyayov to Wessely's 
 reading involves a change of only one letter, the one given doubtfully by 
 Blass as v. 
 
 Crusius' translation is as follows : "Ego vero earum rerum quarum causa 
 currum mihi vexerant priusquam aliquid plebs adepta esset, iugum retinui." 
 This becomes properly intelligible only if we suppose, with Crusius, that the 
 thought in the lines which immediately preceded vs. 1 of the present frag- 
 ment ran as follows : " Etiam in aliis urbibus fuere qui plebem e miseria et 
 servitute servarent, sed iidem rerum potiti optimates e terra eiecerunt atque, 
 quo magis volgus novae rerum condicioni addictum esset, bona et praedia 
 exulum sectatoribus distribuerunt." 
 
 The difficulties in this reading are : (1) It is not clear what Wessely 
 takes as subject of yjyayov. That it is to be regarded as a third person 
 plural is clear from Crusius' translation vexerant. But who are these persons, 
 the plebs or the optimates ? Furthermore, what does the phrase really mean ? 
 So far as I know, it is unparalleled. (2) It is very uncertain what is to be 
 proved by the testimony of Mother Earth. Crusius says: ''a-v/xpxipTvpotr] 
 
184 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 kt\. cum versibus 1. 2 iion tam apte coniuncta esse, sed ad uiiiversum 
 poematii exordium spectare crediderim." This is an entirely safe opinion 
 since we know nothing of the exordium of the poem ; but it does not seem 
 likely that Aristotle would have made so mutilated a quotation as such a 
 supposition would involve. 
 
 Blass prints the two lines as follows : 
 
 ijo) Be TO)v fxev ovveKa ^[y'^vq^a'yov 
 Br)/jLov, tl; tovtcov irplv rv^elv iTravad/jirjv ; 
 
 This form of question, implying the answer " No," fits the context admir- 
 ably ; and the testimony of the earth is very naturally invoked to prove that 
 Solon had not stopped with his w^ork undone. But I cannot venture to ac- 
 cept the rhetorical tl, wiiich though Blass supports it by Dem. xx 160, seems 
 to me to have little probability. 
 
 The reading that I have adopted is the same as that given by Sandys in 
 his edition of the Constitution of Athens. The question propounded in the 
 two lines is supposed to have been asked by some critical opponent of Solon's 
 policy ; Solon states the question in half indirect form ; then, instead of 
 answering directly, he invites the attention of his critic to the real accom- 
 plishments of his administration. " You ask me why I did not finish my 
 task. I cannot tell you why I did not finish, because I maintain that I 
 did." Sitzler recognizes this as the most probable reading and interpretation 
 of the passage. 
 
 Many emendations have been proposed, in almost every syllable of the 
 two lines, most of which may be found in Sitzler (1894). 
 
 1. €ya> Se: it is of course impossible to say what the antitheton to eyto 
 was. When a man is surrounded by opponents as Solon was, there were 
 many opportunities for antithesis. Crusius supposes that the contrast was 
 between Solon and the popular reformers in other states, which is merely an 
 unsupported guess. 
 
 1. Ta)v fxkv ovvcKa ^vvyyayov Brjfxov : tliis first element of an antithesis 
 is resumed in VSS. 15-17, ravra fxkv . . . l/oc^a kol SLrjXOov ws VTreaxofxrjv 
 and the contrast appears in vs. 18, dea-fjiov^ 8' 6fxoL(D<i kt\. The arbitrary 
 measures for popular relief w^ere extra-legal and preceded the establishment 
 of the Solonian constitution. 
 
 1 f. ^fVT/yayoi/ 8^/xov : Sandys offers two interpretations for this phrase : 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 185 
 
 " I formed the popular party, or (less probably) gathered the people into 
 one (by healing the divisions which separated the various orders in the state)." 
 Undoubtedly the former is right. Cf. crvvrjXOov in viii 1. Piatt quotes 
 aptly Aristotle Pol. iii, 1 285 b : 8ta yap to tov^ 7rpu)Tov<; yev^aOat tov ttXtj- 
 Bov<i cvepyera? Kara Ti')(ya<i rj ttoAc/xov, 17 8ta to crvvayayeLV rj TroptcraL )((jt)pav, 
 iytvovTO ^ao-tXei? €k6vt(i)v koL toi? TrapaXafx/SavovaL Trarpiot (referring to the 
 monarchy in the heroic age). 
 
 2. The question in this line is supposed to be repeated by Solon after 
 one of his critical opponents who was dissatisfied with his policy, rt, 
 "why," is to be construed with iTravadfxrjv and tovVwv with ruxctv. Bu- 
 cherer's interpretation is manifestly impossible : " Bevor ich welches von 
 den Zielen, derentwegen ich das Volk um mich scharte, erreicht hatte, horte 
 ichauf?" 
 
 3. avfjiixapTvpoL-q: "in addition to my own arguments in justification of 
 myself, I appeal also to the corroborative testimony of the earth " — the 
 italicized words show the force of o-v/x-. Xenophon may have had this 
 passage in mind when he wrote Hell, iii 3, 2 a-vvefxapTvprja-e Sk tuvt avroJ 
 Kttt 6 aX7]6i<JTaToq Acyd/xevos xpovo^ etvai (quoted by Sandys). 
 
 3. TavTa : the truth about the matters raised by your question. 
 
 3. iv Slkyj )(p6vov : several attempts have been made to amend this 
 phrase, but there is no need of altering it. The figure is not impossible for 
 Solon, The virtue of Solon's policy will not be appreciated until some time 
 has elapsed to watch its operation ; therefore time sits in judgment and ren- 
 ders a just verdict. The " bar of history " is a slightly different conception. 
 Peppmiiller compares Pindar frag. 159 (Bergk) dvSptuv SiKatwv xp'^yo<; a-wTrjp 
 apL(TTo<;, and Soph. Oed. Tyr. 614 ;(pdvos StVaiov avSpa Stt^Kvucriv fx6vo<i. To 
 which Jebb (on Oed. Tyr. loc. cit.) adds Pindar 01. x 53 d r' liiKky^inv 
 fx6vo<i aXdOeiav iTrjTvpiov xp^vo^- ^f- ^1^0 the passage from Xenophon just 
 quoted. 
 
 4. The genitive Sat/xdi/cov is taken more naturally with p-rJTTjp than with 
 /xeyto-Tiy. Schneidewin reads Kpdvov for xpovov in vs. 3 and punctuates as 
 follows : Kpdvov fjn^T-qp, fxeytcTTr) 8at/xdva)v 'OXvfXTrtoyv, dpLCTTa, Vrj /xcAatva. 
 But xpovov is not to be rejected, and without Kpdi/ov, the comma after p-rJT-qp 
 is certainly impossible. 
 
 4 ff". Here, as elsewhere, Ge is not thought of as the personality of the 
 whole round earth, but is the earth as conceived by a resident of Attica. 
 
18G SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 The stone tablets set in the soil of Attica had enslaved Earth herself. A 
 very interesting expression of tlie same sentiment is found in Plato Laws 
 740 a (quoted by Sandys) : Set tov Xa-^ovra rrjv Xtj^lv ravrrjv vofX'Xeiv fxev 
 KOLvr]V avTTjV Trj<i TToAeojs ^v/x7racr7;s, TrarptSos Sc ojar]<; Trj<; ^wpa<; OepaTrevuv 
 avT^jv Set /xet^dvtos y {xyrepa Tra.Oas, rco /cat SecTTrotvav Oeov avrrjv ovaav 
 OvrjrZv ovTwv yeyovevai. 
 
 4. The i)lirase /J-rjTrjp /xey^aTrj SaL/xoywv ^OXvfXTrLwv is a curious one for 
 several reasons : the use of the superlative fxeytuT-q with p^yrrjp is somewhat 
 illogical, though exactly parallel to the epistolary " My dearest mother " ; Ge 
 u not oi'ivn spoken of as the mother of tlie gods ; she is never, so far as I 
 know, called the mother of the Olympians. 
 
 In He.siod's theoretical cosmogony (Theog. 116 ff.), she is represented as 
 the mother, not only of the gods, but of all things living ; and in the follow- 
 ing passages also, she appears as the mother of the gods : Horn. Hymn xxx 
 (ets r.^j/ fxrjTcpa TravTUiv) 1 f. Ta'ai/ TTJLfXfxrjTUpnv det'cro/xat yvOlfxcOXov | irpccr- 
 fiia-Trjv, T] cfyepfSet i . t )(Oovl irduO bnoa iarcv ; 1 7 ;( ape, BeCov fxrjTrjp, a\n^' 
 Ovpavov arrepozi/Tos. Eur. frag. Chrysipp. 836 Fata /ley larrj ku Ato? PdOiqp, 
 6 fxkv av^pJiTTiiiv Kat ^ea>v yzvlroip, rj ovypo^oXov^ urayov ii votui^ irapaht^a.- 
 fiivrf TiKTCL 0v^TOV3, TLKTCi Sc ftopoLV cfivXd T€ drfpijiv 69 v ovK dStKux; p.rjTrip 
 TTonfToyv vevofxiaTUL. " Die Gottermutter ist far Solon die Erde, dem alten 
 Glauben und Kulte gemass ; die Gleichsetzung dieser hellenischen fJiijT-qp 
 Oeoju mit der phrygischcn Kybele, der magna mater, hat er noch nicht 
 geknnnt. Die Person ist ihm aber von ihrem Elemente noch durchaus nicht 
 getrennt : wenn ct aus der fJ-r'/Trjp fxeyio-Tr) Hypothekensteine zieht, ist das 
 keine kiinstUclie Redefigur, wie bei romischen Dichtern, sondern die Erde, in 
 der die Steine stecken, ist wirklich der Leib der Gottin, die ja die Seele 
 dieser Erde ist " (Wilamowitz). 
 
 6 f. Plutarch (Sol. xv 5) introduces his quotati(m of these two lines 
 with these words : (Te/xyvvcTaL yap 2oA.coi/ iv TovTOL<i art Trj<; re TrpovTroKei/xevrjq 
 y"}? opou9 dj/e"A.e ktX., "for Solon boasts, in his poems, of having removed 
 the stone tablets from the laml which had previously been mortgaged." 
 
 6. For opovs, see pp. 62 f. 
 
 8. The change from the conception of Mother Earth in vss. 4-7 to that 
 of the fatherland in the present verse is no less striking than the same change 
 in the Platonic passage quoted on vs. 4 above. 
 
 8. Cf. Soph. Electr. 707 *A6r}vu)v twv ^coS/xtJtwv. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 187 
 
 9. Cf. xii 23 ff. 
 
 9. cKStKoos and StKatws are here used with reminiscence of the primitive 
 meaning of Slkt], the custom of the community. They mean, therefore, 
 "legally" and "illegally," not "deservedly" and "undeservedly." Solon 
 does not express an opinion through these words concerning the absolute 
 justice or injustice of selling men into slavery for debt. 
 
 10 f. Cf. Horn. IL viii 56 f. fxe/xaaav Sk kol ws vafxlvi [xa)(€.adaL, | )(^p€Lo2 
 avayKatrj, irpo re TraiBiov kol 7rp6 ywaiKojv. " Inde lonisinms," says Blass. 
 
 11 if. Plutarch introduces his quotation of vss. 11-14 as follows : kol 
 Ttov dyioycixoiv Trpos apyvpLov yeyovoTcov TroAtrcov tov<; /xkv dv^yayev (xtto ^eVrys 
 ktA., " of the citizens who had been enslaved for debt, some he brought back 
 from abroad, etc." 
 
 12. ws av TToXXaxfj 7rAava)/u,ej/ovs : "a thing which might well happen in 
 the case of persons w^ho had traveled much;" cf. Lucian Charon 1, 488 
 Seti^ets CKaora o)? av et8aj9 aTravra, and Plut. Cat. Mai. 4 Trptaa-OaL . . . 
 <i)S av Seoficvo^. 
 
 14. Ty^r; SecnroTCyv TpofX£vixivov<; : these words describe a condition which 
 would appear especially deplorable to the mind of Solon whose guiding prin- 
 ciple was that human rights and human liberty should be safeguarded by 
 just and impartial laws. 
 
 15. ravTa jxiv resumes the antithesis instituted in vs. 1 twv fxlv ovvtKa 
 ^vvriyayov, which is complete in vs. 18 with 6ta-ixov<i 8e. See note on vs. 1. 
 
 16. ^L-qv re koX Slkyjv : (Sirjv repeats the idea of KpareL, and the line is an 
 apology of the lawgiver for resorting to force at all ; ordinarily a tiling done 
 ^io. is not done St'/cr;, but Solon had united the two antagonistic principles, 
 and since he acted in accordance with justice, he could not be blamed if he 
 used force at the same time. 
 
 17. The same assertion is made in viii 6. 
 
 17. SltjXOov : " I finished my course." Bergksaid that SlyjXOov cslr only 
 be a synonym of ipe^a and that this is a meaning foreign to the word ; he 
 therefore read Sirjvva. But SlyjXOov need not be a synonym of cpe^a. In the 
 sentence ravra fxev Kparet . . . epe^a, Kparei contains the important idea ; 
 the method of his achievement, rather than the achievement itself, is em- 
 phasized. But epeia, standing at the beginning of its line, wins a secondary 
 emphasis for the idea of thoroughness in achievement, which is then made 
 more explicit by the words BLrjXOov ws viredyofx-qv. ipeia and SlyjXOov are not 
 
188 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 a pair of synonyms, tpe^a is transitive, SirjXOov intransitive ; and there is a 
 slight pause after tpe^a. 
 
 18. Oea-fjiov^ : Andocides {de myst. 81) calls the laws of Draco ^ecr/xovs 
 and those of Solon voixov^ (xPW^"^^ '^^^'^ 2dAcoi/os vo/tots kol ApaKovro? 
 Oeafxols:). In Aristotle Const, of Athens iv 1 we find ApaKwi/ roi;? ^ecr/xov? 
 iOrjKev ; and Aelian ( V. H. viii 10) says the laws of Draco were called OeaiJioi 
 But Solon uses the word Oeaixov<; of his ow^n law^s, not only here, but even in 
 one of the laws attributed to him (Plut. Sol. xix 3 ore Oe(jfx6<; i<f>dvr) oSe). 
 In the common Greek usage, Oea-fxoL were ancient laws which were supposed 
 to be sanctioned by the gods. 
 
 18. TO) /cttKO) Tc KayaO(^ : manifestly the difference between the two 
 classes is social and political, not moral. Such language is natural in the 
 mouth of a Tory like Theognis, but sounds strange when coming from an 
 impartial lawgiver like Solon. But the use is common enough in Greek, and 
 it is sufficient to quote Horn. Od. iv 64 dXX' dvS/ocov yeVo? iare 8torpe<^eW 
 jiafTiXrjoiv I aK-q'jrTov')((biv, CTret ov k€ KaKol TOLovaSe rcKOtev ; and Soph. Oed. 
 Tyr. 1063 av fxkv yap ovS' iav TpiTr]<; eyw | ixTjTp6<; ^av(o Tpt8ouA.09 cK^avct 
 Ktt/cr; ; 1397 vvv yap KaK6<i t oiv kolk KaKcov cvpiCTKopuai. 
 
 19. evOelav eis iKacrrov a.pfx6<Ta<i Slktjv : there is something Sophoclean in 
 the intricate suggestiveness of this line, which uses old phrases in new ways. 
 The key to the correct interpretation is to be found in the political change 
 from unconstitutional oligarchy to constitutional democracy. In Hesiod 
 (IF. and D. 225, 226) we find the operation of the former type of govern- 
 ment : or 8€ SiKttS ietvoLo-i Kal ivSrj/xoLaL 8i8ot'(rtv | Weta^ Kal fxrj tl TrapeKfiai- 
 vov(TL Slkollov, | TOL(rL TeOr]\€ ttoXls, Xaol 8' avOevaLv iv avrfj. 
 
 In such a polity as this, all disputes are brought before the /Jao-tActs who 
 judge them on their merits (8tKa5 lOeias — or o-KoXta? — SlSovo-lv). Now 
 when Solon came to write this present line, he was confronted by a new po- 
 litical condition : disputes were now to be settled, not by the personal decision 
 of a magistrate, but in accordance with the written law. He had to write, 
 therefore, not evOeLaq SUas, but tvOctav Slktjv, not "just decisions," but "im- 
 partial justice." Solon, being a legislator and not a judge, substitutes the 
 abstract singular Slktjv for the concrete plural 8i'Ka9. Very good ; but what 
 verb can he use with cvOelav hUiqv in this new sense ? The /JaaiActs gave 
 decisions : what did Solon do ? He created a flexible instrument which 
 could be trusted to provide just decisions on all occasions for all kinds of 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 189 
 
 people. So with a flash of literary skill, he uses the word dp/xdo-tts to indi- 
 cate the adaptability of the new constitution to its multifarious purposes. In 
 the end he has produced a line of real distinction, which is none the worse for 
 the touch of paradox given by the rather sinister phrase dpix6aa<; SU-qv, which, 
 if the reader happens to think of it, will sound like manipulating justice. 
 The translation given by L. and S. (s.v. d/o/xd^w) is certainly wrong: "dp/x. 
 BiKrjv eU TLva to bring judgment upon him." The passage in Hesiod quoted 
 above disproves it, as do also the following : xii 36 evOvvet Sc/cas aKoXids ; 
 Pindar F. iv 153 (Christ) evOwe Aaois Si'/cas ; Aesch. Uu77i. 433 Kp2ve 8' 
 evOeTav Slktjv ; and the word evOvSLKca. Wilamowitz is also surely wrong when 
 he saj^s (1902) that evOelav Slktjv dp^Lidora? is a figure from the plumb line. 
 
 20. Solon had the same power over the people that a driver with a goad 
 in his hand has over his animals ; but it was his duty to use the curb quite 
 as much as to ply the lash. 
 
 20. KivTpov : cf. Soph. frag. 683 (Pearson) Xa^wv \ -n-avovpya. xepcrti' 
 K€VTpa KTjScveL ttoXlv. 
 
 21. KaKocfipaBrj<: : "wrong-minded"; if intentionally, "malignant," 
 "unscrupulous"; if unintentionally, "ill-advised," "foolish." Here, as in 
 the one Homeric passage where the word appears (11. xxiii 483), it has the 
 former meaning. 
 
 22 ff. In Aristides' quotation of this fragment, there is a break after 
 the words ovk av Kario-^e SrjiJiov. But after the brief remark, elra tC cft-qcnv 6 
 SoAo)!/, he gives the rest of the quotation, ei yap rjOeXov ktX. Bergk prints 
 this latter part ei yap rjOeXov . . . iaTpdcfirjv Xvko<; as a separate fragment, 
 and attaches to tlie longer fragment in Aristides the two lines which are 
 found in Plut. Sol. xvi 2 ( = xi 1 f.) The arrangement of the verses in 
 Aristotle makes it certain that Bergk was wrong, and we may be fairly sure 
 that the succession as given in Aristotle is correct. Piatt, however, insists 
 on a lacuna between ovk av Kareax^ Syj/xov and el yap rjOeXov. But this is 
 unnecessary. Solon says : " I drew up impartial laws. Any other man, 
 holding such power as I held, would have favored the S^/xos, and would have 
 failed to exercise any check upon their passions, which would have gone to 
 great lengths. For partiality to either side, in his case as in mine, would 
 have cost the city many lives." yap means: "I know what would have 
 happened in his case, because I know what would have happened if I had 
 acted in a similar fashion." 
 
190 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 22 ff. The interpretation of these verses has given rise to considerable 
 discussion and to several attempts at emendation. The real difficulty lies 
 in the two questions : who were to2<s ivavTioLaiv ? and when was totc ? ot 
 ivavTLoi I take to be the aristocrats who opposed Solon's policies, rore was the 
 period during which Solon's reformatory measures were introduced and his 
 constitution adopted. V. 23 is in the nature of an afterthought, and refers 
 to the opposition which Solon met throughout his career from both parties : 
 Toio-tv are the aristocrats ; ovrepoL, the popular party. "If I had consented 
 to the course which my opponents favored at that time, or if tliereafter I had 
 consented to the treatment which their opponents were always planning for 
 them, etc." This is also Bucherer's view, who says : " Und dann wieder, 
 was die anderen (ovrepoi = oi erepoi), die extreme Volkspartei, gegen diese, 
 die Regierenden, jedesmal ins Werk setzen w^ollten." For the use of rjOeXov 
 with an accusative, which Piatt says is impossible, cf. Thuc. v 50, 2 <Ls Sk 
 ovSk Tavra rjOeXov, where the accusative as in Solon is a neuter plural. The 
 optative (jipaaataTo, making a conditional relative clause of the past general 
 type, is highly appropriate : the pressure from the aristocratic party came at 
 only one time, but wdien Solon was once established as the champion of the 
 popular party, he must have been called upon frequently to say "no " to the 
 vindictive demands of his constituents. 
 
 25. Cf, Herodotus vi 83 "Apyo? drSpcoi/ i-^rjpwOr]. 
 
 26. AXkyjv TrdvroOcv Troteu/xcvo? : " putting forth my strength to defend 
 myself against attacks from all quarters." Such periphrases with the middle 
 TTOLela-Oat are very common. Cf. Soph. Oed. Col. 459 eav yap v/xetsr, tS leVot, 
 OeXrjO ofxov | 7rpoaT(XTL(n rat? cre^vatcrt 8r;^ov^ot? ^eats | olXkjjv Troiua-Oai (to 
 succor the stranger). Peppmiiller's interpretation is different : " Um dro- 
 henden imieren Krieges willen nahm Solon die Hilfe, wo sie sich ihm zu 
 zeigen schien." But olXky^v iroidaOat surely cannot mean "seek aid" ; and, 
 furthermore, the comparison in the last line shows that Solon could not 
 rely for aid upon anyone but himself. 
 
 26. Cf. vi i) ta-TrjV 8' d/jicfyLlSaXiov Kparepov (rdKO<; dfxc^oTepoLaiv. 
 
 27. iv Kvalv . . . iarpdcfyrjv: cf. Hom. //. xii 43 tj/ t£ Kvvcaa-t . . . 
 KaTTpto? y/k Xioiv crr/je'c^erat. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 191 
 
 See the introductory note on ix. 
 
 1. 8>;/xa): given an emphatic position as the true subject of etSov in con- 
 trast to oo-ot yaet^ous kol jSiav d/xetVoves, but attracted into the dative with 
 ovsiSi'rrai and so made grammatically a part of the rhetorical parenthesis. 
 
 1. SiaffxiBrjv: this word is found also in Pollux ii 129, and, in the form 
 8ta<^a8av. in Alcman v 56 (Hiller-Crusius). 
 
 2 f. Evidently an allusion to the clairvoyant power of the mind in 
 sleep. Cf. Aesch. Eum. 104 f. (.v^ovcra yap <f>pr]v ofXfJuiaLv XafXTrpvveraL, | 
 iv rjP'^p'i Se fjiolp' air p6a-KOTro<i (Spordv. On this passage in Aeschylus, the 
 scholiast says : iv tS KaOevSeLv 6 vovs aKpifSicrTCpov opa, pi] TrapaTrAavoo/xcvos 
 T^7 6ea. Pindar (frag. 131) expresses a similar thought: euSet 8e irpaaa-ov- 
 Twv p-cXioiv' arap evSovTCo-an^ iv ttoXXols 6vupoi<s Sukvvctl repTruiov i<f>ipTroL<Tav 
 XaAeTToji/ T£ Kpi(Tiv ; and Cicero (de div. i 30, 63) : " cum ergo est somno 
 s?v()catus animus a societate et a contagione corporis, tuni meminit praeteri- 
 torum, praesentia cernit, futura providet ; iacet enim corpus dormientis ut 
 mortui, viget autem et vivit animus." In Dem. F. L. 275 (quoted by 
 Sandys) a /xr;8' ovap rjXTnadv TrcoTrore, the word for " dream " appears, but in 
 Solon nothing is said about dreams. 
 
 3 f. Two explanations are offered for the incomplete line. Crusius, 
 evidently thinking that the second half of the line has been lost in trans- 
 mission, proposes to restore it by writing iv ttJAt/o-' oveLpaToiv, a phrase which 
 is paralleled in Hom. Od. iv 809 and Babrius fab. 30, 8. Kenyon thinks 
 that Aristotle broke off his quotation with ei;8oi/res elSov, and that vs. 4 did 
 not follow immediately after vs. 3 in Solon's poem. Now, though the phrase 
 proposed by Crusius is quite possible, it seems equally strange that Aristotle 
 should have failed to quote these words if they were in the original poem, 
 and that a scribe should have lost them in copying. On the other hand, 
 Kenyon's proposal is both plausible in itself and at the same time relieves 
 the awkwardness of the optative aivo2ev av succeeding the indicative et8ov av. 
 If the verbs follow one another closely as they are given in the quotation, 
 then it seems impossible not to take alvolev av as parallel to elBov av, the 
 two things which would have happened if Solon had not been strictly im- 
 partial. This use of the potential optative is not uncommon in Homer, but 
 Monro {Horn. Gram. p. 273) says it is confined to Homer. It would not 
 
192 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 be impossible, I think, in Solon, and the sequence of elSov av . . . mvotcv 
 dv is not absolutely intolerable. But the whole difficuity disappears if we 
 accept Kenyon's suggestion, which he made on quite other grounds. Fur- 
 thermore, the two potentials, as a matter of fact, do not depend upon the 
 same condition. The implied condition for etSov dv is " if I had not supported 
 the popular cause as I did." If this condition were also assumed for aivouv 
 dv, then the rebuke would be directed only against the complaints of the 
 popular party ; whereas the words with whicli Aristotle introduces the quo- 
 tation indicate that the rebuke is intended for both parties. "We must 
 suppose, then, that the condition for alvotev dv is "if the nobles were to 
 learn the real moderation in my plans for reform." 
 
 XI 
 
 See the introductory note on ix. 
 
 1. This fragment begins with the same words that are used in ix 22 — 
 ovK av Kareax^ Srjfiov. Before the discovery of the London papyrus, Bergk 
 printed xi 1. 2 after ix 21 and regarded ix 22 (el yap -ijOeXov) to 27 as a 
 separate fragment. Even now, with the text of Aristotle in hand, some 
 scholars have attempted to fit the fragments together in some order different 
 from that in which they are given by Aristotle. But it seems hardly likely 
 that Aristotle or anyone else would have torn the poem apart in order to 
 quote in so extraordinary a fashion. It is more likely that similar ideas and 
 similar expressions recurred in the whole series of poems which Solon com- 
 posed at this period in his career. Whether all three of these iambic quota- 
 tions come from the same poem or not, it is impossible to say, but it is 
 highly probable that they do, 
 
 2. Of the textual variations in this line, only one has any serious effect 
 upon the interpretation. Plutarch gives irlap, the i)apyrus nvap. Both are 
 Greek words: ttiu/o means "fat" (substantive or adjective); irvap means 
 "beestings," the milk given by a cow immediately after calving. The read- 
 ing TTvap is defended by Piatt, who maintains that -rrvap was regarded as a 
 dainty in Athens, as well as in modern England ; that a thick crust rises 
 on it when it is stirred (this he has on the authority of a farmer's wife) ; 
 and that the metaphor refers to the division of the people into factions, as 
 TTvap is divided by shaking. Tliis is ingenious, but fantastic. Even sup- 
 j)(>sing the statements about Trvap are true, how doesc^ctXev yaXa harmonize 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 193 
 
 with this interpretation 1 If we read Trtap, several constructions are pos- 
 sible : (1) yoAa may be the object of dvrapa^a?, and Trtap the object of i^exXev ; 
 (2) yaA.a may be the object of the composite verb Trtap e^e^Acv (a suggestion 
 of Sandys) ; (3) Trtap and yaAa may both be objects of e^etAei/ on the prin- 
 ciple of the double accusative with- verbs meaning "deprive." In all of 
 these it is assumed that Trtap is a substantive. Another possibility is (4) to 
 take Trtap as an adjective with yaAa, and yaAa as the object of e^eiAev. There 
 is nothing decisive to be said in favor of any one of these. Trtap is regularly, 
 if not invariably, a substantive ; it seems to me impossible to take yaAa 
 with dvTapa^as, not because it is too far removed, but because the order 
 favors the combination dvrapd^a? Trtap and e^ctAev yctAa ; a composite verb 
 like Trtap c^etAcv requires very definite support. On the basis of these obser- 
 vations, I prefer the third possibility. 
 
 There is a further difficulty in the passage. The only kind of fat which 
 is obtained from milk by shaking is butter, and butter was practically un- 
 known in classical Greece. We do hear something, however, of a butter made 
 from mare's milk among the Scythians. Herodotus (iv 2) describes how 
 this butter was made by shaking the milk in a wooden vessel; and Hippoc- 
 rates (de morhis i 508 Foes.) in speaking of the same process uses the m ord 
 (3ovTvpov, which we may gather was of Scythian origin : Kat ro /xkv ttlov, o 
 fiovTvpov KaAeoucrt, eTrtTroA^s Stto-rarat iXacfipov iov. We must conclude that 
 Solon became acquainted with this Scythian practice in the course of his 
 travels, and referred to it in a rather obscure metaphor ; or that butter- 
 making, though not mentioned in literature, was not unknown to Attic 
 peasants. See Hehn, Kulturpjlanzen und Hausthiere, ed. 7, p. 154, 
 1902. 
 
 2. For the moods in vss. 1 and 2, cf. Plato Meno 86 d : ovk av iaKe- 
 i(/dix€.6a irpoTcpov €lt€ StSaKTov etre ov StSaKTov yj apery], irplv 6 tl ecrrt 7rpu)Tov 
 i^rjTrjaaixev avTO (Sandys). 
 
 3 f. The figure is similar to those in vi 5 and xi 26. 
 
 3 f. TovTiov : evidently the opposing factions. There is something 
 a little inharmonious in the combination peraL-^fxio) . . . 6po^. to p.eTai)(^ixiov 
 is the space between two opposing armies ; opo'^ is the boundary, or the 
 stone marking the boundary, between adjoining countries or estates. The 
 word 6po^ probably came to Solon's mind for two reasons : (1) because he 
 had much to do with opot (in another sense) during the course of his legisla- 
 
194 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 tion (cf. ix 6) ; and (2) because there is no word which would properly carry 
 out the figure begun in fxerai^ixM ; indeed there was no such thing as a 
 barrier set up between two armies to prevent them from joining conflict : 
 and yet this was just the function that Solon claimed to perform. Aris- 
 tides paraphrases the passage in the following words (xlvi 278) : hrrrj 8' [_i.e. 
 SoAcov]] iv /JieOopiio Travnov dvOpeiorara Koi StKaiOTara, uicnrep rtva; d)? a\r]- 
 Oojs tK yeoo/xerpta? 7repiypaTrTov<; <f>v\dTT(DV opovs- Here Solon is compared 
 to a man who is guarding a surveyor's stones or stakes by which the boun- 
 daries of an estate are indicated. 
 
 XII 
 
 References: Bergk (1881) ; Croiset (1880, 1903) ; Dials (1888) ; Gotthng 
 (1850) ; Hecker (1850) ; Hiller (1888) ; Keene (1885); Leutsch (1872) ; Meyer 
 (1893) ; Sitzler (1879, 1894) ; Wilamowitz (1893) 
 
 This poem is not given in S and L, the two best manuscripts of Demos- 
 thenes ; in A there are only a few verses. In the other manuscripts the 
 39 verses are given without any indication of a lacuna. It will be observed 
 that at vs. 10 there are three pentameters in succession, and that at vs. 25 
 there are two hexameters. To mend the latter passage Gottling introduced 
 into the text a pentameter from Planudes (Iriarte, Cod. Matrit, p. 113) as 
 follows : iraLKaKa 8ovXo(Tvvrj<: ^ijya cfjlpovai (iU. Some have tried to make 
 this verse tolerable by emendation ; most reject it as a Byzantine product. 
 At vs. 10 attempts liave been made to restore the passage by importing 
 hexameter lines from other fragments of Solon ; and Bergk, observing that 
 tlie words' a^LKoicr cpy/xacrt TruOojxevoL are also found in xl 12, reconstructed 
 the passage as follows, leaving a lacuna of only half a line : 
 
 ev(f)poavva<^ Koaiielv 8aLTb<=; iv rjO'V'^Lr). 
 TrXovTOvatv 8' dSifcco^; . . . 
 
 ovd^ lepcov fcredvcov ovre ri hrj fjioa loov 
 (f)€L86/jL€V0L, KXeiTTOvai S' 6^' dpiTa'yr) dWoOev dWo'^. 
 
 But these attempts at restoration, however ingenious, are not convincing, 
 and we have a better chance of reading Solon's own words if we leave the 
 text as it is and merely indicate the lacunae. 
 
 Wilamowitz asserts that only the first sixteen lines were read by Demos- 
 thenes' direction before tiie Athenian audience, and that the remainder of 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 195 
 
 the poem was added by an early editor of Demosthenes' speeches. This is, 
 of course, possible, but uncertain ; and for Solon at any rate unimportant. 
 
 Are we to suppose that the verse rjfx€T€prj Be ttoAis is the actual be- 
 ginning of the poem as it was composed by Solon ? There is no decisive 
 evidence on this point. Voemel points out that the particle 8e is no 
 obstacle to regarding this as the beginning (cf Xen. Anah. v 5, 13) ; in- 
 deed he thinks it highly likely that we have the opening of the poem: 
 " Imo optime convenit commoto atque elato Solonis animo relicta sententia 
 ' Aliae quidem urbes interierunt et interibunt,' sic incipere : 'sed Athenae 
 sunt perpetuae.' " This is not impossible ; and if it is true, as Wilamowitz 
 supposes, that the end of the poem was added by an editor, it is not prob- 
 able that the same editor would have left his quotation incomplete at the 
 beginning, unless the poem was very long. 
 
 See the discussion of this poem on pages 105 ff. 
 
 1 ft'. The theological views revealed in these lines are noteworthy. The 
 fortunes of the state depend upon both gods and men. The favor of the 
 gods can be assured if the state has a powerful champion among them. But 
 even though the gods show no hostility, ruin may come through the per- 
 versity of men. The whole passage is imbued with the Homeric feeling 
 about the government of the world, which recognizes the human and the 
 divine as partners in the administration. In this partnership men indeed 
 do not possess equal power, but they have a responsibility similar to that of 
 the gods. Meanwhile men and gods alike are under the sway of a dark and 
 unscrutable fate which even the Greeks could not transform through per- 
 sonification into either god or man. Cf. Hom. Od. i 32 : 
 
 *I1 iroTTOL^ olov hrj vv Oeoi/^ /Sporol alnocovrat . 
 i^ rj/xecov ydp <j>aai kclk e/Jifievai' ol he kol avrol 
 a^rjaiv aTacrOaXirjcnv virepfiopov aX'ye €')(^ovaiv. 
 
 1. Kara Aio? atcrav : cf. Hom. II. ix 608 cfipoveo) 8e TCTLfjurjaOaL Ato? aia-rj ; 
 Od. ix 52 t6t€ St^ pa KaKTj Atos atcra TrapeVrry | rffjuv alvofxopoLaiv, Iv aXyea 
 TToWa iraBoifxcv. The phrases Kar daav, Trap' atcrav, and virkp cuaav are 
 frequent in Homer, but the combination Kara Ato? ato-ai/ is not found 
 there. 
 
 2. fxaKapcDv OeQyv dOavaTOiv : cf. Horn. II. iv 127 Oeol /aaKa/oe? aOdvaTOt ; 
 Hes. Theog. 881 /xaKape? ^eot ; Theogn. 759 aWot aOdvaroi fxoLKape^ Oeoi 
 
196 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 3. Of. Horn. II. V 828 tolt] tol iyiov iTTLTappoOo^ ei/xi (said by Athena 
 to Diomed). 
 
 3. cTTto-KOTTos i the regulai word for a tutelary divinity. In Horn, //. 
 xxiv 729 Hector is called the protector of Troy — rj yap oAwAa? iTrcaKOTros, 
 
 OS T€ fJiLV aVTYJV | pVCTKCV. 
 
 3. ofipiixoTroLTpr] : u frequent epithet of Athena in Homer, where, as 
 here, it always closes the verse. 
 
 4. This figure of the hands raised in protection is found several times in 
 Homer, e.g., It. ix 420 fxaXa yap iOev evpvoTra Zei^s j x^^P^ ^W ^'n-f.picryf., 
 Tedap(TrjKa(TL Se Aaot. In Eur. I})h. Aul. 916 Clytemnestra uses the same 
 phrase in her supplication to Achilles, the "son of a goddess " — •^v 8e toA- 
 /x-qaeLs crv fiov \ x^^p' vTrepretvat, <j€croj(r/x€^a. Aristophanes probably had 
 Solon's words in mind when he wrote the following passage in the Knights 
 (1173 ff.): 
 
 AA. (S Ar]fjL\ ivapfycd^ t) ^ed? a' iiriaKoirel, 
 KoX vvv virep€')(^ei crov '^vrpav ^w/jiov irXeav. 
 
 Atj/jl. OL€t yap oiKelaO' av en Tqvhe r-qv itoXlv^ 
 el /JLT) (j)avep(o<; rj/jLcoi/ viTepel')(^e rrjv ')(yTpav. 
 
 Xvrpav t,o)pov TrAeav is, of course, put Trapo, TrpocrSoKtav for X^^P^- 
 
 5. avToi: this word, standing at the beginning of its sentence, con- 
 trasted with Zeus and the other gods, carrying no meaning of its own but 
 simply intensifying the subject, which we discover only in the next line, 
 presents a contrast between things of visible and concrete reality and divine 
 beings whose existence we know only through faith. It is a contrast similar 
 to that between the real body and the invisible soul in Hom. II. i 2 f 
 
 5. a<j>paUr)(Tiv : this word is commonly used by Homer in the i)lural to 
 mean " rash and imprudent acts." 
 
 6 f. Who are acrToil Who are hy^pov rfyepoval And to whom does 
 Srjpov refer? Tlie answer to each question has been disputed. Since 
 Solon's ]joenis, and the present poem in particular, are the chief source of 
 information concerning social and political conditions in Athens at the end 
 of the seventh century, there is little assistance to be found outside the 
 poem itself Von Leutsch asserts that the arrroL and the S^/xo? are the no- 
 bility, claiming to find evidence for this in the narrative of Diogenes Lacr- 
 tius i 49. What this evidence is I cannot discover. Bergk assumes that 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 197 
 
 acTTOL are the nobles, and Weil defines them explicitly as " les vrais citoyens 
 ou Eupatrides, oppost^s au 8^/^05, ^ la plfebe." It seems to me unlikely that 
 at so early a period a j^olitical distinction of this sort would be made be- 
 tween the two classes in the community ; the difference between them was 
 still social and economic. All alike were olcttol, and the equilibrium of 
 political rights was a problem for the future. On the other hand, olo-tol 
 never, so far as I know, means the nobly born or the rich in contrast to the 
 lower classes. In the present passage dorot are contrasted with 6eot and are 
 precisely those special dvOpoiiroL whose home is the city of Athens, the human 
 population of Attica. Wilamowitz, apparently interpreting daroL in this 
 way, complains that xPVf^^'' Treic^o'/xevot is improperly connected with it : 
 not the dcTToi as a whole, but the hrjjxov lyye/xoves are guilty of avarice ; there- 
 fore XPVH"-^'- TreiOofxevoL is to be rejected as an " iibles Fiillsel." But cannot 
 a whole people be accused of lawlessness, avarice, corruption, luxury, or any 
 other social disorder, even though only a small number among them are ac- 
 tually guilty of the offense ? To Solon it appeared that the people of Athens 
 were too fond of money-making ; but he would not have denied that many 
 among them were of a more admirable sort. Meyer finds a contrast between 
 people of the town and people of the country : " Im iibrigen zerfallt in diesem 
 Gedicht die Schilderung der Missstande in zwei scharf gesonderte Theile : 
 (1) Habgier und Ungerechtigkeit der daroL, besonders der St^jjlov lyye/Aove?, 
 vss. 5-22, zusammengefasst in den Worten ravra /xcv iv S-qfjuo aTp€<f)€TaL 
 KaKa, also die Verhaltnisse der regierenden Biirgerschaft, der stadtischen 
 Bevolkerung ; (2) vss. 23-26 Notlage der -nevL^oi, der abhangigen Land- 
 bevolkerung." I see no justification for this view whatever, either in par- 
 ticular words and phrases or in the spirit of the whole poem, darv does 
 indeed mean the town in contrast with the country in classical Greek. But 
 in Homer, Hesiod, the elegiac and iambic poets of the seventh and sixth 
 centuries, with which last group ao-rot is a common word, it never means 
 townsfolk in contrast with countryfolk. Again, roiv irtvixp^v in vs. 23 can- 
 not be properly confined to country people. There was need and distress 
 among the SrjixLoepyoi, as well as among the agrarian serfs. The real contrast 
 lies between iv St^/xo) (23) and yauxv dXkoSarrrjv (24), the condition of Athe- 
 nians at home and the condition of Athenians abroad, rtov 7revtxp<»>v comes to 
 the front in its sentence, because it is the greater destitution of this class that 
 has brought about their banishment to foreign lands. Bi^fxov may mean 
 
198 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 either the whole people of Athens, ol daroi, or the lower classes as con- 
 trasted with the nobility. The one thing it cannot rneau, as I believe all 
 will admit, is Avhat von Leutsch claims for it — "the nobility." Prob- 
 ably in the oligarchical order of the early sixth century Br]iJio<; would have 
 sounded like the "masses," the undifferentiated people. S-qfxov lyye/xdve?, 
 as nil recognize, are not " leaders of the democratic party." There was as 
 yet no democratic party ; it was Solon himself who first created it. The 
 " leaders of the people " are the oligarchic counterpart of the kings of the 
 earlier regime, who in the epic are often enough called rjye/xove^;. In Athens 
 at the beginning of the sixth century they were the members of the upper 
 cla -s, which was determined partly by birth and partly by wealth, and, in 
 particular, those Avho for the time being held the public offices, all of which 
 were reserved to the upper class. Bergk's claim that the lyy^/aoves are tlie 
 7r/3VTavets rcuv vavKpapoiv is unfounded. Cf. vii 1 Brjfxo<i S' (TS' ai^ apicTTa avv 
 TfycfjioveaaLv cttoito ; xiii 3 dvSpwv 8' iK p^cydXiov ttoAis oAAvrat ; Theogn. 
 41 f. dcTTOt fxkv yap td^ otBe aa6<f>pove<;, lyye/adve? Se | TeTpd(f>aTaL TroXkrjv cs 
 KaKor-qra 7r€(rctv ; 855 f. iroXkaKi 8rj ttoXis rj^^ 8t' lyye/xdvtov KaKorrfra | aKT7re/3 
 KCKAt/xJvT/ vavs Trapa y^jv iSpapev. 
 
 7. €Tot/xos : cf. Hom. //. xviii 96 avriKa ydp tol tTrctra p.eO' "FtKTopa 
 TTorpoq kroipLO<;. 
 
 9. Cf. Pindar Isth. iii 1 ff. ct ti? dvSpoiv €.vTv^rj(TaL<i rj crvv cvB6^oL<i 
 deO\oL<i r; aOivei ttXovtov /care^et (fypaalv alavrj Kopov, diio<i cuXoytiat? doruiv 
 /M,e 'xt^^ai. Cicero pro Murena 9, 2 1 ego mei satietatem magno meo labore 
 superavi. 
 
 9 f ovhl irapovaaq . . . rja-vxtr) : the passage should be construed as 
 f )llo\vs : " to enjoy (ev(f>poavva<i) in an orderly (koo-^ccv) and quiet (iv rjfTvxir}) 
 manner the good things which actually lie before them {irapovaa^) on the 
 banquet-board (Sairds)." There are several meanings of Koa-pclv to be noted : 
 (1) The most usual meaning in Homer is "to marshal " an army — a use 
 80 common that it is not necessary to quote instances. (2) It means " to 
 prepare by careful arrangement," and is used idiomatically of the preparation 
 of a meal. Hom. Od. vii 13 ; Pindar Nem. i 22 ; Xen. Cyr. viii 2, 6. Cf. 
 also HoTn. Ilymn vii 59 yXvKcp-qv Koap,rj(raL doiBi^v ; and Solon xx 2. (3) It 
 means also " to conduct in an orderly manner," "govern," "rule." Herodotus 
 i 59 €vt/xc Trjv TToXiv Koapeuiv KaA-to? re kol cv ; 100 ravra p€v Kara rd.'^ StKa^ 
 (TToUi, TciSc Sc dkXa iK€KO(Tp.€aT6 ol ', Soph. Ant. 677 ovTO)<i dp.vvTe tort Tot?. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 199 
 
 KoaixovfX€voL<;, | kovtol ywatKos ov8afxu)<; rjaa-qrea, " the regulations made by 
 ol Koa-fxovvTe^, the rulers ; meaning here, his own edicts " (Jebb) ; Ajax 
 1103 f. ov8^ €aO* OTTOV aol rovSe KoafirjaaL irXcov \ a.p^<; €K€lto 6eafxo<; rj 
 Koi TcoSe o-€. (4) The meaning " adorn " or " embellisli " is too common to 
 require illustration. Now, in the present passage, the first and last mean- 
 ings are manifestly impossible ; the second cannot be allowed because the 
 ctK^poo-wa? are already vapovaa^. Indeed, I do not think there is any 
 reminiscence of the Homeric Sop-rrov iKoafxec in spite of the juxtaposition of 
 KoafxcLv and Satros. It is apparent, therefore, that the only meaning admis- 
 sible is "to conduct in an orderly manner," and it is not by any means 
 unlikely that there was some political connotation which suggested the word 
 to Solon. At any rate, as Jebb points out (Soph. Ant. 677), the word 
 Kocrpio^; was used of a constitution, especially an oligarchical constitution 
 (Thuc. iv 76 p-eraarrjaaL tov Koapov koI e? SrjpLOKpaTLav . . . rpcij/aL ; viii 72 
 p.€V€Lv iv Tw 6X.Lyap)(LK<^ Kocrpno). Furthermore, the Cretan Koap-oi, referred 
 to by Aristotle (Pol. ii 10, 1272 a), were oligarchical magistrates with 
 military as well as civil powers. Peppmiiller's translation, " sich hingeben," 
 which is accepted by Bucherer, is out of the question. If Koapelv is prop- 
 erly understood, it only remains to observe that Satro? is to be construed 
 with €v<f>pocrvva<; and that the whole sentence is to be taken in a figurative 
 sense. Concerning both points there is some difference of opinion. Bergk 
 construed 8atT05 with riavx^r} and assumed that the line referred to the 
 meals which were served to the magistrates in the Prytaneion at the 
 public expense. Others suppose that Solon is thinking of the convivial 
 meetings of the political clubs (I'pavot) where demagogues fan the flames 
 of discontent. In answer to these contentions, it may be said: (1) we 
 are, presumably, at too early a period for democratic propaganda in the 
 clubs ; (2) it is not likely that official meals in the Prytaneion were called 
 " festivities " (cvc^poo-was) ; (3) if this sentence is to be taken in its literal 
 sense, referring either to the Prytaneion or to clubs, then ovk cVto-Tavrat 
 Karex^Lv Kopov must also be understood literally, which would make the 
 St^p-ov rjyep,6va<; guilty of literal gluttony. The fact is that Solon is speak- 
 ing metaphorically. As men of unrestrained appetite conduct themselves 
 at dinner, so the leaders in the state conduct themselves in their uncontrolled 
 greed for riches. 
 
 11. "They yield to the temptation of dishonest practices." Cf xl 12 
 
200 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 oAA' dStKoi?* epy/xao-i TreiOo/xevo^ | ovk c^cXoov CTrerat [sc. 6 TrA-Ovrosj. The 
 phrase is more natural with trXovro^ as its subject, than with a personal 
 subject, and it seems to me unlikely that Solon wrote these words so soon 
 after vs. 6. 
 
 12. KTcdvwv : not in Homer, but Hesiod uses it (IF. and D. 315). 
 
 13. "Weil says that KKk-movaiv looks like a gloss and that he would 
 prefer /xapTrrovo-iv ; Butcher marks kActttovo-iv c^' ap-rrayrj as a locus despe- 
 ratus. This seems to me hypercritical. KXiTTTovcriv hardly requires justifica- 
 tion, and for €<^' apirayrj the following quotations afford adequate support : 
 Horn. //. xxiii 574 cs fxicrov dfx(fiOT€poL(n StKacrcraTe fxrjS* in dpioyrj ; Dem. 
 xviii 273 ov yap iir evvoiay ip,ol •napcyjjipi.i'; iXTTLdwv kol ^yXov kol tljjlCjv ', 
 Thuc. 1 37, 2 <f)aal Be ivfxpxL^iav 8ta to (Tuxfypov ovSev6<; ttoj SeiaaOai' to S* 
 €Trl KaKOvpyCa Koi ovk dperrj CTrcTT/Scvo-av. 
 
 13. dXXoOev dXXo<: : "one from one source, another from another." 
 
 14. "They have no fear of Dike, that august being upon whom, as 
 upon a rock, human society rests." Two other passages should be read in 
 connection with this, and the three will be found to throw light upon each 
 other : (1) Pindar 01. xiii 6 ff. cv ra [Corinth] yap Evvofxta vatct, Kao-tyviJTa 
 T£, (iddpov TToXioiv do-<^aX€9, AtKa KOL 6p.6Tpo<f>o^ Eilprjva, TafxCaL dvBpddi 
 irXovTov, -^pva-eai TratSes evftovXov ©c'/aito? ; (2) Aesch. Choeph. 646 f. AtVas 
 8' ipetSeTat irv6p,rjv' Trpo^aXKCveL 8' Aio-a <fia(Tyavovpy6<;. Evidently dep-cOXa 
 Alkyj^; is equal to Aixas irv6p.riv, and the Oip.edXa or Trv^/xryv is Dike herself 
 
 — a ^dOpov TToXiOiv dcrc^aXc?. Pindar, praising Ei»i/o/xta as well as Aikt;, 
 must certainly have had Solon's words in mind ; and the startling mixture 
 of metaphors — Justice, the sister of Eunomia and the foundation of cities 
 
 — reminds one of the personification of Ge in ix. Indeed, the figure of Ge 
 is instructive in the present connection. As Ge is the material basis of 
 human life, so Dike is its spiritual basis ; but both alike are possessed of 
 divine personality and both are sacred (o-e/avd). To use a familiar modern 
 metaphor. Dike might be called the " corner-stone of society." The passage 
 from Aeschylus, for which a variety of interpretations have been oft'ered, 
 means, I believe, " Dike is now being established as the foundation," for 
 the changed fortunes of the children of Agamemnon. Here, as elsewhere, 
 AtK>7 ^^ ^ negative principle, personified as a being who either restrains men 
 from certain actions or punishes them if they commit them. Of. Aesch. 
 Seven 670 f. ^ 8^t' a.v elrj TravSiKoo? i/^cv8a>vv/xos Aikt;, ^uvotio-a <f>(DTL rravroXpua 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 201 
 
 <^po/a9. Cf. Croiset (1903, p. 587) : " Cette deesse de la justice n'est plus 
 tout h, foit, comme on le voit, celle d'Hdsiode, la vierge faible et craintive, mal- 
 traitde par des mains brutales, et qui criait k son p^re pour obtenir protec- 
 tion. Elle a maintenant une force patiente, elle attend parce qu'elle est siire 
 de ses fins, et, dans le silence eftrayant oil elle s'enveloppe, elle ressemble aux 
 lois myst^rieuses et in^luctables de la nature, que rien ne presse, mais que 
 lien non plus n'arrete ni ne retarde." 
 
 15. TO. ytyvo/xem . . . iovra: cf. Horn. II. i 70 (= Hes. Theog. 38) 
 ra T kovTo. rd r iacro/jieva irpo t iovra. 
 
 16. rjXO' : a gnomic aorist. 
 
 16. Cf. Plut. Sol. v: "To this Solon is said to have answered that 
 men kept their agreements with each other when neither party profits by 
 the breaking of them, and he was adapting his laws (d/o/Ao^erat) to the citi- 
 zens in such a manner as to make it clear to all that the practice of justice 
 was more advantageous than the transgression of the laws." 
 
 17. rovTo refers to the moral corruption of the leaders in the city, which 
 has been described in vss. 5-15. Starting from them, this corruption is 
 beginning to spread (^87 epx^rai) like a sore over the whole city. cXko? 
 a<f>vKTov is in apposition to tovto. Weil explains tovto as "cette apparition 
 vengeresse de la Justice," an idea which the neuter tovto would hardly sug- 
 gest and with which ^Ko<i a4>vKTov is incompatible. Furthermore, he makes 
 this same pronoun the subject of eTrcyeipet in vs. 19 (reading y for 17 — 
 *'une correction irr^fldchie "). This requires that vs. 18 be taken as a 
 parenthesis, which seems too awkward for consideration. 
 
 17 fi". tpx^rai (17), TjXvOe (18), iireyetpeL (19), describe the actual 
 state of aff'airs in Athens. The whole city, under the blight of corruption, 
 has sunk into servitude ; civil war, though still asleep, is about to wake. 
 wXeaev (20) is a gnomic aorist like rjXOe in vs. 16. 
 
 18. The subject of -^XvOe is -^fxeTipr) ttoAis understood fromTroAct in the 
 preceding line and uppermost in the mind of Solon throughout the poem. 
 Solon uses the word SovXocrvvrjv elsewhere of the state of the Athenian 
 people (xiii 4 ; xiv 4). 
 
 19. -q : i.e., SovkoavvT). Other commentators hold diff'erent opinions: 
 Weil (see on vs. 17) understands Aiki; as the subject of iireyeipeL. Wolf 
 inquired, " Utrum ^ Slktj an rj ttoXi? 1 " and Schaefer replied, " Mira dubita- 
 tio Wolfii. De urbe dici quis ambigat 1 " The simple verb cyet/octv is com- 
 
202 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 moil ill Homer with ttoAc/aov and such words. For the idea that the 
 enslavcinent of a part of the citizens leads to war, cf. Arist. Pol. ii 12, 
 1274 a 17 /XT^Se ya/j Tovrov KvpLo^ mv 6 StJ/xos SovX.o^ av e'lr] koI TroAe/xio? and 
 pas!<i7)i. 
 
 20. eparryv: only once in Homer — //. iii 64 fxrj fxoL Sojp' epara irpocfiept 
 Xpv(r€rf<; 'A^/aoStrr/?, but common in the Homeric hymns and in the elegists ; 
 cf. Tyrtaeus viii 28 6<f>p* ipaTt}'; rjfir]^ ayXaov av6o<i txU'-> Theogn. 1131 dAA' 
 rjftrjV iparrjv oXoc^tvpopiaL, rj /x' imXe/n-u. 
 
 21 f. The difficulties which are presented in these lines lie in the inter- 
 pretation of the words Svapieviwv and (tvv6Sol<; and in the uncertainty of 
 the reading toU aSiKovaL <j>'Xai<i. (1) BvaptviiDv. Are these enemies in- 
 ternal or external? Certainly not external. It would not be true to say 
 that Athens was being rapidly destroyed by external enemies. Megara 
 indeed was a menace, but not formidable. Furthermore, the whole poem is 
 concerned with the social and economic condition of Athens ; foreign rela- 
 tions are not mentioned. If, then, they are internal enemies, who are 
 they? Clearly the persons described in vss. 5-16, the men who shrink 
 from nothing in their lust for wealth. But Sucr/xei/eW means something 
 more than "the persons hereinbefore mentioned.' It is an ugly word and 
 in effect predicative in the present sentence : " those who are bringing about 
 the ruin of the state " may not unjustly be denominated the enemies of the 
 state. What Solon chiefly wishes to assert is not the decline of the city, 
 not the rapidity of its decline, but the venomous hostility of the men who 
 are responsible for its decline. (2) awo^oi^. Two meanings are suggested 
 for this word. The first is "conflicts" or "combats." Schaefer says " cV 
 avi/oSois verto in confiictu : rots dStKovo-t autem est dativus quem dicas in- 
 commodi." Shilleto's note is: "Wastes away in conflicts with those who 
 wrong their kindred and friends [reading ^'Aov?]. I conceive the dative 
 Tots dSiKovo-t is approi)riately governed of the verbal o-tVoSos, as -n-orpiov kXcl- 
 voL^ Ad/S^iK-SaaLv Soph. Antic/. 860." Grammatically it is not iin})ossible 
 to tak(i crvvoBoL^ thus, though both explanations of the dative rot? dScKovaL 
 are a little strained. But what are these conflicts? They are not with ex- 
 ternal foes ; and civil dissension witli its bloodshed is only just beginning 
 (vs. 19). It is, therefore, generally recognized as better to take awoSotq in 
 the other sense of "gatherings" or "unions." " Ces com/ressus," says Weil, 
 " qui plaisent aux mauvais citoyens, ne sont peut-etre pas, comme on ex- 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 203 
 
 plique gdndralement, des combats, mais des reunions factieuses, des associations 
 (iTaLpuiL), foyers de conspiration et de guenes civiles." This I believe to be 
 the right view. But it is not necessary or even desirable to assume that 
 these avvoSoL were primarily political in purpose. Undoubtedly the men 
 who attended these meetings were of the ruling class ; they had no political 
 object to achieve ; they were absorbed in money-making. They may, indeed, 
 have sought to manipulate the political situation to their own profit. But 
 they liad no definite political propaganda, neither a tyranny nor a democracy. 
 (3) Tots olSlkovo-l <^tXats. ^t Aats is Bergk's conjecture ; the manuscripts 
 give <^tAots or cf>t\ov^. Emendations are numerous, but Bergk's is the sim- 
 plest and the best. o-vvoSol, such as have just been described, are properly 
 said to be dear to mischief-makers. Men who are occupied with their own 
 selfish purposes, regardless of the good of the community, are accustomed to 
 hold secret meetings in which they plot for their own advancement ; honest 
 and loyal ambitions, on the other hand, do not seek the dark. One of the 
 other proposed emendations of the line deserves special consideration. Diels 
 is offended by the sound of the diphthong and vowel in juxtaposition in 
 Tpvx^TaL iv, a thing which is not allowed, he maintains, by the elegiac poets 
 in the first foot of the pentameter unless there is also a sense-pause at the 
 same point. Therefore he demands a sense-pause in the present line, and 
 rewrites it as follows : Tpvx^raL, iv o-woSots r la dSiKovaL <^i Aot. Now I 
 am not disposed to give much weight to the metrical argument ; the elegiac 
 remains are too scanty to justify any generalization. But even supposing we 
 accept Diels's law, there is no serious breach of it in the reading adopted in 
 the present text. Though the pause after Tpvx^raL is not sufficiently im- 
 portant to be marked by a comma, there is nevertheless a pause. The sense 
 is complete with the word Tpvxerat and the remainder of the line is added 
 to explain the nature of the hostile acts by which the city is being brought 
 to ruin (cf. the note on Sva-fxevewv above). What is the meaning of Diels's ver- 
 sion ? The Bva-fxevewv, he says, are the optimates ; the (f>tXoi, Solon's friends, 
 the leaders of the popular party. But supposing Svafxcvecjv could be readily 
 understood in this sense, is it possible to believe that any reader would 
 recognize who the <^t Aot are and whose friends they are ? Solon is not con- 
 cerned in this poem with the difficulty of restraining both parties from ex- 
 cess and he is not identified with the popular party. Diels discovers some- 
 thing else in the two Hues which I do not believe any open-minded reader 
 
204 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 would have suspected : aarv is contrasted with avvoSoi in a chiastic arrange- 
 ment : " inimici potentia abusi in publicis bonis i)raedantur, sodales item in 
 rebus privatis inhonestum hicrum facessunt." But darv, alone, without em- 
 phasis by position, is the last word a Greek poet would choose in order to 
 contrast public with private affairs ; and avvoSoL are just as likely to be con- 
 cerned with public affairs as private. If <^t Aoi are to be contrasted with 
 3vo-/x€ve(uv, then surely they must be friends and enemies of the same person, 
 who can only be Solon ; and Diels does not claim that the Sva-fieveojv are 
 enemies of Solon. The following emendations may also be mentioned : 
 Tpv)(eTaL, iv crvvoSots 0* ovs [^ swos] aScKovai <^tAovs (HiUer) ; iv ai^voSois 
 Tr]<i dStK77crt</)t Aot? (Ahrens) ; tyJs olSik' iarl cfiiXa (Bergk) ; tcov irdpiov dSl- 
 K019 (Hecker) ; toZs d8i/covcrt <I>l\ov<s (Keene). 
 
 21 f. The figure of disease, which was first suggested in cXkos a.<f)VKTov 
 (vs. 17), is still in the poet's mind, rpvx^rai is often used of a physical 
 decline. The city which hitherto has possessed the charms of ruddy health 
 {■n-oXv^paTov) has fallen ill of a wasting sickness. 
 
 23 ff. Cf. ix 8-12. xii was written before, ix after, the adoption of 
 Solon's remedial measures. 
 
 23. orrpetpeTat : ordinarily this word is used in its present sense only 
 with persons as subjects, and it is not common with them ; here it undoubtedly 
 produces a slight personification. Cf. Horn. Hymn to Ajjollo 175 T7/xets 8' 
 vfX€T€pov KAeo9 olaofxev oaaov ctt' atav | dvOpoiirisiv (rrpecfiO/xeaOa 7rdA.ets ^v 
 vatcrawo-as; Soph. Electr. 516 (Clytemnestra to Electra) dveLfxevr) fxev, o)? 
 cotKtt?, av (TTpecfyeL; Aeschrio 2, 2 (Hiller-Crusius) a-revov KaO* '^XX-^o-ttovtov, 
 i/XTTopwv x^PV^^ I ^ctvrat daXd(T(Tr)'i iaTpecfjovTO ixvpixrjKe<;. 
 
 25. deiKeAtoio-t : "degrading." 
 
 26. Thus the social disorder affects the personal life of every individual. 
 
 27. A man's house is no longer his castle. 
 
 27. The inversion of ovKerL is found elsewhere, e.g., Soph. Track. 161 
 vvv 8' d)s €t' ovk cjv eiTTC ; Phil. 1217 ir ovSev dfxi ; Aristoph. Plut. 1177 
 OvcLv €T ovSeU d$LOL ; but it is natural only where the two elements of the 
 compound, though inverted, form a close phrase. In the present line the 
 separation is justified by the idiomatic combination ovk iOiXovat, meaning 
 "tliey refuse." 
 
 27. tx^Lv: ocpiivalent to d/uweiv, "ward off'," "repel," the object being 
 TO Sr)fx6(7Lov KUKov. Cf. Houi. //. x'l 820 dXX' dye fxoi rohe cittc, Siorpecfyeq 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 205 
 
 ISivpvTTvX r/pcL)s, I ry p €TL ttov a^yaovai ireXiiypiov "EKTop' 'A^aiot', I rj rj8r} 
 <f>OiaovTaL vtt' avTov Sovpl Sa/AeVre? ; xxi 309 <^t'Ae KaaiyvrjTt, (j9ivo<i dv€po<s 
 dfJL(f)OTepoL irep cr^co/xev. 
 
 28 f. v<f>ep6opev, evpe : not gnomic aorists in the strict sense of the 
 term, but aorists describing what has come to be the regular course of events 
 in Athens at this particular time. 
 
 29. In Homer el is more frequent than idv in conditions with the sub- 
 junctive ; in the Attic poets it is very rare. 
 
 30. TavTtt : referring to what precedes. Vss. 3:!— 10 sum up in more 
 general terms the lesson which is to be learned from the particular observa- 
 tions in the earlier part of the poem. 
 
 32. According to Hesiod {Theog. 902) Eunomia was one of the Horae : 
 
 Sevrepov i^ydyero [sc. Zeu?] XiTraprjv ddefxiv, ?) Teicev"£lpa^^ 
 Kvvo/jLltjv re ^UrjV re koX F^lp^vyv reOaXvlav^ 
 at ipy* o)pevov<Tt KaTa6vr]T0L(n /SpoTolai. 
 
 The three sisters appear again in Pindar 01. xiii 6 ft", (quoted on vs. 14). In 
 the present passage Eunomia is plainly not a person, but a rhetorical per- 
 sonification. One of the poems of Tyrtaeus is called Eunomia by Aristotle 
 (Pol. 1307 a, 1). 
 
 32. dpTia : see on iv 4. 
 
 32. (xTTOc^atVet : "render"; Aristoph. Knights 817 av 8' 'AOrjvaiOvq 
 i^7]Tr](Ta<; p.LKpoTroXiTa<; aTrocfirjvaL ; Wasps 1028 tva ra? M.ov(Ta<; alcrcv )(prjTaL 
 fjLY) Trpoayoiyov'i aTro^rJvry. Parallels in prose are not uncommon, but the 
 use is very rare in poetry. 
 
 35. Cf. Soph. Track. 1000 /xavtas dvdo^ ; Aesch. Pers. 823 vfipL<; yh.p 
 l^avBovcr iKapirwac araxw | arT/s, oOcv TrdyKXavTov i^a/xa d€po<i. 
 
 36. evOvvcL 8t/<as crKoXtas : i.e., puts an end to corruption and introduces 
 impartiality and even-hantled justice in judicial decisions. Cf ix 19 and 
 the note. Cf. also Hesiod W. and i>. 261 ff. . . . (SacnXimv, dl Xvypd 
 voevvTe<i | dXXr) 7rapKXiV0)ai SiVa? crKoXtcos eveVovTe?. | ravra <f>vXa(j(T6fxevoi, 
 l3aaLXrj€<i, lOvvere f Si'/ca? | 8(i>po(fidyoL, aKoXiwv 8e StKeojv ctti Trdyxv XdOeaOe ; 
 Pindar Pyth. iv 153 evOwe Aaots SUas. 
 
 38. Cf. Horn. 11. xvii 384 l/otSos dpyaXer/s. 
 
 39. TTLvvrd ; this word is not found in the Iliad but appears a number 
 of times in the Odyssey. It is used, almost without exception, of persons, 
 
206 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 as in Theogn. 501 dvBpo<; 8' otvos ISei^e voov, \ kol ^aXa -ntp ttlvvtov ; Lucian 
 (Bacch. 8) has it in the neuter : ei 8e tth^vto. So^ece to. Xeyo/xeva, 6 2etAr;j/o? 
 apa yv rXecos. 
 
 XIII-XIV 
 
 References : Hadley (1903) ; Heideiihain (1882) ; Heineinaiin (18i>7) : 
 Hiller (1883) ; Murray (1880) ; riccoloiiiini (1895) ; Sitzler (1879, 1894, 1900) ; 
 Stadtiuiiller (1882) ; WilanKnvitz (1893). On these two poems see pp. 99 ff. 
 
 XIII 
 
 1. xLovos p.ivo<i -^Se ;(a/\a^77? : /xcvo? is thus used of natural forces by 
 Homer : //. v 5'24 o0p' evSrjat /xevos Bopeao kol akXiov \ S^a-^prjiiiv dvifiiov ; vi 
 182 Setvov dTroTTVCiovaa Trvpos /xeVo^ aWofXivoLo ; xii IS TrorajaoJi/ /xeVo? 
 cio-ayayovre?. 
 
 3. fjiovapxov : a similar use of the genitive is found in Thuc. i 8, 2 oi re 
 yj(T(Tov<i virepicvov ttjv tcov Kpetcrcrdvcov hovXeiav. The word p^ovap^o^ appears 
 first here, unless Theognis 52 is earlier, wliere it appears in the Ionic form 
 
 p,ovvap)(0<;. 
 
 3 if. The verbs oWvrai, cTreo-ei/, ecrrt are general in sense, making state- 
 ments of universal application ; rjSrj XPV applies to the actual state of attairs 
 in Athens. 
 
 5. €$dpavT : it is more likely that tliis is intended for i^dpavra. than for 
 i^dpavTL, since the elision is easier and the need of a dative is not felt till or- 
 paScov IcTTL is heard. The S^^os should be understood to be the subject of 
 the participle, and the ambitious politician its object. 
 
 6. The need of this admonition is seen from the last line of xiv. The 
 Athenians nuist watch closely every symptom of the times and so be ready 
 to defend their rights before it is too late. Cf Pint. Sol. xxx 5 : ore Kal to 
 p.vqp.ov€v6p.f.vov CLirev, o)? Trpiorjv pikv rjv (.vpxLpearepov avTol^ to KioXvauL rijv 
 Tvpavi'fSi <TvvL(TTap.evr}v, vvv Se p.€L^6v iari kol A.a/X7rpdrepoi/ iKKOif/uL kul dve- 
 Xelv avveaTCoaav yjSr] Kal 7r€(f>VKv2av. 
 
 XIV 
 
 1. The same insistence on human responsibility for disaster is found in 
 the opening lines of xii. 
 
 1. Xvypd: cf, Hom. Od. xviii 134 dW' ore Si] koL Xvypd dcol p.dKap€<i 
 TcA-ccrcuo-t I Kal rd cf>€p€L deKa^d/jtevo? TeTXrjort Ovp.(Jo. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 207 
 
 2. TovroDv fxolpav : tlie gonitive is appositional. Cf. xv 18 fiolpav Oavd- 
 Tov and Theogn, 3~)G roXfjui, Kvpve^ KaKoiatv cVet Kao-^Aoto-ii/ €;(atp£?, | eJre (re 
 Koi TOVTOiV fMolp' €7re/?ttAA.ev €X^iv ; 592 dix(f>oT€po}V to Aaxo?. 
 
 3. pijcria Sji/tcs : "giving pledges or hostages," tliereby {)utting your- 
 selves in their power. Soph. Oed. Col. 858 koL fxet^ov dpa pvaiov ttoXu 
 Taxa. I Or'jcreL'^, where, as Jebb points out, pvj-iov GetvaL is equivalent to the 
 regular phrase ivix^pov Odvai. When one recalls the mortgaged lands which 
 had been set free by Solon (cf. ix), the figure seems a very natural one for 
 the poet to have employed to describe exactly what the S>}/xos must have 
 done in its relations with Pisistratus. This reading seems to have more point 
 than the one adopted by most editors — pvfxaTa Swres, which is given by 
 Diodorus and Plutarch. These two evidently understood pv/xara to refer to 
 the bodyguard which the people had granted to Pisistratus. But Wila- 
 mowitz has pointed out that since tovtov<; in this line is in the plural, the 
 poet is not thinking of Pisistratus alone ; and I might add that since pvfxara 
 is in the plural, it must refer to something more than the bodyguard alone. 
 The phrase must mean, then, " giving them the means of defense " ; and it 
 is not easy to see just what this refers to. Peppmiiller explains pvfjuara as 
 "Schutz" or " Stiitze," by which he would seem to imply that the phrase 
 means ''lending them their support," or something of the kind : and this 
 strains both the concrete pv/xara and the literal meaning of Sovvai. 
 
 3. TovTov; : the particular avSpa<s /xeyaAou? who were in power at the 
 time. If the poem was written after the usurpation of Pisistratus, the 
 reference must be to Pisistratus and his party. Wilamowitz (1893, II, 312) 
 insists that there is no reason to believe that this is true. 
 
 5. dXwTreKos Lxveai ^aivet : " walks with the tread of a fox " ; t^vo? here 
 means a " foot-fall," as in Eur. Or. 140 crZya. trtya, Xcirrhv ixyo<; dp(3vXr]^ TcOere^ 
 fiY) KTviretT ; Phoen. 105 opeye vvv opeye yepaidv via x^V "■'^^ K\tfxdK(ov 
 iroSoj I'xvos iwavT€\Xo)v. The interpretation "follow the footsteps of a 
 fox" (so Peppqmller, Bucherer, Kynaston) offers a metaphor which does 
 not properly describe the cunning of the Athenians. The shrewdness 
 of the fox was proverbial in the sixth century : cf. Archilochus 96 (Hiller- 
 Crusius) Tw 8* ap' aXwirt)^ KepSiXy avvi^vTeTO \ ttvkvov exovaa voov ; Semo- 
 nides 7, 7 (H.-C.) r^v 8' e^ dAtrp^s ^eo? I^t/k' dAwTrcKOs | yvvat/ca, iravTOiv 
 iSpLv ' ovSe fxLv KaKO}v I XeXyjOev ov8(v ovSe Twv dfX€Lv6v<j)v. Piccolomini com- 
 pares Cratinus frag. 128 Kock vfjLOiv et? fiev cKao-ro? dXiairrji 8wpo8oK€iTat 
 
208 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 (emending the last word to 8(opo8oKa Se), and Aristoph. Knights 752 ff. 
 oI'/AOt KaKo8at/Mo)i/, (i)9 aTToAwA' • 6 yap yepwv \ olkol fxkv duSpoJV iaTL Se^toora- 
 T05, I oTav S' €7rt ravTT^crt KaOrjrai rrj^i Trerpa? | K€)(rjvev ojcrirep t^TroSt^cov 
 tcr^aSa?. 
 
 G. ;>(ai;vo? I'ovs : ef. Pindar Pyth. ii61 ^awa irpaTriSt TraXatpovcl Kevea; 
 Solon viii 4 ;(a{)m /nei/ rdr' i(f>pd(ravTo. ' One hundred and fifty years later 
 the Athenians were still afflicted with this open-mouthed stupidity, but 
 Aristophanes claims to have cured them : Acharn. 633 fF. <^r;o-tv 8* cti/at ttoA- 
 Acuv dyaOuiv a^to? r/xtv o iroLrjry]!;, | TraTjTa? t'/xas ^evLKOtat Aoyots /xi^ Acav 
 i^airaTdcrdaL, | /ar^^ rjBccrOaL OoiTvevofxivovi p.r)T clvai ^ai)v07roAtra?. 
 
 7. aioAov : this word suggests admirably both the nimble eloquence 
 which fascinates the auditors and the shifty wiles whicli delude them. 
 Aeschylus has the compound aioAdo-ro/xos in From. 661 used of the obscu- 
 rity of an oracle. The suggestion of trickiness and deceit is found in Hesiod's 
 compoimd aioAd/x77Tts {Theog. 511) and in Pindar Nem. viii 25 fxeyLcrrov 8' 
 aioAo) if/evSiL y€pa<; avrcTaTat. 
 
 XV 
 
 References: Hiller (1888); Sitzler (1879); Stadtmuller (1882); Weil 
 (1862); Wilamowitz (1893). 
 
 This poem, which is manifestly preserved in its complete form, is ascribed 
 to Solon, not only by Philo, but also by the four other authors by whom it 
 is quoted ; Diogenes Laertius also, though he docs not transcribe the poem, 
 states that Solon fixed the limit of human life at seventy years ; and Herod- 
 otus (i 32), in telling the story of the interview between Solon and Croesus, 
 puts into Solon's mouth the words : es €^8o/xr//<ovra erea ovpov rrj<i ^o-q^ 
 dvOpumoi 7rporiOr]pL. Furthermore, Aristotle refers to certain poets who di- 
 vide the space of human life into periods of seven years : Pol. 1335 b, 32 fi". 
 (speaking of the age limits within which a man should beget children) 8to Kara 
 Ty]V Tr}s Siavota? a.Kp.T]V. avrrf 8e iariv iv rot? TrAetfrroi? rjvTrep tC)V 7roLrjTo)v 
 Tive? dpy'jKiKnv oi fxeTpovvT£<; rats ijSSopdat rrjv rjXiKiav, Trepl rov )(p6vov tov 
 Tcuv Trevrr/Kovra eTtoi/ ; 1336 b, 38 ff. 8w 8' clalv TjXLKtat Trpo? a? dvayKaiov 
 StrjpTjaOai ttjv iraLSetav, /xcToi Trjv aTro rdv cttto, pi-^pL<i rj^r}<; kul irdXiv /xera, 
 Trjv d(f>* y'l^Tj'; P'^\pi tcuv evds Kul clkoctlv irwv. ol yap rats kfihopdiTi 8tatpof v- 
 TC9 ra? rfXtKiuq d>9 cVt to ttoXv Xiyovaiv ov KttKW?, 8et 8e rfj SiatpecreL Trj<; 
 (f)v(T(.ois iiraKoXovOelv' irdcra yap T€)(vr} kul 7rai8etu to TrpocrAetTrov rrjs (^ucrews 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 209 
 
 /SovXerai avairXripovv. It is extremely probable, therefore, that the poem is 
 a genuine composition of Solon. Its authenticity, however, has been dis- 
 puted. Porson rejected the poem on two grounds : first, because of its 
 prosaic and unpoetical character ; second, because in xxxvii Solon asserts 
 that a man ought to be glad to live till his eightieth year. Ahrens bluntly 
 declared the poem spurious. Usener said that -n-a? rts in vs. 7 is an im- 
 possible combination, and condemns the whole poem on this ground. These 
 are very slender arguments. ttSs rts, as Wilamowitz points out, is found in 
 Theognis, Aeschylus, Pindar, and Herodotus. As for the limit of human 
 life, Solon may well have recognized that seventy years was the general rule, 
 and yet, in his healthy attitude toward the world, it is only natural that 
 when the pessimist Mimnernus fixed the limit at sixty, or ten less than 
 seventy, he should have insisted that eighty, or ten more, was better. The 
 argument from style leads nowhere. The poem is not an inspired produc- 
 tion. But it is characterized by neatness, precision, symmetry ; a certain 
 measure of variety is attained in spite of a forbidding subject. Judged by 
 internal evidence, it is as likely to be the work of Solon as of another. The 
 fact that he did not attain to the measure of poetical excellence displayed by 
 Shakespeare in ^s You Like It when he was dealing with a similar theme, 
 proves nothing. Solon was not a Shakespeare. 
 
 The interest which the poem possessed for later writers was based on 
 two circumstances : it attempts something like a scientific division of the 
 space of human life, and it is an illustration of the significance of the num- 
 ber seven. Hippocrates (Trept i^SoixdSoiu 5 = viii p. 636 Littr^) in a 
 passage which is quoted by Philo immediately after Solon's poem, divides 
 the life of man into seven ages : from the first year to the seventh, 7rai8tW ; 
 from the eighth to the fourteenth, Trat? ; from the fifteenth to the twenty- 
 first, fxeipaKLov ; from the twenty-second to the twenty-eighth, veai/to-Kos ; 
 from the twenty-ninth to the forty-ninth, dvrjp ; from the fiftieth to the fifty- 
 sixth, TTpeo-^vrr/s ; and from the fifty-seventh till death, yipoiv. Pollux (ii 4) 
 repeats Hippocrates' seven ages ; and the subject of the division of the life 
 of a man is discussed frequently (cf. Censorinus, de die natali, 1 4 ; Bois- 
 sonade, Anecdota, II, 455 ; Daremberg, Notices et extraits de manuscrits 
 medicaux, 1853, p. 141). Clement and Anatolius, on the other hand, as 
 well as Philo, are led to quote Solon because they are discussing the prop- 
 erties of the number seven. 
 
210 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 Weil (1862) discovers strophic composition in the present poem, as he 
 does in xl : " Das menschliche Leben, auf siebzig Jahre veranschlagt, wird 
 in zchn Hebdomaden geteilt. Da aber die siebente und achte Hebdomade 
 zusammengefasst sind, so ergeben sich nur neun Altersstufen, deren jeder ein 
 Distichon gewidmet ist. Die drei ersten gehiiren der Jugend, die drei letz- 
 ten dcm Greisenalter an, und das ganze zerfallt in drei Strophen von je drei 
 Distichen." The same arguments can be brought against this proposal as 
 have been advanced in the notes to xl. 
 
 1. epKos 6S6vTo)v : a common Homeric phrase. 
 
 2. TTpioTov: adverbial. 
 
 5. TY] TpiTaTY] : SC. e/SSoixdSi. 
 
 5. Cf. Hom. Od. xi 319 Trptv a-^oi'iv viro Kpora^oidiv lovXov^ [ avOrjcraL 
 TrvKaaraiTc yeVvs cvavBi'i Aa^v^ ; and Aesch. Seven 664 ff. dXA' ovre vtv 
 <f>vy6vTa jjLYjTpoOev (tkotov, \ ovt iv Tpo<j>cu(nv ou8' l<f>rj^rj(TavTa ttod, | ovt iv 
 ycveiov avXXoyfj TpL^u>fxaTos. 
 
 6. Cf. Aesch. From. 22 f. o-ra^evro? 8' rjXLOv (f>oL(3r) cfiXoyl \ xpoias 
 afxeLif/€L<s avOo<s. 
 
 7. Cf. Hom. II. xiii 484 koI 8' e^^CL "^/Brj^ av^os, o re Kparos iarl 
 fxeyiaTOv. 
 
 8. Locus desjjeratus. 
 
 9 f. Hesiod ( IF. and D. 695) and Plato {Rep. 460 e and Laws 772 e) 
 also regard thirty as the right age for a man to marry. 
 
 9. p.f.pA>y)p.ivov : cf. Hesiod TF! and D. 616 tot tiruT dporov p,€fxvY)- 
 /LteVos etvai | wpaiov ; 641 epywv /xefxvrjfxivos eTvat | oipaimv iravTiov. 
 
 10. eto-OTTura) : cf. Hom. Hymn v 104 iroUi 8' ilaoTTLcru) Oakepov yovov. 
 11 f. Cf. Horace Ars Poetica 166: Conversis studiis aetas animusque 
 
 virilis | quaerit opes et amicitias, inservit honori, | commisisse cavet, quod 
 mox mutare laboret. 
 
 11. TTcpt Travra : a phrase found also in xiii 6 and xl 69. 
 
 11. KttTapTverat : probably the earliest appearance of this verb in the 
 sense of "train" or "educate." Homer has only the simple verb dpTvo> 
 and uses it with v ; the compound always has v except in the present 
 verse. 
 
 13. eTTToi ... €1/ e^Bofida-Lv . . . oktio : obviously an effort to secure 
 variety and avoid the repetition of the phrase which has been used four times 
 already. The meaning is the same as if iv tyj i/SSo/xr) eftSofxdSi had been 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 211 
 
 written, and the phrase is not parallel to iv Ittt irea-Lv of vs. 2, which means 
 "in the course of seven years." 
 
 15. /u-aXaKWTcpa : this word is not found in the present sense in Homeric 
 or early elegiac poetry ; but an excellent parallel is furnished by Thucydides 
 (ii 18, 3) : airtav 8e ovk iXa^^^LcrrrjV Ap>^t8a/xos eXafSev (xtt* avrov (i.e., from 
 the methods employed by him at Oenoe), Sokiov Koi iv rrj iwaywyrj tov 
 TToXefxov /xaXaKos etvat kol rots A9rjvaL0L<; €7rtT>;8eto?, ov Trapatvoiv Trpo^v/xws 
 TToXcfxelv. 
 
 17. It is interesting to recall that the Hebrew Psalmist also fixed the 
 limit of human life at " three score years and ten." 
 
 17. Kara fxerpov lkolto : i.e., KaOiKoiTO to ixerpov avrrj^ (sc. t^s BcKa.Trj'i 
 €^8op,a8o?) ; TO fjierpov is the " full measure " or the " end." 
 
 XVI 
 
 References : Daremberg (1869) ; Hiller (1888) ; Madvig (1871) ; Piatt (1896); 
 Sitzler (1879, 1900). 
 
 On xvi and xvi-a see page 13, footnote 3. 
 
 The two kinds of riches described in these lines may be called separable 
 and inseparable riches, and Solon maintains that the second are at least as 
 good as the first. Separable riches are such possessions as are enumerated 
 in the first two lines — money, land, horses. Inseparable riches are those 
 which are inherent in the person of the owner, and, as here conceived, they 
 are purely physical. Perfect health and a sound body insure not only im- 
 munity from pain, but also afford the means of positive enjoyment through 
 the satisfaction of the normal appetites. But human appetites are not 
 fixed and unalterable throughout life : each age brings its own desires and 
 capacities. The formula, therefore, for inseparable human wealth (to speak 
 in mathematical language) varies as the desires and capacities of the subject 
 vary with the advancing years. Here is a whole philosophy of life. Con- 
 fronted by the three allied enemies of the human race, disease, old age, and 
 death, which is the better viaticum for a man to choose, separable or in- 
 separable wealth ? The choice is easy : material possessions will avail 
 against none of the foes, personal well-being will render at least one of them 
 powerless. This is a slight amplification of Solon's thought, and presents 
 the large principle upon which lie bases his disparagement of material riches. 
 
212 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 3, fxova ravTa : i.e., a(3pa iraOctv and crvv 8' cop?^ ytyverat dpfMoSca. 
 
 4. yaa-jpL T€ kol irXevpfj Kal voaiv : datives of means with d/^pa Tra^etv ; 
 the three parts of the body stand, by synecdoche, for the whole physique. 
 
 4. Of. Horace Fp. i 12, 5 : Si ventri bene, si lateri est pedibusque tuis, 
 nil I divitiae poterunt regales addere mains. 
 
 4. Daremberg (1869, p. 9) : " . . . il (sc. Solon) a placd la vraie 
 richesse, je veux dire la vraie santd, dans un bon estomac, dans une robuste 
 poitrine et dans des pieds agiles ; s'il ne dit rien de la tete, c'est que dans 
 I'antique medecine cette partie, dont la poitrine avait usurpd les fonctions, 
 ne jouait pas encore le role important que lui accordent la physiologie et la 
 pathologie modernes." 
 
 4. aft pa iraOdv '. this phrase is ordinarily used to mean the enjoyment 
 of such luxuries as money can buy, and comes as a surprise after three such 
 humble sources of pleasure as yacrrpi, TrXevpfj, and ttoo-lv. 
 
 5. TTtttSo? T ySe ywaiKo's : the genitive is to be taken with yjSr]. 
 
 5. i-n-rjv Kal ravT a<^iKrjTai : ravra refers vaguely and somewhat guard- 
 edly to the pleasures of love, which have already been suggested by TratSds t 
 7}h\ yumtKos and which are more definitely named in rjft^. From the tone 
 of this clause and the presence of Kat one may judge that such pleasures 
 were not regarded as indispensable to happiness. 
 
 6. rjftx] : parallel with the datives yaarpi re Kal irXevprj Kal Trocrtv and 
 another source of the pleasures of the simple life. 
 
 6. (Tvv 8' oiprj ktX. : this is still part of the relative clause introduced by 
 (S in vs. 3. 
 
 6. <^pr) : every season of human life from childhood to extreme old age. 
 Each one of the eftSop-dSe^ described in xv may be called a wprj. 
 
 G. dpfjioBca. : personal powers and external opportunities appropriate to 
 each age. Perrin (1914), printing rjjSr) and cjprj in vs. 6, translates vss. 3-6 
 as follows : "While to the other only enough belongs | To give him comfort 
 of food, and clothes, and shoes, | Enjoyment of child and blooming wife, when 
 these too come, | And only years commensurate therewith are his." This 
 translation seems to me quite wrong for the following reasons : it leaves 
 Tavra (vs. 3) out of account ; yaaTpt and ttoctlv might suggest food and 
 shoes, but TrXevprj could hardly suggest clothes ; yjftrj belongs to 7rat8o? as 
 well as to yvvfUKo?, and it is hardly likely that the boy should be the man's 
 own son ; wp-q docs not naturally mean the whole stretch of a man's life ; 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 213 
 
 and "commensurate therewith " is not clear — commensurate with what? 
 Some of these errors are found also in Schneidewin and Hartung. Humbert 
 has it correctly : "... celui (jui n'a que les biens suivants : les jouissances 
 que procurent un bon estomac, de vigoureux poumons, des jambes solides, 
 I'amour pendant sa jeunesse ou des plaisirs en rapport h son age." 
 
 7. Treptojcria : a rare word ; found in a somewhat similar sense in Apoll. 
 Rhod. A7'(/. ii 394 Trepnoata <j)vXa Be^^etpcov. 
 
 XVII 
 
 Reference: Wilamowitz (1893). 
 
 Aristotle seems to have had in mind the whole poem of which these four 
 lines are a fragment when he wrote (Uth. JVic. 1 179 a, 9 f.) : Kal SdXcov Sk tov<; 
 evSat/xova? 'laioq aTre^atVero KaXcu5, eiTrwv /xerpt'cos tois iKTo<i K€^op7)yr]ixevov<i, 
 TTCTrpaydra? 8e KaWtara, w? wero, Kal (iefiniiK6Ta<i aoxfypovdii' evSe^erat yap 
 fxerpLa KCKTrjixevov; Trparretv a Set. 
 
 1. KaKot, dyaOot: not primarily a moral distinction. The dyaOot are 
 the persons of good family who have had the benefit of training, education, 
 and environment, and who are possessed therefore of that general human 
 excellence which was called dper-^ ; the KaKot are persons of the lower classes, 
 inferior in all points of human excellence. The dyaOoL are the ^lite ; the 
 KttKoi, the vulgar. dpeTrj<: in vs. 3 is not virtue or merely moral excellence, 
 but rather that high development of the physical, mental, moral, and ces- 
 thetic endowments which are included in the whole human complex. Such 
 dpcTT], embracing the full measure of a man, is attainable only through birth 
 and breeding in the first instance and personal endeavor besides. One of 
 these sources is rarely suflScient without the other. Furthermore, dperrj is 
 not for the poor and needy ; normally a competence, if not wealth, is neces- 
 sary for its attainment. And yet dpery and wealth are not identical ; Solon 
 himself is an example of a man who had one without the other. Wilamowitz 
 (1893, II, p. 305) asserts : " Die dpery ist bereits die der seele, nicht die des 
 blutes fiir ihn (Solon). Die moralische bedeutung der begriffe dyaOos und 
 xa/cd? gilt bereits fiir Solon." This he says in order to justify the contention, 
 which is probably true, that the poem was written in criticism of the timo- 
 cratic constitution which prevailed in Athens. But it is unnecessary to 
 insist that dperyj and dya06<; must refer to either birth or morality. The 
 philosophic conception of virtue was still far in the futun; at Solon's time. 
 
214 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 On the other liand, there was probably a moral ingredient in the composition 
 of apcTif] from the beginning. 
 
 1. irivovrai : " are poor." Tlie word is not found in this sense in Homer 
 and Hesiod, but it is common in Attic. 
 
 1. ayaOol Se trivovTaL : subordinate in thought to ttoXXol TrkovTovcn 
 KaKOL ; avroLcr' in the next line refers to kukol. 
 
 '2 f. Cf. Plato Laws 728 a : ttS? yap 6 r iirl yr}? kol vtto y^s )(pva6<; 
 apeTrj<; ovk dvra^tos. 
 
 4. Cf. Eur. Electra 941-944 17 yap <^ucns ftifSaLo<;, ov ra xPVf^'''^' I V 
 {xkv yap alel irapafxivova a'tpei KaKa' | 6 8' ok/So^ olSlKox; Kal fxcra (TKaLUiv 
 ivviov I e^eTTTar' oikcdv, ajxiKpov av6rj(Ta<i yjpovov. 
 
 XVIII 
 
 It is difficult to say whence these two rather insignificant verses came or 
 why Plutarch and his authorities saw fit to preserve them. The legend is 
 preserved in several places (see Meyer, 1893, II, 568) that the laws of Za- 
 leucus were directly inspired by Athena, in which case they might well have 
 taken poetical form; and Hermippus (Athenaeus xiv 619 b) reports that 
 the laws of Charondas were sung at banquets in Athens. The present lines, 
 therefore, may have formed the introduction to a poetical version of some 
 early code. But it is unlikely that Solon himself wrote them, because if he 
 had written no more than this, it would have gone into the wastebasket ; if 
 he had written his whole code in verse, we should have had fragments of it 
 in that form. 
 
 2. Tvxy}v ayaOriv : a common Attic formula, especially in the dative. 
 
 2. KvBo^ oTrdaa-ai: a Homeric phrase; cf Hom. //. vii 205, viii 141, 
 xii 255 ; Od. iii 57, etc. 
 
 XIX 
 
 Reference: Sitzler (1897). 
 
 It is probable that the two couplets here quoted by Plutarch are derived 
 from dittcrent poems and are brought together as evidence for Solon's scien- 
 tific ideas. That it is unfair to deduce his ideas from them is manifest. 
 The first couplet appears also in xiii, preserved by Diodorus, where it is fol- 
 lowed by four other lines. The second couplet (xix) j)robably formed part 
 of a longer passage in which Solon drew the coni])aris()ii In^tween the S?}iJLo<i 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 215 
 
 and the sea, as in xiii he compares the strong men in a state to a storm 
 cloud. Of. Frag, iamb adesp. 11 (H.-C.) : 8^/xos ao-rarov KaKov | koI 
 6a\a.(Tay iravO OfJLolov vtt dvcfxav ptTrt^erat, | kol yaXrjvu^ it/v tv)(j, Trpos 
 TTvevjxa ^pa)(v Kopvaacrat, | Ktjv Tts atr<,a yivrjTat, tov ttoXltyjv KareViti/. 
 Herodotus vii 16 to, o-c kol d/xcfiOTepa irepL-^KOvTa dvOpiiiiruiv KaKtlv op-ikiai 
 (r<f>d\\ov(n, KaTairep tyjv TrdvTwv )(^pr]aLixo)TdTr)V dvOpMiroKTi OdXaaaav Trvcrfxard 
 (fiaaL ifXTTLTTTOVTa ov Trepiopdv <f>v(n rrj cwvTiy? ^prjaCaL. Polybius xi 29 66ev 
 del TO TrapaTrXrjaLov Trddo<i crvp-l^aLvei irepi re toijs o'^Xov^ koX ttjv OdXarrav. 
 KaOd-rrep ycap KaKetVr;? 17 p.lv iSta <f)v(n<; iarlv d/8Aa/5r/? to^<; ^pco/xeVot? kol (Trdm- 
 fxcs, orav 8' et? avrrjv ifXTriarj rd Trvev/xara /Slo., Toiavrr) (f>aLveTaL rots ;^pa)/xcVot?, 
 oloL Tii/e? av (5(711/ ol kvk\ovvt€^ avrrjv dve/xoL, tov avTov Tpoirov kol to irXrjOo'i 
 du KOX (f>xLveTaL kxl ytyi/erat Trpo? TOv<i ^/3(jO/xcVov?, olov<; dv €)(rj TrpoaTdTa^ kol 
 av/x^ovXoVi. Dionys. Hal. xvii 12 TrapaTrXrjaLov tl Trda^ova-Lv at SyjfxcKpa- 
 Tovfxtvai 7r()Aei? rot? TreXdyecrtv' iKCLvd re yap vtto tojv dvefxwv rapctrrerat 
 <f>vaLv exovTa rfpefieLV [sic], avTai 8e vtto Ttliv Srjfxayioy'ov KVKlvTai fxrjBkv iv 
 avTaL<; exovaat KaKov. Cicero pro Ciuentio 49, 138 : Ex quo intelligi potuit 
 id quod saepe dictum est : ut mare, quod natura sua tranquillum sit, ventorum 
 vi agitari atque turbari, sic populum Romanum sua sponte esse placatum, 
 hominum seditiosorum vocibus, ut violentissiniis tempestatibus concitari. 
 2. StKatoTotTry : " well-regulated," " law-abiding." 
 
 XX 
 
 References: Dummler (1894), Leutsch (1872). 
 
 For the circumstances of the composition of this poem see pages 39 ff. 
 There is probably no special significance in the opening words, which should 
 not be taken literally. If Solon had really been a herald, he certainly would 
 not have made his pi'oclamation in verse. He is a herald only in a figura- 
 tive sense, intending to accomplish through his poem the same kind of result 
 that a herald would have accomplished through his spoken proclamation. As 
 a herald comes from a city which is in danger and distress to implore the 
 aid of a neighboring city and delivers his plea before the assembled citizens, 
 so Solon makes himself the champion of imperiled Salamis and pleads her 
 cause in verse. The suspicions of Leutsch (1872, p. 137) concerning the 
 authenticity of this couplet are sufficiently answered by this interpretation. 
 
 2. Koa-fMov iireoiv : a literary composition, in whiclj art governs the choice 
 and combination of words; here the object of ^e'/xei/o^ (= Trot-qaas). Cf Thuc. 
 
216 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 iii 67 XoyoL iirecn KOCTfjirjOiVTeq ; Pind. 01. 11, 14 Koafxov . . . dSv/xe\rj 
 K€\aSi]crii} ; Pliiletas of Cos, 8, 3 (Schneidewin) dA.A' cTreW eiStb? Koafxov koI 
 iroWa ixoyrjaa<i | fjivOwv iravTOiuiv ol/xov iTrLcrTdjJievo^. 
 
 2. ioSrjv : a poem to be sung, here used in apposition to Koa-fxov iireoiv. 
 
 2. ayoprjs : a speech ; this meaning is rare, but it is found in Hom. II. 
 ii 788. 
 
 XXI-XXII 
 
 References: Hiller (1886); Mekler (1895) ; Piatt (1896) ; Shorey (1911) ; 
 Sitzler (1879, 1900) ; Wilamowitz (1893). 
 
 XXI and xxii almost certainly belong to the same poem, from which 
 also viii is possibly drawn. For the circumstances see pp. 56 ff. 
 
 XXI 
 
 2. a/JLetXixov : cf. Semonides vii 35 (H.-C) d/xctA.t;(os 8c Tracrt KOLTroOv^i-q I 
 i^Opoiaiv l(Ta Kol cf)LXoL(Ti yiyveTai. 
 
 3. Karatcr^wa? KX€0<i : cf. Eur. Ilel. 845 to TpioLKov yap ov KaraLcr^vvo) 
 
 KXiO^i. 
 
 3. There is some ditference of opinion about the interpretation of /xtam? 
 Koi KaTaL(T)(yvas kX^os. What stain upon Solon's reputation is meant? 
 Wilamowitz, followed by Bucherer, thinks that the stain is that which 
 Solon's reputation actually incurred in the minds of the majority when he 
 refused to seize the tyranny. The other view is that the stain was that 
 which his reputation would have incurred if he had seized the tyranny. 
 Wilamowitz claims that xxi and xxii belong to the same poem and that 
 xxii precedes xxi ; the first line of xxii, then, seems to him to justify his in- 
 terpretation of xxi 3. This is extremely improbable, for two reasons. 
 (1) The participles /Aiams and aLa)(yva<s fall most naturally under the in- 
 fluence of the negative ov, and therefore cannot be taken in Wilamowitz' sense. 
 Bucherer tries to parry this argument by saying that the ov belongs closely 
 to KaOrjipdprjv, making with it a single idea, " verschmahte " ; and by this he 
 explains why we have ov and not ^rj. But ov is, of course, the proper nega- 
 tive in this s(Mitence, which is not a conditional, but a causal or objective 
 clause with alSevpat. For the idiom of the negative which is extended to 
 the two participles, see Shorey (1911). (2) The words /oitam? and Karat- 
 o-;(wa9 are far too strong, for even Solon's critics, to use of his failure to 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 217 
 
 seize the tyranny, whereas they express exactly Solon's conception of the 
 disgrace wliich would have fallen upon him through such an attempt. 
 Humbert is right here as usual — "si je n'ai pas voulu, dans la crainte de 
 flt^trir ma gloire, avoir recours h, la tyrannic," etc. Shorey points out that 
 there is nothing in this fragment or the next to justify the interpretation 
 that they are Solon's serious apology for not having seized and used the 
 tyranny in the interests of either of the two political parties. The apology 
 which they contain is not a political apology at all. "It is at the most 
 the ironical apology of the higher morality to the lower morality of the man 
 of the world — the apology of a Socrates to a Callicles (Plato, Gorg. 
 522 d) " (Shorey). 
 
 ■i f. Solon here refuses to be judged by the ordinary standards of his 
 day, and therefore feels no aiStos in disregarding them. He sets up a new 
 moral principle not hitherto recognized, and, by acting in accordance with it, 
 he justly claims superiority over the rest of the world, which has not yet 
 recognized the principle. 
 
 XXII 
 
 Not only the thought of these lines, but the tone of the language as 
 well, are characteristic of the common man {rov<i ttoAAoi;? koX cf)av\ovq, to use 
 Plutarch's words). The last line in particular is distinctly Aristophanic. 
 
 1. Cf. Soph. Ant. 79 TO 8c | ^ta TroAtrtov Bpav icfivv afX'Qxavo';. 
 
 1. (3a6v<f>poiv: cf. Pind. ]\^em. vii 1 EiAet^ma, TrdpeSpe Motpav ^aOv- 
 <f>p6v<i)v ; Aesch. Pers. 142 cfypovriSa KeSvrjv kol ^aOvfSovXov. 
 
 1. (3ov\yeL<5 : a very rare word. 
 
 3. Cf. Herod, i 141 ka/Selv ap.f^tjiX'qyTpov koI Trept/SaXelv re 7rX.rjOo<; 
 TToXXov tC)v IxOvayv kol i^eipvaaL. 
 
 3. cVtWao-ei/: "drew the net tight," as in Dem, xxiv 139 reOvrjKev 
 €7rt(r7ra(7^ CI/T05 tov (3p6)(ov (of a death by hanging). 
 
 4. Ovp,ov . . . KOL (f)p€vCjv : these qualities are thought of as necessary 
 for one who would usurp the tyranny, not for a fisherman drawing in his 
 net. 
 
 4. a[xapTrj : " at the same time." 
 
 5 ff. Cf. Eur. Phoen. 503 flf. eycb yap ovBev, p-yrep, aTroKpri/za? ipu)' \ 
 a(TTpo)V av tXOoip! -^Xlov Trpo? dvroAas | kol yrj<; ivepOcv, Svvaro? wv Spacrat 
 TaSe, I Tr]v Occov /xeytcrrr^v uxtt* €\€LV TvpavviSa. 
 
218 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 7. dcTKos ScBapOaL : cf. Aristoph. Clouds 439 fF. vvv ovv aTe)(yio^ 6 tl 
 ^ovXovTai TovTi Tovfxov aCjfx avToicnv Trapi^o), tvtttuv Tretvrjv Suf/rjv av)(^fx€tv 
 pty^v acTKov BetpcLv ktX. ; Knights 370 Sepoj ae OvXukov kAott^s ; Plat. 
 Euthyd. 285 d eycu fxiv, €<f>r), Koi avros, w ^(jjKpareq, ctoi/xos elfxt 7rap€)(eLv 
 ifxavTov rois i€voL<;, koI iav (SovXayvrai Sepeiv en fxaXXov rj vvv Bepova-iv, et 
 fxoL yj SopoL p-Tj eh dcTKov reXevTrjaei (^airep rj rov M.apavov, aXX' els aperrjv. 
 
 7. e7rLTeTp2<f>0aL : evidently a word of the popiUar speech, not found in 
 the earlier poets (though Sophocles has cTrtVptTTTos in Ajax 103), but 
 common in Aristophanes. In SeSapOac Ka-jnTeTplf^Bai the perfect tense de- 
 scribes the eternal state which tlie speaker is willing to accept in return for 
 one brief day of glory. 
 
 7. yeVos : subject of eTnTeTpl^Oai ; not, as Bucherer says, accusative of 
 reference. 
 
 XXIII 
 
 Plutarch is here quoting parenthetically the second line of an elegiac 
 couplet ; yap is not part of the verse, and epypxicn must have been epyp.amv. 
 The occasion of the quotation is the description of the dissatisfaction and 
 criticism wliich prevailed after the establishment of Solon's laws. Whether 
 the line belongs to a poem which was composed at that time is uncertain ; 
 the sentiment would harmonize well with that of vi. Bergk says that possibly 
 the poem from which this line is quoted contained also Theogn. 801-804 : 
 OvSd<s avOpo)7r(i)v ovt eaaerai ovre TrccfyvKfv, \ oaTts Tracnv dSiov SvaeraL eh 
 AtSeco* I ovBe yap os OvrjToicn Koi a9avd oiaLv dvacro-ct, | Zevs Kpovt'STys, OvrjToh 
 Trda-Lv dSeV Svmrai. But it seems certain that Solon would not have written 
 verses of so cynical a strain. 
 
 XXIV 
 
 Eeferences : Koehler (1802) ; Sitzler (1897). 
 
 See pages 95 tf. 
 
 The lines refer probably to a sojourn in Naucratis as well as in Sais and 
 other Egyptian cities. Koehler (1892, p. 345), indeed, feels so certain that 
 Naucratis is referred to that he regards the verse as a proof that a Greek com- 
 mercial settlement existed at Naucratis before tiie time of Amasis (569-526). 
 
 Trpoxorja-L : used thus commonly in the plural of the mouth of a river ; 
 cf. Hom. //. xvii 263 ; Od. v 453, etc. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 219 
 
 XXV 
 
 For Solon's visit to Philocyprus, king of Soli in the island of Cyprus, see 
 pages 95 If. 
 
 These lines formed a part, probably the close, of the poem referred to by 
 Herodotus (v 113), in which Solon praised Philocyprus more highly than all 
 other tyrants (ev e-n-eo-L atVecre Tvpavvoiv fxaXLO-To). With Solon's farewell to 
 Philocyprus may be compared the farewell of Odysseus to Alcinous in Hom. 
 Od. xiii 38 ff., where Odysseus, like Solon, bespeaks prosperity for his host 
 and a safe return for himself: d/xu/xova 8' olkol olkoltlv | vocrrr/cra? evpoifxi 
 (Tvv apT€}iU(Tcn (^IXoLfTLv. I v/ACt? S' avOi fxevovTCs iiJ cfypacvoLTC ywatKa? | kov- 
 piSn^ Kal r€Kva' Oeol 8' dp^rrjv OTracretav | TravTOi-qv, kol jxrj tl KaKov /xcra- 
 SrjixLov cl'r/. 
 
 4. KuTrpt? lo(TTecfiavo<; : cf. Hom. Hymn vi 18 o^o^ Qavp.aZpvrf.'i loarecfydvov 
 Kv^epetr/s ; Theogn. 1304 ovKerLSrjpov \ e^ets Kv7rpoyevov<; 8a)pov toare^avov. 
 
 5. oLKLdixio: properly an abstract noun, "the founding of a settlement," 
 here used for the settlement itself. The word is uncommon, but it is found 
 in Plat. Laws 708 d TrdAecov oiKiapiOL. 
 
 XXVI 
 
 References: Blass (1888) ; Crusiiis (1895) ; Sitzler (1894). 
 
 The reply to Mimnemus w^hich is here referred to has been preserved by 
 Diogenes Laertius (see xxxvii), and most editors regard the two fragments as 
 parts of the same poem. Some go even farther. Bergk remarked that vss. 
 1069 f. in Theognis' collection — 
 
 "A(f)pov€^ dvOpcoTTOt Kal vr)TTiOL, oXre dav6vTa<s 
 K\aiov(T, ouS' r}8ri<^ dv6o<; aTroWvfjievov, — 
 
 were probably written by Mimnernus ; Schneidewin pointed out that Solon's 
 couplet may be a reply to them ; and Blass (1888, p. 742) thinks there 
 is no doubt but that we have two complete poems, one by Mimnernus, 
 consisting of Mimn. frag, vi (B.) and Theogn. 1069 f., the other by 
 Solon, consisting of xxxvii and xxvi. I cannot accept this reconstruction. 
 In the first place, Solon's lines are not really a reply to the lines in 
 Theognis ; in the second place, they do not easily follow immediately after 
 xxxvii. There is an air of epigrammatic finality in xxxvii, which will not 
 tolerate the addition of such a sentiment as that expressed in xxvi. It 
 
220 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 seems to me not improbable that xxxvii formed the close of a longer poem 
 addressed to Mimnenius and that xxvi is a quotation from the earlier portion 
 of that poem. These lines attracted the attention of Cicero, who alludes" to 
 them in two places. In the Tuscidan Disputations (i 49, 117) he trans- 
 lates them into a Latin couplet : " Mors mea ne careat lacrimis, linquamus 
 amicis | Maerorem, ut celebrent funera cum gemitu." In the Cato Major 
 ('20, 73) he compares them with a verse of Ennius in which the opposite sen- 
 timent is expressed : " Solonis quidem sapientis est elegium, quo se negat 
 velle suam mortem dolore amicorum et lamentis vacare. Volt, credo, se esse 
 carum suis, sed baud scio an melius Ennius : ' Nemo me lacrumis decoret, 
 neque funera fletu | Faxit.'" On this opinion of Cicero Nageotte (1888, 
 p. 167) remarks: "II (i.e., Cicero) trouve plus de courage dans le Romain 
 que dans le Grec. J'en suis fachd pour Cicdron, mais il n'a pas compris les 
 vers de Solon. Solon ne se lamente pas du tout, comme il le croit, ?i I'id^e 
 de la mort ; ce qu'il veut seulement, c'est que son souvenir soit cher ?i ses 
 amis, que son depart les attriste. J'aime mieux ce besoin d'affection (jui se 
 prolonge meme au-delk du tombeau, que le stoicisme un peu pedant 
 d'Ennius." 
 
 XXVII 
 
 Allusion had been made by the previous speaker in Plutarch's dialogue 
 to Solon's law forbidding intercourse between slaves and boys. 
 
 1. rifi-q^ IpaTolcTLv iir avOeat : cf. Horn. //. xiii 484 kol 8' c^ei ■q/Srj'i 
 avOo<;, o re Kp<xTO<i ecrrt fxiyicTTOv', Mimnernus 1, 4 17^7/? avOta ytyverat 
 dpiraXea \ av8pd(riv r}Se yvvaL$iv; Tyrtaeus 10, 28 o<^p ipaTrj<; r)(ir)<i ayXaov 
 a.vOo<i iXV''> Theogn. 1348 TraiSei'r;? av^o? e)(ovT epardv. 
 
 XXVIII 
 
 Reference : Gomperz (1880). 
 
 oOev : this refers to the arguments which have been advanced by the 
 speaker in s\ipport of his view that the love of men for women is a nobler 
 thing than the love of men for boys. Devotion to wine, women, and song 
 is not at the present day regarded as a characteristic of the calm of middle 
 life, still less of advancing age {-wp^a^vTrj^) ; but to the Greek it was natural 
 to believe that the gifts of Aphrodite, Dionysus, and the Muses were the 
 decent i)leasures of the normal man. 
 
 1. KvTrpoycvoCs : cf. KuVpt? XXV 4. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 221 
 
 XXIX 
 
 This line may have belonged to the same poem as xxx and xxxiii. See 
 the note on xxxiii. 
 
 tySiv : this word, which properly meant a " mortar," was also, according 
 to Pollux (Joe. cit.), the name of a kind of dance (co-n fxev ovv tySt? koI 
 opxweijDS (TxrjfJM), in which sense it was used by Antisthenes and probably 
 also by Solon. 
 
 XXX 
 
 Phrynichus points out in the passage immediately preceding the quota- 
 tion the impropriety of using the word orrpdyStAo? for either a pine nut or a 
 pine tree, the proper words being ttltv: and ttltvos Kaprroq. " The words 
 from Kttt yap to the end," says Rutherford, " may well be a spurious addition 
 made by some one who happened to have heard kokkwv so used by the vulgar. 
 The remark is awkwardly introduced, and contradicts to Se eScoSi/xoi/ 
 TTLTvoiv KapTTos. Thcrc Is no reason for assigning to kokkwv in Solon's iambics 
 the meaning of a-Tpo^iko^, ' the edible kernel of a pine cone.' " See note on 
 xxxiii. 
 
 XXXI 
 
 1. yvo)(jLoavvr)s : a very rare derivative, formed from yvwfxoiv as o-cu^/oo- 
 crvvrf is formed from (Tu)cf>p(iiv. It means " the ability to see and compre- 
 hend." For yv<i)fJLoavvr]<s d^aves ix€Tpov, cf. aOavdroiv d<f)avr)<; v6o<s in xxxii. 
 
 2. TrdvTcov iretpaT c^et - the meaning of TrcLpara here as in many other 
 instances is uncertain. In Homer it has at least two well defined meanings, 
 " ropes " or "cables," and " end " or " bounds " ; besides the passages where 
 either one or the other of these is applicable, there are many others where 
 there is room for doubt. In such a place as II. vii 102 avrap vrrepOe \ vtKr}<; 
 TTupar exovTuL iv dOavdroicn OeoLcnv, it is not impossible that the poet was 
 thinking of a figurative use of Tretpara in the sense of " ropes " ; the gods 
 may hold the strings which control the course of human events. On the 
 other hand, the word may mean here " the consummation " or " power of 
 accomplishment," as t€Xo<s frequently does. Whichever figure lies at the 
 back of this idiom, it is obvious that we have the same idiom in Archilochus 
 52 (H.-C) vLKr}<^ 8' iv OeolcTL Treipara ; in Theogu. 1171 f. Vvw/JL-qv, Kvpve, 
 Oeol OvrjTOiat OLSovaLv dpicTTOv | dv9p<JiTroi^' yvuifxri Trelpara TravTo<; €^€t ; and 
 
222 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 in the present passage in Solon. Now if we put by the side of these Hesiod 
 W. and D. 669 Iv to?? yap [^e., kv to2<; ^eot?] re'Aos iarlv o/aw? ayaOiou re 
 KUKtuv re, and Semonides 1, 1 f. TiXo<i fjiev Zei;? i^ei fiapvKTviro^ | Trdvrojv oa 
 i(TTL, it seems fair to assume that irupara c^etv with tlie genitive is equiva- 
 lent to reA-os txuv with the genitive and that both mean " to possess the 
 power of bringing to fulfillment," "to be sovereign over." This conclusion 
 is corroborated by Soph. frag. dub. 1028 (ap. Clem. Strom. V xiv 128, 2) 
 ovSc ^eoi? avOaipcra iravTa TreXovTai, | v6cr<f}L Aids* Keti/o? yap t^ct reXos rfSe 
 Koi ap)(7]v, in which not only consummation but also initiation is ascribed to 
 Zeus. Furthermore, reAo? €X"^ came to have a political sense, "to be en- 
 dowed with plenary powers," as in the treaty quoted by Thuc. iv 1 18. If we 
 conclude, then, that Tretpar tx^tv means " to be sovereign over," whatever may 
 have been the origin of the use, there is still another question to be raised. 
 The subject of c^^' is not personal ; o is a neuter pronoun whose antecedent 
 is fxirpov. We may say, of course, that the real subject is yvtu/xoo-wT^? fxer- 
 pov, or, going one step farther back, God himself, who possesses yv(Dfxoavvr)<; 
 d<f>avh fxerpov. This is probably true. But can we suppose that Solon was 
 unaware of the suggestive relationship between the words p^irpov and 
 TTct/ottTa? We shall not be accusing Solon of a philosophical abstraction, 
 nor do we need to impute to him any of the doctrines of the later schools, if 
 we insist that there hovered before his mind the very concrete figure of the 
 infinite wisdom of God containing and comprehending within itself all things 
 of finite dimensions. This figure, however, is only an overtone, I believe, 
 enriching the familiar idiom which is employed. The lines quoted above 
 from Theognis give a curious twist to the thought and the language of 
 Solon's couplet. Theognis makes human wit supreme, though he deigns to 
 acknowledge that this wit is the gift of heaven. The difference between 
 these two couplets is typical of the difference in the philosophy of the two 
 men. 
 
 XXXII 
 
 The lines of Hesiod which are here referred to are quoted by Clement 
 immediately before the present passage (Hesiod }f('l.(iiiij)0(lie, frag, clxix 
 Rzach-) : p.dvTL<i 8' ovSets ianv iin^OovLOiv dvOpuiTrwv, | oariq ai/ eiSe'rj Zr}v6<: 
 voov alyio^oLo. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 223 
 
 XXXIII 
 
 References: Hammer (1902) ; Sitzler (1894, 1907). 
 
 It seems probable that this fragment and xxix and xxx belonged to the 
 same poem. What the subject of it was, we can only conjecture. Hartung's 
 suggestion that it was a satire on the gluttony of the rich is the most plaus- 
 ible one. Crusius remarks that the present fragment recalls the fabulous 
 world of pleasure and delight which tlie comic poets were fond of describing, 
 and hazards the guess that Solon relegated to this world the ungrateful per- 
 sons mentioned in x. Of Anacreon, frag. 13 (H.-C.) : rfpia-T-qa-a fxev l-ptov 
 XeTTTOv /XLKphv dro/cAoi?, | oivov 8' i^iinov kolSov, vvv 8' d/J/jco? ipoeaaav 
 I \f/lX\o) ttyjktlSi Tt] <fit Xj] Ku)fxd^(DV TTtttS' a^pj. 
 
 1. irlvovai KOL TpMyovcnv : the regular phrase for a Greek symposium, 
 when the banqueters drank their wine and ate with it sweetmeats, cakes, and 
 bonbons of all kinds. Cf. Dem. Fals. Leg. 197 Tavrrjv to fikv 7rpC>Tov 
 ovTwal tt'vclv yjo'v^'j koL Tpii)y€Lv r)vdyKat,ov ovtol ; Aristoph. Peace 1324 crvKo. 
 re rpojyeiv ; Herodotus iv 143 opixrjfxevov Aapet'ov /ootds rpwycLv ; i 71 Trpoj 8e 
 ovK o.Vo) 8ta;)(p€a)i/Tat [z.e., the primitive Persians], dXAd vSpoTroriova-L, ov 
 avKa 8e e)(OvaL rptoyctv, ovk dXXo dyadov ovS'.v. 
 
 1. trpia : one of the countless varieties of small cakes which were made 
 by the Greeks. Cf. Athen. 646 d iVpiov 7re/i,/xdriov Actttov 8td o-vyo-d/ixov Koi 
 yu,eAtTos yLvofievov. 
 
 2. doTov : bread made of wheat flour. 
 
 4. dcrcra yrj (fiipei : e.g., figs and pomegranates. 
 
 XXXIV-XXXVIII 
 
 No modem critical edition of Diogenes Laertius exists. The quotations 
 have been made from Cobet's edition, and the textual notes have been 
 supplied from the edition of Hiibner, from Bergk's Poetae Lyrici Graeci, 
 and, for xxxvii, from Diels (1902, p. 480). 
 
 XXXIV 
 
 For the circumstances referred to in this and the following fragment, see 
 pages 39 ff. These two fragments evidently belong to the poem called 
 *'Salamis," from which xx also is derived. Lehmann-Haupt (1912, p. 19) 
 says without any authority whatever that the poem closed with the couplet 
 of xxxv. 
 
224 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 1. TOT : i.e., if we give up the attempt to recover Salamis. 
 
 1. Pholegaiidros and Sicinos were two small islands south of Paros 
 among the Cydades. 
 
 2. avTi y 'AOrjvatov : ye is an indication of the scornful tone in which 
 Solon would have uttered the name of the city which had disgraced itself. 
 
 3. <f>dTL<i rjBe kt\. : " this remark would become current in the world." 
 
 4. avyjp : with 'Attikos. 'Attlkos dvy/p is one predicate of ovto^;, and 
 Twv '^aX.afxiva<j>cT(i)v is another. 
 
 4. %a\aixLva<f>€Tu)v : a characteristic Greek compound, admirably con- 
 ceived to signify the contempt which Athens would bring on herself Such 
 catchwords, crystallizing the spirit of a party, are dangerous weapons of 
 offense in political controversies. 
 
 XXXV 
 
 1. LOjjiev : the vowel of the stem (t) is lengthened under the ictus, as in 
 Hom. 11. ii 440, ix 625, xii 328 ; in all these passages lofxev forms the 
 first foot. 
 
 1. Trepl vrjaov : cf. Tyrtaeus X 13 (F>.) : ^v/xaJ yrj<; irepl TrjaSe ixa^^oyfieOa 
 Kttt Trept TratScoi/ | OvycrKiOfxev. 
 
 2. ^(aAcTrdi/ T ato-;(o? dirioa-ofxtvoL : Demosthenes, speaking of Solon's 
 success in rousing the Athenians to recover Salamis, paraphrases these words 
 (Fals. Leg. 252) : koX Trjv p-lv \<jipav di/eVwcre ttJ TroXet, t^v 8' V7rdp)(ovaav 
 al(T\vvY)v d7rrj\\a$€v. 
 
 XXXVI 
 
 References: Hiller (1883) ; Leutsch (1872) ; Zacher (1882). 
 
 For the occasion on which these verses were supposed to have been 
 uttered, see Appendix 7. They may belong to the same group of poems as 
 xiii and xiv. 
 
 1. Solon claims that the madness of which he is accused will shortly be 
 revealed, insinuating thereby that when it is revealed it will be found to be 
 not madness at all. 
 
 1. d(TToi^: Leutsch (1872, p. 262) claims that the do-rot here are the 
 nobles, evidently basing his opinion on the fact that the popular party sup- 
 ported Pisistratus and might be supposed to be already accjuainted with his 
 ambitions. But Zacher and Hiller insist that the darot are all the towns- 
 folk, and they are certainly right. 
 
 2. Conspirators have been deceiving the people and concealing the truth 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 225 
 
 from them ; but when they put their plans into effect, the truth will come 
 out of her hiding-place into the midst of the people where all can see her. 
 
 2. €s /w-eVov : cf. Soph. Phil. 609 Siafxiov t dyuiv | I'Set^' 'A^^aiot? €s 
 fji€aov, Oripav KaKrjv. 
 
 Immediately after this couplet, Diogenes quotes the four lines of xiii 
 with the assertion that they also relate to the usurpation of Pisistratus. 
 Bergk thinks that the two fragments belong to the same period in the life of 
 Solon, but that they are not derived from the same poem. 
 
 XXXVII 
 
 References : Dials (1902) ; Sitzler (1907). 
 
 See the notes on xxvi. 
 
 1. €t . . . Treiaeai: not equivalent to a condition with a subjunctive, 
 but bearing the meaning, rather, of el c^cXets TrctOeaOai (see Goodwin, 
 Moods and Tenses, 407) ; the av, therefore, of kolv probably has nothing to 
 do with the verb, kolv throws its emphasis on vvv alone, "even now," 
 "even at this late hour"; for which use the following passages may be 
 compared: Aristoph. Acharn. 1021 fxerprja-ov dprjvr}^ tC ixot, kolv irivr €Trj; 
 Clouds 1130 w(TT tcrtos jSovXyjaeTat | kolv iv Aiywrct) TV)(^lv wv fxaXXov y 
 KplvaL KaXws ; Jjysistr*. 671 ei yap evSoocret Tt? rj[X(x>v ratcrSe Kav a-fiLKpav 
 Xa^rjv ; Soph, Electra 1483 dAAa /xot Trapes | kov (rpuKpov elireiv. 
 
 2. oTt (T€v TOLov €TT€.^pa(Tafxr)v I for the genitive crcv, cf. Xen. Mem. i 6, 1 ; 
 Plat. Phaedo 89 a ; for the enclitic at the end of the first half of the 
 pentameter, Theogn. 706 ; Mimn. 1, 2. 
 
 2. Cf. Hom. Od. viii 94 'AXk/voos Be /jllv olo^ CTrec^pao-ar ' ^8' ivorjaev ; 
 II. V 665 TO fxkv ov Tts iTrecfypdaar oti8' evorjcrf., | /xrjpov i^epvcraL 86pv jxetXivov. 
 
 3. AiyvaaToiSr] : this complimentary epithet has been restored to the 
 text by Bergk from Suidas s.v. Mt/xvepvo^ : AiyvpTidSov . . . iKaXeiro 8c 
 Kttt Atyvao-Ta8>7S 8ta to ejU/xeXes koI r)Sv (Xiyv Bekker). Diels (p. 480) 
 derives the word from Atyus and a8eti/, " a member of the family or guild of 
 clear- voiced singers," comparing 2aAa/xii/a<^eTa)v and the comic compounds in 
 Aristophanes ; but Sitzler, though he allows the word the same meaning, 
 thinks a compound with a8eti/ impossible for Solon's time and derives it 
 directly from \tyus. 
 
 4. fxolpa KLx^L OavaTov : the same phrase appears in Callinus 1,15; 
 Tyrtaeus 7, 2 ; and Theognis 340. Cf. also Solon xv 18 and xl 30. 
 
226 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 XXXVIII 
 
 References: Diels (1889) ; Hiller (1878). 
 Metrical scheme : 
 
 1. 
 
 \j\jZ^^\j/-\j\j/-\j\j — 
 
 
 2. 
 
 '^ \j /- \j \j /- \u \j /- 
 
 
 3. 
 
 Z._ 6 Kj ^ ^ w^_- 
 
 
 4. 
 
 jL\j\jZ-\j\j/-kj/- 
 
 
 5. 
 
 v^ ^Z. w ^ w -/ _ 
 
 
 Flach (1884, p. 362) maintains that this fragment is authentic, but it 
 is generally regarded as spurious, on the following grounds. For each one 
 of the Seven Wise Men, Diogenes Laertius records the number of lines of 
 poetry that he had written, the elegiac couplet which was inscribed on his 
 grave, and a fragment of lyric verse composed by him. These three items 
 are always given together (Thales, i 34 f. ; Solon, i 61 f. ; Chilon i 68, 71, 
 73 ; Pittacus i 78 f. ; Bias, i 85 f. ; Cleobulus, i 89, 91, 93 ; Periander, i 
 97. For Periander alone no lyric is preserved). In the case of Thales, 
 Lobon of Argos is explicitly mentioned as the authority from whom they are 
 derived. Now since the number of lines of poetry is demonstrably fictitious, 
 most of the Seven Wise Men having written nothing at all, and since the 
 epitaphs, being all cast in the same mold, are manifest forgeries, it is not 
 unreasonable to conclude that the lyric fragments, too, were composed by 
 Lobon or some other compiler from whom he borrowed them. For the 
 whole matter, see Hiller. 
 
 1. 7re<^vA.ay/xevo9 : cf. Hom. II. xxiii 343 dA.Aa, cf>i\os, (f>pove(i)V 7rtcf>v- 
 Xayfxtvo<s elvat. avSpa €Kaa-TOv is the object of opa. 
 
 3. 7rpoa-€V€7rr) : used without an accusative of the person addressed, as 
 in Pind. Pyth. iv 97 KAeVrwi/ 8c Bv\x<^ Selfia Trpoo-eVi/CTre, and Aesch. Agam. 
 241 Trpoaevviireiv OeXovaa. 
 
 XXXIX 
 
 Reference: Ileinemann (1897). 
 
 For the relationship between Solon and Critias, see page 34. Aristotle 
 {Rhet. i 15, 1375 b) quotes the first line of this couplet in the following con- 
 nection (he is speaking of the employment of the poets as a source of his- 
 torical evidence) : Kat KAeoc^on/ Kara Kptrtoi; r(yi^ 2oAa>vo5 eAeyetots iyji-qcraTO^ 
 XiyiDV on rraXiLL dtrcAyry? y] olkm' ov yap av ttotc i-n-OLrjcrc 2oAa)j/ eiTrctv /xot 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 227 
 
 KpiTta TTvppoTpLXL TTttTpo? oiKoveLv. It Is qulte clcap that the demagogue 
 Cleophon is twisting the meaning of the words to suit his own purposes ; he 
 takes them as a proof of the depravity of Critias, as Cope remarks in liis 
 note on the passage, though they were really intended by the poet as a com- 
 pliment to the father. That this is true may be seen from Plato's words in 
 the Charmides 157 c r; re yap irarpcoa vfuv [i.e., Critias and Charmides] 
 
 OLKia, rj KplTLOV TOV ApCOTTiSoV, Kol VTT AvaKp€OVTO<; /cat VTTO 2oAo>VO? Koi VTT 
 
 a\Acov TToXXwv TTOLrjToJv lyK^Kiiip-Lao-fxivr) irapahihoTaL rjfjuv, ws Siac^epovaa 
 KaAAet T€ KOL aperfj Koi rrj aWy Xcyojxevrf cv8ai/xovt'a. 
 
 1. ei7re/u,evat : the grammatical construction cannot be determined, but 
 as the fragment stands, the infinitive must be taken as equivalent to an im- 
 perative. Of. Hom. II. vii 372 ff. -r^CcOev 8' 'iSiios trw KotAas cVt i/j}as | 
 €t7re/xev ^ Kt p€:'chrj<i , 'Aya/xe/xvovt Kal MevC/iau), | /xvOov 'AAe^avS/aoio, tov etveKa 
 vetK05 opiiipC I KoX Se t6^^ cnrip^evat ttvkivov €7roq ktA. 
 
 2. ajjuapTLvoio : cf. Hesiod Theog. 511 apxiprLvoov t ^'Enrifxi^Oea; Aesch. 
 Suppl. 542 tvd€.v 'lo) OLcrTpo) ipeaaofxeva KJjevya dfxapTLvoos. 
 
 XL 
 
 References : Clemm (1883) ; Croiset (1914) ; Daremberg (1869) ; Gom- 
 perz (1880); Hense (1874); Hiller (1886, 1888); Larsen (1900); Van Leeuwen 
 (1904) ; Von Leutsch (1872) ; Linder (1858) ; Murray (1889) ; Piatt (1896) ; 
 Rost (1884) ; Schmidt (1847) ; Schneidewin (1848) ; Sitzler (1879, 1894, 1900) ; 
 StadtmuUer (1882) ; Tucker (1887) ; Weil (1862) ; Wilamowitz (1893, 1913). 
 
 See also pages 105 ff. 
 
 1. Clement of Alexandria, who quotes the first verse of this poem, in- 
 troduces the quotation with these words : SoAcov Trj<5 eAeyeta? dSe apx^rau 
 This indicates that Solon's poem actually opened with the lines which are 
 preserved in Stobaeus. The words rvjs eAeyeta?, standing as they do with- 
 out explicit reference, might suggest that the present poem was known as 
 the elegy of Solon par excellence. Immediately before the quotation from 
 Solon Clement gives the following verse from Eumelus (frag. 16 Kinkel) : 
 M^vr)ixo<jvvr}<; kol Zyjvo^ ^OXvjXTriov ivvea Kovpai. It is impossible to say 
 whether Solon is imitating the epic poet, or whether the resemblance is 
 accidental. At any rate, the same parentage of the Muses is well established 
 in Hesiod: e.g., Theog. 52 ff. Mova-at 'OAv/A7rta8e?, Kovpai Atos alyioyoLo^ 
 I TOLS cv Tiicpirf YLpovlhrj reKC irarpl /xtyetcra Mvr;/xocnVr; ; and 915 tf. M.vrjp.o- 
 
228 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 crvvT]<; 8' i^avTL<; ipdacraTO KaAAtKo/xoio, | e^ rj<; ol Movaat ^^pvca/XTrv/ce? c^cye- 
 vovTO I ivv€a. 
 
 1. dyAaa : a frequent epithet of children in Homer, as in //. ii 871, 
 xviii 337 ; Od. xi 249. 
 
 1 flf. The opening lines of this poem were parodied by the Cynic phi- 
 losopher Crates in the following passage, which has been preserved by 
 Julian (frag. 1 Bergk) : 
 
 yivT) /jLOcrvvri'; teal ZT]Vo<i ^OXv/jlttlov ayXaa re/cva, 
 
 'Mlovaat nie/3i8e9, k\vt6 /jlol ev')(^ofX6V(i)' 
 ')(^6pT0V i/JLrj avv€')((h<; Bore yao-Tepc, ijre /jlol aleC 
 
 ^a)/0t9 BovXocrvv7]<i Xltov edrj/ce ^lov. 
 
 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 
 
 ci)(f)€\L/jLov Se (f)i\ot^, jJLT] jXvKepop Tidere. 
 '^p'qfjbaTa 8' ovk iOeXco avvdyeiv kXvtci, KavOdpov 6X/3ov 
 
 /jLi>pfjLT]K6<; T a^evo^ ')(^pij/jLaTa /jLaiopLevo^;, 
 aXXd SL/catoavv7]<; /jLere^ecv Koi itXovtov aylveiv 
 
 ev(f>opov, evKTrjTOv^ tl/jllov et? apeTrjV. 
 T(av Se TV^cbv 'Fip/JLr]V teal Moucra? IXdcrofx ayvd<^ 
 
 ov Sarrdvai^; Tpv(f)€paL'^^ dXX' dperaU 6aLai<;. 
 
 2 f. Solon prays the Muses to grant him oX^os and ayaOr] So^a, but the 
 oX^os is to come from the gods and the So^a is to come from men. The 
 latter contrast is a suggestive one : it is true that happiness and prosperity, 
 on the one hand, are the gift of the gods, and a fair reputation, on the 
 other hand, the gift of human society. But both these things Solon desires 
 of the Muses. This would seem to indicate that the Muses will be the 
 prime cause of Solon's happiness, the gods and society the proximate causes. 
 Weil (1862, p. 2) calls attention to the fact that we have here the typical 
 prayer of a wise man of Greece, equally removed from asceticism and ex- 
 cess. He also points out that Euripides had this passage in mind when he 
 was writing the portion of the lost F7rxktheus which has been preserved l)y 
 Stobacus iii 3, 18 (frag. 362 N). Note especially vss. 11-13 : dStW? 8c 
 /JLT] ktQ) )(^pr)iJuiT, Y)v ftovXrj TToXvv I xpovov fJicXdOpoL^ ifx/xeveiv' ra yap kukios | 
 oLKOv<i iaeXOovT ovk €^€L aoiTrjpLuv. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 229 
 
 2. fxoL : for tlie dative cf. Hesiod Theog. 474 ot ^\ Ovyarpl f^iCXr} /xaAa 
 /Acv kXvov rjS' iiriOovTO ; Theogn. 4 av Se/xoi kXvOl ; 13 ev^o/xevio yu,ot kXvBl. 
 
 3. 7rpo9 OeCjv Sore : vf. Horn. Od. xi 302 tljjltjv Trpos Zrjvo<i exovre^ ; Pin- 
 dar 0/. vii 90 (IGo) SlSol 8e /rot atSotav X^-P^^ I '^^^ '''®''"' «^'''^^' '^^^ ttoti ^cVoji/. 
 If the words 7rp6? dv^pojTrwv Sd^'av t;(etv ayadrjv were not preceded by okftov 
 7rp6<s d^mv, TTpo? avOpoiiTOiv would mean without question " in the eyes of 
 men." But Trpos Otu)v certainly must mean " through the agency of the 
 gods " ; therefore Trpos avdpoiirwv would probably have to the Greek ear the 
 meaning " through the agency of men." 
 
 5. yXvKvv : cf. Pindar Pyth. vi 52 ff. yXvKela Se <^pr]v \ kol av/jLTroTaiaiv 
 o/xiXelv I /AcXtcrcrai' d/xei^erat rprjTov ttovov. 
 
 5. oiSe: i.e., oA/?ios kol ev8ogo<s wv. 
 
 6. al8o2ov . . . Seivov : four times in Homer these two adjectives are 
 joined to qualify the same noun: in II. iii 172 aiSotog tc (xol iaa-L, <^tXc 
 €Kvp€, Setvos re ; xviii 394 •:7 pet v6 jjlol Selv^ re koL alSotrf 6c6<s evSov ; Od. 
 viii 22 oj? Kcv ^atyKeaat cfiiXos Trdvreo-o-t yevotro | 8etvo5 r' aiSo26^ re ; xiv 
 234 Setvds T atSotds re /xera Kpr^recrcrt reTvyp-rjv. It seems fairly certain 
 that in the present passage Solon has the familiar phrase in mind and that 
 he is endeavoring to draw a distinction between the two words and to define 
 them with more precision. 
 
 7. /xev is logically placed : the positive desire for money is contrasted 
 with the unwillingness to enjoy ill-gotten gains (t/xctpto /xev . . . dSt'/cw? Sk 
 ov). 
 
 7 ff. Similar ideas are expressed by Hesiod W. and £>. 322 ff". and 
 Theognis 197 ff. 
 
 8. rjXOe : gnomic aorist. 
 
 9. oV . . . 8a)(7t : dv is omitted in accordance with the regular Homeric 
 practice in general conditional sentences. 
 
 9. Trapayt-yvcTttt : cf. Theogn. 139 ovoe tu) avOpoiirwv TrapayiyveraL, ocra 
 iOeXrjcnv. 
 
 9 ff. Cf. Hesiod W. and i). 320 ;(p7;/xaTa 8' ov^ dpTraKTa, OeoaSora iroX- 
 Xov ap.dv(ii ; Pindar Nem. viii 1 7 a-vv O^io yap tol (fyvrevOeU oX/^os avOpoi- 
 TToia-L Trap/aovwrepos ; Pindar Pi/th. v 4 ; Eur. Electra 943, Ion 378, frag. 
 354 N. 
 
 11. fxaCoivTat: the manuscript reading TLfida-Lv is generally admitted to 
 be meaningless here ; but no explanation is offered for its presence in the 
 
230 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 text, and no really satisfactory emendation is proposed. One cireumstance 
 leads me to think that the word may perhaps belong where it is, bearing a 
 meaning which has not yet been recognized : Euripides clearly had the 
 present passage in mind when he WTote frag. 354 (quoted above). But 
 TLfxav is not, after all, used by Euripides in any unusual sense and does not 
 offer any real proof that Tt/xwo-tv is right in Solon's line. There is a 
 clearly marked contrast between 6V /xkv SCjm deot in vs. 9 and oV 8' avBpes 
 Tt/xcoo-ti/ in vs. 11. The contrast is further emphasized by the j)hrases 
 v(f v/3pLo<; and ov Kara Kocr/xov, which both describe a process exactly the 
 reverse of that indicated by the words 6V /xev Suxtl Oeoi. Furthermore, in vss. 
 1 1 f. we see wealth figuratively represented as following reluctantly those 
 whose methods are dishonest. We need some word which will harmonize 
 with this situation. Ahrens' conjecture /xcrtojo-iv has met with the most 
 favor, being adopted by Hartung, Hiller-Crusius, and Buchholtz-Peppmiiller. 
 Other conjectures are 8t<^ct>crtv (Emperius), o-vAojo-tv (Linder), KTirawaiv 
 (Weil), TeTfjLwaiv (Sitzlei), ixojuyaLv (Bergk), tlvw(tlv (Tucker, "but the 
 money which men pai/ under tyrannous compulsion ''). Stadtmiiller refers 
 to Leutsch's emendation, dva/wcrtv for tlixIjo-lv, and says he does not 
 know why he did not prefer awdyoa-Lv which is found in Crates i 5. 
 Stadtmiiller himself proposes klvo)(tiv, because (1) Solon himself (xii 12) 
 shows tliat the kind of wealth which must be most avoided is the property of 
 sacred shrines or of the state; (2) klvclv is the regular word for tampering 
 with such moneys (Thuc. vi 70; ii 24; i 143). The reading adopted in 
 the text is my own conjecture and was suggested by vs. 7 of Crates' parody, 
 which is quoted in the note on vs. 1. Nothing is more likely than that 
 Crates should have taken this word from Solon's poem, and no word could 
 be more appropriate in the present place. 
 
 11. ov Kttxa Koafxoi/ : a Homeric phrase. Solon uses it here to mean " ir- 
 regularly," " unnaturally," " contrary to the regular course of nature." Such 
 a procedure is likely to weaken the fabric of things ; orderly and regular 
 methods, on tlie other hand, produce a structure compact and solid iK vearou 
 
 12. Bucherer observes that the poet represents wealth as a person vir- 
 tuous at bottom, who is misled by wicked men and follows them against his 
 will. 
 
 13. dva/xtcryeTat : the personification of the preceding lines continues,, 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 231 
 
 Avheii ttAouto? follows a man reluctantly, it is not long before olttj "joins 
 the party." The true meaning of the verb in this passage is indicated 
 by Dem. liv 8 /cat totjtoi? TreptTvy^^dvofxev. a>? 8' avcfiu-^O-qfxtv, ets /uev avTwv, 
 a.yvili<i TL<;, ktX. — two groups of persons unite. Cf. also Herodotus : 199 
 oi-K d$uvfjL€vaL avafMLcryeaOaL ttjctl oXXrjaL, " refusing to associate with the 
 others." 
 
 13. aTY} : the nominative, which has less manuscript authority, is the 
 reading of Hartung, Bergk, Hiller-Crusius, and Buchholtz-Peppmiiller. 
 Hense prefers the dative. The nominative is better, because, as is shown 
 by the quotations given above, avaixtayeaOaL is properly used of joining a 
 group. In the present instance the group consists of t<Z ttAovto) and tco 
 irXovacio, and ar-q is naturally taken as the subject. 
 
 14. I.e., i$ oXcyov yiyverat r) r^s arrj<i dpx^ ojairep kol rj tov Trvpos. 
 
 15. <i>Xavpr], dvi-qpr] : agree with oltt; understood, any, mild and gentle 
 at the start, leads to v(3pLo<; tpya ; vfipio^i tpya bring the punishment of 
 heaven ; therefore dr-q is dvi-qprj in the end. 
 
 16. hrjv. almost exclusively an epic word ; also found in one line which 
 appears twice in Theognis (597, 1243). 
 
 17. TTOLVToiv c(f}op'x TeXos I cf. Soph. Electra 175 €Ti /xe'ya? ovpav(o \ Zev^, 
 o? ifpopji TrdvTa kol Kparvvu. Zeus does not fail to observe all that happens 
 upon the earth, but he sees all things in their proper relations ; and he 
 waits till the sequence of events is closed before interfeiing to adjust the 
 wrong (see vss. 25-28). 
 
 17. iiaTrivr]<; : wind and justice come alike unexpectedly. 
 
 20. 7rvpo<f>6pov : a familiar epithet; cf. xvi 2 and Hom. //. xii 314; 
 Od. iii 495 ; Theogn. 988. 
 
 21. Since the home of the gods has been concealed by clouds from the 
 eyes of men, and since the boisterous effect of the wind is first seen upon 
 land and sea, it is natural to represent the wind as rising upon the earth and 
 making its way upward, dispersing the clouds in its path, till it comes to 
 heaven itself. Wilamowitz (1913, p. 264) remarks: "Der Sturm kommt 
 aus der Tiefe : denn nach allgemein griechischer Vorstellung wehen ja die 
 Winde im Erdinnern (Tvcja-^ios ewat)." But I doubt if this conception was 
 so common that we can assume that it was in Solon's mind here. 
 
 23. ^eXtoLo ix€vo<: : see note on xiii 1. 
 
 27. atet . . . Sta/ATrepcs : a familiar combination in Homer and therefore 
 
232 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 to be taken together ; cf. Horn. //. xv 70 €k tov 8' av tol tirura iraXioi^iv 
 napa vrjwv \ aiev iyu) TevxoLfiL Sta/xTrepc's. ov negatives the meaning of the 
 verb, not the predication. The adverbial phrase modifies the afiirmative 
 which is produced by the double negative ov \e\r)Oe. 
 
 27. \e\-qOe : this perfect is not found in Homer but later became com- 
 mon. It appears in Semonides vii 9 (H.-C.) : rrjv 8' i$ dkLrprjs Oco'i Wtjk 
 dA.o)7r€KOs I ywatKa, Trai/rwi/ IhpLv' ov8e /xtv KaKuiv XiXrjOev ovSkv ovSk tmv 
 dp,€Lv6vo)v ; Theogn. 121 eiSk <f>t Xov v6o^ dvSp6<; ivl ari^dea-aL XeX-jOrj \ i/^vSpo? 
 ctuv. In meaning it is not to be distinguished from the present. 
 
 27. dXiTpov : cf. the passage from Semonides just quoted. 
 
 28. cs TeXos : cf. Soph. Phil. 409 c^otSa ydp viv Travros av Xoyov KaKOv 
 I yXijiaarf dtyovra Koi Travov/aytas, d<^' rys | p.r)Sev ScKaiov e? TiXo<i /xeAAot 
 
 TTOetV. 
 
 29. dl 8e <j>vya}(nv : it is not necessary to change this to el 8e <f>vy(i)aiv 
 as most of the editors do. After 6 p,€v and 6 8e the poet would be led by 
 the sound to write dl 8e even though ot is relative and not demonstrative. 
 The fact that no grammatical antecedent for ot appears in vs. 31 offers only 
 a slight anacoluthon. 
 
 30. /u-oipa . . . KLxi] '■ see note on xxxvii 4. 
 
 31. epya Ttvovacv : tlvclv is used with the accusative of the thing atoned 
 for in Hom. II. 142 rtcretav Aavaot e/xa SaKpva adlaL /SeXeaacv ; and Od. 
 xxiv 352 d CTCov p.vqcnrjpes dTacrdaXov v(3pLv trtcrav. In the verb rivav 
 the t is regularly long in epic, but short in Attic. 
 
 31. dvaLTLOL ktX. : if the text is sound, the expression is awkward but 
 not impossible, epya, standing alone without a modifier, can hardly mean 
 " their guilty deeds." Feeling, therefore, that epya is incomplete, the 
 reader waits for a complement and finds it in tovtwv, which, in spite of the 
 strong attraction of TratSes, must be taken with epya. This interpretation 
 makes it unnecessary to resort to emendation. 
 
 32. Cf. Tyrtaeus xii 30 (Bergk) : /cat TratScuv TraiSe? Kai yeVos iioTTtaw ; 
 Hom. Od. xiii 144 crot 8' ia-rl kol c^oTrtcro) TLcn<i aiet. 
 
 33 ff". With this whole passage compare the following fragment of Si- 
 monides (85 Bergk; 69 H.-C), which Wilamowitz (1913, p. 273) thinks 
 is by Semonides : 
 
 ev he TO /cdXXtarov Xt09 eeiirev avijp' 
 'oLTj irep (f>vXX(ov <yever)., toltj Se fcal avSpojv.^ 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 233 
 
 Travpot fxijv Ov7]T(*)v ovaac Be^dfievoL 
 <TT6pvoi<^ eyKaredevTO' ird peart jdp iXirU eKaara^ 
 
 avSp&v 7]T€ vecov arr^deatv i/jLcfiveTai. 
 6v7]T(x)V 8' 6(f)pa Tt? dv6o<^ €')(r) TToXvrjparov r)^r)^y 
 
 KOV(f)OV e^wy 6v/jiov 7roX,V areXecrra voel' 
 0VT6 yap iXTTiS' e^et jTjpacre/JLev ovre 6avela6aLf 
 
 ovS' vyLr)<; orav y, (ppovriS' €')(eL Ka/JLarov. 
 vijiTiOL, oh ravrr) KelraL v6o<^, ovSe taaaiv 
 
 0)9 ')^p6vo<=; eaO' 7]/37]<; Kal /3l6tol' 0X1709 
 Ovr}Tol^- dXXa crv ravra jjiaOoov ^lotov ttotI repfxa 
 
 '^^XV "^^^ aya6(ov tXtjOl ')(^apLt,6fxevo<^. 
 34. This verse otters the chief textual difficulty in the poem and Hense 
 marks it as a locus desperatus. Many methods of restoring it have been 
 proposed : for the meaningless €s 8r]vr)v, Ahrens suggested evOrjvelv, Hartung 
 evOevieiv, Bergk SrjveveLv or eV Srjetv, Hermann alvdv r}V, Schneidewin ev 
 puv cI?, Linder tj^uv yjv, Valckenaer -^v^avev rjv, Emperius kSy^v els aiirov, 
 Rost €v (T)(T^aeLv avrots, Tucker ev Syj e)(€Lv avro^, Murray Ivhvcuv avrd? 
 (" indigere sibi videtur"), Riedy ets avih-qv aurd?, van Leeuwen 8uvqv et' av- 
 rov, Leutsch evSetVT^v (cf. eriSta), eV 8' rj^CLv avT<^ Sd^av €.Ka<TTO<i t'x^t- The 
 favorite emendation, which has been adopted by Hiller-Crusius and Buch- 
 holtz-Peppmiiller, is that of Buecheler : ev ^uvtjv, " every man holds a high 
 opinion of himself." Reasons why this is unsatisfactory will be offered 
 shortly. First let us consider the movement of thought and the grammati- 
 cal relations in the three lines. (1) ayaOoq and KaKos are in the singular 
 number, whereas if they were to be taken closely with voe9/xev they would 
 naturally be in the plural. It is probable, therefore, that they belong 
 rather with the distributive cKao-ros and that the second half of vs. 33 is 
 closely connected with vs. 34. (2) The phrase ho^av ex^iv means properly 
 "have a reputation," not "have an opinion." Bergk claims that it is 
 equivalent to Sokclv and may bear either meaning. This may be true ; but 
 it is not certain that the meaning " have an opinion" is possible and there- 
 fore it is less likely to be right here. Compare vs. 4 above. (3) The whole 
 of the second half of the poem (excepting the two doubtful lines 39 f.) is 
 occupied with an account of the vain eflfbrts of men to mold their own des- 
 tiny. Undoubtedly an exaggerated estimate of their own powers accom- 
 
234 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 pnnies their efforts. But, as I said, men's misapprehension of the truth 
 about themselves is not mentioned elsewhere except in the one doubtful 
 passage. It will be sesn that none of the requirements implied in these 
 considerations is met by Buecheler's emendation. Furthermore, it seems to 
 me highly improbable that Setviji/ could be used with the sense which is here in- 
 tended. The reading which I have adopted in the text seems to me to satisfy 
 all conditions. Ixetv depends upon voev/xev (cf. Linder, p. 503 : " Accedit ser- 
 monis error his coniecturis omnibus communis, modum finitum dico {t^u) 
 post (SSe vocvixcv. Nam quum dictum sit, wSe voev/xev {sic sentimus), expecta- 
 tur infinitivus, quo id enuncietur et uberius explicetur, quod per particulam 
 w8e ante significatum est.") ; the participle ci/TctVwv, preceding c^ctv and 
 agreeing with its subject, bears greater emphasis than the infinitive, according 
 to the familiar Greek idiom ; and avTo^; is taken closely with cvretVwv. wSe 
 refers to a thing which is implicit in the earlier part of the poem, namely 
 the disposition of men to disregard the all-seeing eye of Zeus and to 
 forget that they cannot really be masters of tlieir own destiny, voev/xev 
 with the infinitive means " we intend " ; cf. Hom. II. xxii 235 koX 
 fiaXXov void) (f>p€(TL TLfxi^aaaOaLy and xxiv 560 vo€w 8e kol atiro? | "EiKTopd 
 rot Xvaai. The words o/xcos aya06<; re kukos re mark the transition 
 to the larger theme which is dealt with in the succeeding part of 
 the poem. The subject up to this point has been the inevitable ret- 
 ribution which comes upon the evil-doer though he may be oblivious 
 and feel himself secure. Now the poet expands his law to include all 
 men, good and bad alike, and makes it read : No man knows what the 
 future may hold nor can he affect his destiny in any important way ; 
 his hopes are vain and spring from his ignorance of the impotence 
 of man and the omnipotence of God. eVreti/toj/ means "straining every 
 nerve"; cf. Eur. Orestes 698 et S" riav)((i)s n? avrov ^vtclvovti fxev \ ^'i^^*' 
 VTTCLKOL Katpov ev\a/3ovfX€vo<;, | lo-w? av eKTrvevacLCv. So^av t;(£tv means 
 "have a name," "be somebody " ; cf. vs. 4. 
 
 35. Cf. Soph. Ant. 615 ff. d yap 8r) 7roXv7rkayKTo<; cAttis ttoAAois fxkv 
 ova(n5 dvS/Jtov, ttoXAoT? 8' (XTrdra Kov<^oi/oa>v ipoiTuiv. 
 
 36. x^io-'^ovre? : a somewhat coarse word, more appropriate to iambic 
 poetry ; it suggests silliness and stupidity, as well as open-mouthed antici- 
 pation ; cf. xiv 6. 
 
 36. KoixjiaL^ eXTTtW: " idle dreams of the future." 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 235 
 
 37. apyaXerja-L : a standing epithet of vovo-ol (Horn. //. xiii 667 ; Hesiod 
 W. and D. 92, Scuf. 43). 
 
 38. Karecfipda-aTo : a rare word, not in Homer ; once in Hesiod ( W. and 
 D. 248 (3 /8ao-tA^€5, v/xeis 8e KaTa<f>paZ,€(TOe kol avTol [ rijvBe StK-qv). It is 
 evidently used by Solon with the same meaning as i<j>pd(raTo, " plan," " con- 
 trive," with the object clause a>s iiyti)? Icrrat. And yet the hope of success 
 that prompts the effort is ill-founded ; human effort will have little effect 
 one way or the other. 
 
 39 f. Bergk proposed to bracket this couplet as foreign to the thought 
 of the context. He maintained that it was originally a marginal note on 
 vs. 31 and was later introduced into the text. Hense does not bracket the 
 lines. Most scholars agree with Bergk — Schneidewin, Hiller-Crusius, Buch- 
 holtz-Peppmiiller. Linder retains the lines, but says they belong immediately 
 after vs. 34 ; in order to make them fit this place he changes aAAo? to aAXws 
 and Kttt KttAo? to kol 8k KaXos. The couplet is defended by Schmidt and Eost. 
 The former discovers in the whole passage a train of thought which I cannot 
 follow and which he himself does not pretend is possible without certain 
 unjustifiable emendations. Host shows clearly by his analysis of the passage 
 that the couplet is not impossible ; but he does not convince Hiller, who 
 still maintains that though the lines are not absolutely impossible it is really 
 better to remove them. Weil agrees that the lines are undesirable ; but his 
 strophic arrangement would not suffer by their removal, because he would 
 then indicate a lacuna after vs. 48, where it would afford a welcome relief 
 to a somewhat strained situation. The objections to the couplet are apparent. 
 Solon is speaking of kov<^l eA-TrtSes and he gives many concrete illustrations 
 of them. These two lines alone refer to the mistakes which men make, not 
 about the future, but about the actual state of affairs in the present. They 
 are true and characteristic of Greek thought ; but they are not entirely in 
 place in the present passage. In spite of all this I cannot convince myself 
 that they should be bracketed. The texture of the whole poem is very 
 loosely woven, and it is not at all impossible that Solon himself, quite as 
 well as an interpolator, should have introduced them into the composition. 
 
 41. Cf. Mimn. ii 12 Trevtr;? 8' tpy oSvvrjpa TreAei. 
 
 43. o-7r€v8ei 8' aAAo^ev aAAo? : human effort springs from various causes 
 and follows various paths. 
 
 45. IxOvoevT : a Homeric epithet quite unworthy of the important place 
 
236 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 it occupies, unless it is intended to suggest the dangers to which sailors are 
 exposed from man-eating fish ! This meaning of the word is denied by 
 Ebeling for Homer, having been suggested by Goebel (see Ebeling, Lex. 
 Horn. s. v.). Tucker also feels that the word is " quite out of place " (mean- 
 ing, I .su])pose, " inappropriate ") and thinks that it is probably a corruption 
 from IvQa Kol €vO\ This is very ingenious and I am almost persuaded to 
 adopt it in the text. Leutsch thinks the word is given its prominent posi- 
 tion to indicate that the people referred to are not traders but fishermen. 
 Wilamowitz (1913, p. 261) remarks: " Dass das leere homerische Epi- 
 theton l^Ovoevra so nachklappt, dass der Pentameter, der auch entbehrlich 
 ist, ganz iibersprungen wird, ist das starkste Zeichen davon, dass Solon die 
 fremde Technik doch nicht beherrscht." 
 
 46. <j>€LS(oXyv : once in Homer {11. xxii 244 fxrjSi n Sovpwv \ ea-ra) <^€t- 
 SoiXyj). For <f>a8o)Xr]V 6eix€vo<s cf. Hom. Od. 1 116 aKeSaaiv OcLvai', Soph. 
 AJax 13 (TTTovhrjv Wov tyjv^ ; Antig. 151 twv vvv OiaOai X-qcrixoavvav] Eur. 
 Med. 66 (Tiy-qv . . . TcuvSe Orjao/xaL irepL. 
 
 47. y^vT€fivo)v : this phrase almost invariably means "destroy the trees 
 and crops," and only two or three passages are quoted in which it means 
 "cultivate the soil," as it does here; e.g., Hom, //. xiii 707 re'/xei 8e re 
 Te'Acrov apovp7]<: ; Aesch. frag. 196 tv out aporpov ovre yarop^os \ rep^vec 8l- 
 KeW apovpav. 
 
 47. TroXvSevSpeov : with yrjv ; this word is used frequently in Hom. Od. 
 xxiii and xxiv as an epithet of aypos, Odysseus' farm outside the town. In 
 ancient agriculture there was no strict division into field and orchard. 
 
 47. €19 ivLavTov : " throughout the year," " the year round " ; cf. Hom. 
 II. xxi 444 6t 'Ayr/i/opt Aao/xeSovrt | Trap Atos iXOovre^ Orp'eva-afxev cis ivL' 
 avTov I pl(tO<^ ewl pr}T<^. There is no adequate support for taking the phrase 
 in the sense "year after year," "year in, year out." 
 
 48. XarpeveL ; properly " work for hire," but probably Solon is not 
 thinking only of laborers employed by others. He means rather to suggest 
 the drudgery which is forced upon the farmer by his relentless occupation. 
 
 48. TotaLv : the relative pronoun, its antecedent being aAAos ; cf. Plat. 
 JRej). 554 a Av)(^ixr)p6<i ye tls, rjv 8' eyw, wv Koi aTro Travros TTCptovcriav ttolov- 
 /aevo9, OrjaavpoTTOib'i avyp' ov<; Sr] kol CTratvet to 7rXrjOo<i. 
 
 48. Kap-irvX' apoTpa : fiMind also in Hom. Hymn, to Dem. 308. 
 
 48. Totcriv KapirvX' aporpa /xe'Aet : "plowmen," a generic term for 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 237 
 
 farmers or husbamlineu. Their special task is to till the soil (y^v rt'/xvciv) 
 whether with a plow or a spade or a hoe. It is not possible to discern two 
 types of farm labor here, as some do — work in the orchard and work in the 
 field (roto-tv being taken as demonstrative and equivalent to aAAot? 8e). 
 
 49. Of. Honi. Od. vi 232 ws 8' ore rt? ^pvaov TrepL^everai dpyvpio avrjp 
 I cSpLy, ov "H^ataro? SeSaev kol IlaAAas ^KBtjvy} \ re^vrjv TravTOLrjv, ^apUvra 
 Sc €pya TcAecet. 
 
 51. Cf. Archilochus frag, 1, 2 (H.-C.) koI Movcrtwv iparov Bwpov 
 kTn<TTaix€.vo<i. 
 
 51. ^vA/VtycTat /StoTov is to be understood as the predicate of aAAo? in 
 vs. 51 as also of aAAos in vs. 50. "Natiirlich ist das eine Harte," says 
 Wilamowitz, who first proposed this construction (1913, p. 261), "wieder 
 ein Zeichen unvollkommener Technik." Bergk claims that cTrto-Ta/aeco? 
 is equivalent to a finite verb (eTrto-Ta/uevds ia-TL or eTrto-Tarat) and justifies 
 the construction by Hom. Od. xi 606 ; he thinks Trdpa is a corruption 
 for an original <^tAa or KaAa but he prints Trdpa in his text. Hense 
 thinks that the efforts to restore a finite verb have been futile, and 
 mentions with approval the suggestion made to him personally by Erwin 
 ivohde that a whole couplet has fallen out after eTrto-ra/xei/os. Linder 
 keeps Movadoiv and removes irdpa as an intruded gloss. But it is hard to 
 see how irdpa could be a gloss upon anything, and tlie rhytlim of the line 
 oAAos 'OAv/xTriaSajv MovadiDv Swpa 8t8a;(^ets is objectionable. Various 
 emendations have been off'ered : SiSdxOrj for StSa^^et's (Grotius), Aa/?e for 
 Trdpa (Hermann), etc. Hartung's Se'SeKrat for St,8a)(0eL^ has much to recom- 
 mend it. It supplies a finite verb and removes the awkward phrase 8u)pa 
 8t8ax^ets ; and Hartung points out that 8t8ax^ets may be a gloss on 8aets in 
 vs. 50. But we are not justified in resorting to emendation. 
 
 52. ao<f>Lrj<i jxirpov. "the fullness of art." The English word "art," 
 used without an attributive, frequently means the particular art of painting; 
 similarly the Greek word cro0ta means the art of poetical and musical com- 
 position. This meaning is not found in Homer or Hesiod ; but Theognis has 
 it (770) : ■)(pr] Moi^creW Oepdirovra Kat ayyeAoi/, et rt TrepLaaov | elScLr], (TO(f>Lr]<: 
 fxr] (^Oovepov TeXeOeiv. It is also common in Pindar (e.g., 01. i 1 20). The phrase 
 cro4>tr]^ fxerpov appears also in Theogu. 876 Xi? 8' av iTraivyaai fxirpov ^x^^v 
 aocfiLr}<; ; in a couplet which has been preserved in a fragment of Aristotle, and 
 which has been unreasonably attributed to Pindar (Pindar frag. 328 Christ) : 
 
238 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 Xatpe Sis rjfirjdwi koX Sts ra^ov avTi^oXycras, | 'Hcrt'oS', dv^pwTroi? ^lirpov c;((ov 
 aocf>ui<; ; and again in a couplet which is inscribed on the Tabula Iliaca in 
 the Capitoliue Museum w <f>L\e iral @coS]u)pr}ov /mdOe ra^tv 'Ofxrjpov, \ 6cf>pa 
 BaeU 7rd(r7j<s jxirpov f-Xl^ cro<f>ta<i. There is a somewhat similar phrase in the 
 couj)let which is assigned by Suidas to Pigres (s. v.) : Mrjviv aetS:, O^d, 
 HrfXtjidSe ) 'A^tA^os, | Movara, av yap 7rd(Trj<i ircipaT €;(«<? ao<fi'.Tji. Homer 
 has the phrase rj^rj's fxirpov a number of times (e.g., II. xi 225), and it is 
 regarded as little more than a periphrasis for ■^(itj. Evidently /xerpov means 
 something like "a definite amount"; not an incomplete or imperfect thing; 
 a real whole, however small. 
 
 54. cyvco : sc. 6 /xaj/rts. Though WttoXXwv is the grammatical subject 
 of the j)receding sentence, fxdvnv is the most prominent word and readily 
 becomes the grammatical subject of the new sentence. 
 
 54 f. It should be observed that Solon does not question the ability of 
 prophets to foretell the future ; but he maintains that such foreknowledge is 
 powerless to thwart the course of fate. 
 
 55. avvofxapTiqcTiiia-i : a very uncommon word and apparently without 
 parallel in this figurative sense. The simple verb is used in a somewhat 
 similar way by Euripides in Bacch. 923, where Dionysus says to the crazed 
 Pentheus 6 ^eo? o/Aapret, irpoaOev wv ovk €v/a£v>/s, | €V(r7rov8os yiplv. There are 
 probably two meanings intended here, one for Pentheus and the other for 
 the audience. The audience understands the words to mean " the god is 
 our companion," as indeed he was ; Pentheus understands them to mean 
 "the god is favorable to us." The figure is a particularly happy one when 
 it is applied to the inspiration of a prophet. 
 
 56. TO. p-opcTLfxa pva-erai: this meaning of puso-^ai, "prevent," "hinder," 
 is not common, but it is found in Hom. Od. xxiii 244 vv/cra fxlv iv irepdrq 
 SoXL)(r)v a^Wcv, 'Hoi 8' avre | pvaar iw *D,KeavS ^pvrroOpovov; in Pindar 
 Itith. viii (vii) 53 rai pnv pvovro irore ixd\a^ evaptp.fi porov \ Ipyov iv rreSita 
 Kopvcraovra ; and in Thuc. v 63 (he promised) tpyw dya^co pvaeaOaL to.? 
 amas crTpaT€vcrdp.evos. 
 
 56. upd: "sacrificial victims," evidently used with the post-Homeric 
 implication that omens were drawn from the internal organs. 
 
 57 ff. Daremberg (1869, p. 8) has the following to say concerning the 
 present passage : " C'est done parmi les metiers, ou, si Ton trouve le mot 
 trop dur, parmi les arts que Solon range la mddecine ; loin de lui accordor 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 239 
 
 une trhs grande puissance, il voudrait la soumettre h la decision aveugle du 
 Destiu ou h, la volonte i)liis eclairee des dieiix ; il reserve meine une partie de 
 sa confiance pour ces attouchements niagiques auxquels les ancieus attribu- 
 aient tant d'officaciti dans la gui'Tison des maladies." 
 
 57. naia>j/05 : nairycof, the Olympian physician, is mentioned three 
 times by Homer (IL v. 401, 899 ; Od. iv 232), and in the Odyssey he is 
 the progenitor of the race of physicians. He is not identical with Apollo in 
 Homer, though in later times bis name becomes an epithet of Apollo. Cf 
 also Pindar Pytli. iv 270 eo-at 8' larrjp i-n-LKatpOTaTO^, Ylaiav 8e crot ti/au! 
 <f)do<i. 
 
 57. Tro\v<j>apfxaKov : cf. Horn. //. xvi 28 IrjTpol 7roXv<f>dpfx.aKOL. 
 
 58. IrjTpoi : predicate to dWou 
 
 58. Ti\o<; : " control of the issues." 
 
 58. Cf. Theogn. 660 Oeol ydp tol vzfXiaCj^r, 6i(tiv eTreari rsAos. 
 
 60. kva-aiTo: the middle means "bring about their relief," i.e., through 
 the medium of curative agents, rather than actually " relieve," which is the 
 meaning of the active. 
 
 61. Tov SI: substantive, as if t6v /u.ei/ had preceded. 
 
 61. KVKuifxevov: this was emended to KaKovpievov by Lobeck in a note 
 on Soph. Ajax 309. Hiller-Crusius and Buchholtz-Peppm idler print KaKov- 
 /jtcvov without a comment. Hense retains KVKUipLtvov. There is no sufficient 
 argument for the change ; and the last touch of certainty is given to tlie 
 manuscript reading by a comparison of Archilochus frag. 62, 1 (H.-C) Ovpe, 
 Bvp.y dp,ri)(dvoLaL Ki^Becnv KVK<i>p.eve. 
 
 62. Cf. Aesch. Prom. 848 f. ivravOa hrj ae Zev? TtOrja-Lv €pi<f)pova [ 
 €Tra<f>u)v drapfSu yupl kol Otyliv fxovov, and my discussion of the meaning of 
 this passage in " Epaphos and the Egyptian Apis," Univ. Calif Publ. Class. 
 Phil. II, 81 ff. 
 
 64. A familiar sentiment, admirably expressed. The irony of Sw/oa 
 di^vKra is thoroughly Greek. 
 
 65-70. These lines reappear, with certain variants, in the corpus of 
 Theognis, and Williams regards the Theognidean version as a popular re- 
 vision of Solon's poem. He further remarks that "the verses in their 
 original form (i.e., Solon's) are more in keeping with the views of Theognis 
 himself." 
 
 65. ovSc Tts oiScv ktX. : this idea is a commonplace in Greek literature. 
 
240 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 The closing anapests of Sophocles' Ajax may be quoted as a succinct expres- 
 sion of it : y TToAAoL ySpoTOts ccrrtv iSovaii/ yvujvaf irplv iSelv 8' ovSeU ixdvTL<; 
 Tu)v ixekX.6vT(DV, 6 TL Trpd^eL. 
 
 66. fj fieWu axrjo-€Lv : there is difficulty in determining what idiom is 
 employed here, and what is to be understood as the subject of /xeAAet. The 
 possibilities are presented in the following passages : (1) Horn. 11. xvi 378 
 nar/ooKAo? 8' rj TrAetcrrov opcvofxevov t8e Xaov, \ Trj p' e)( o/xoKAr^o-a? ; xxiii 
 422 TYJ 'p' el^ev Mei/e'Aao? ; here ex^iv with an adverb like 17 or rrj means 
 *' to direct one's chariot in a certain course"; (2) Horn. Od. ix 279 ottyj 
 ea)(e<; . . . evepyea vrja ; Aristoph. Frogs 188 Xa/awv. ra^^eoo? efx/SaLve. 
 Atovucros. TTOt a)(7)(T€LV SoKCLs ', c? KopaKa^ ovTiiis ', here vavv a^^tv or crxetv 
 alone means "to land," "to touch at a certain point in a voyage," a common 
 nautical expression; (3) Soph. Fhil. 1336 w; 8' 0180 ravra Tils' exovr eyw 
 <f>pd(Toi ; Ajax 684 dAA' d/x^t /xev rovroio-tv ev ax/jaei ; here €;)(€ti/ is used in 
 the familiar idiom with an adverb of manner. The first of these three may 
 be immediately ruled out because it implies intentional direction of the 
 course, an idea which is inappropriate in the present passage. The second 
 idiom is the one generally accepted. Schneidewin significantly compares the 
 passage from the Frogs; Bucherer paraphrases, " wohin er steuern, zu wel- 
 chem Ziel er gelangen wird " ; Kynaston, " where they come to shore." 
 Two things are to be said in favor of this interpretation : ^ is primarily an 
 adverb of direction, giving the course to be followed ; and axw^*-^ i^ ^^^ 
 aoristic future, corresponding to the very form (crxetv) which is used in the 
 nautical phrase. But it seems extremely doubtful whether Solon would have 
 used this nautical metaphor without making sure tlmt it would be under- 
 stood ; there would have been some hint in the context to guide the reader's 
 thought. As it is, there is none ; and the idiom of the type ovtcos 'ix^iv is 
 too familiar to be gainsaid. Furthermore, the propriety of both the adverb 
 rj and the aoristic axno-eLv is neatly proved by the two quotations from 
 Sophocles. It is to be concluded, then, that Solon is using the same idiom 
 which appears in the passage from the Ajax, the verb in each case being re- 
 garded as impersonal. Cf. Herodotus i 32 (tkottUlv 8€ XPI ^ai/Tos XPVH^'''^'* 
 TTjv TekevTrjv ktJ o.TTO^r)cr(.TaL. 
 
 ' 66. Gomperz thinks that the last word is wrong. An undertaking does 
 not begin ; a man begins an undertaking. He would change dpxofj'^vov to 
 dpxoiJi€vo<i referring to Soph. frag. 747 N. epyov 8e Travro? rjv ns dpxrjTat 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 241 
 
 KoAws, I Kol Tas TeXevTa<; €lk6<; iaO' outws ^x^f-v. He seems to think the 
 
 word (rxn(T€Lv refers to driving, " die Zligel imserer Hand entgleiten konnen." 
 
 67. ov TTpovorjGa'i : " unawares," not "because he fails to use foresight." 
 
 69. irtpl TravTtt : a common phrase in Solon, "in every regard" (xiii 6, 
 XV 11). 
 
 70. Ik\v(tlv a(f)po(Tvvr}<: : since a<f>poavvY) is the cause of arr], the removal 
 of a<f>poavv7] prevents the development of arrj. Compare Christ's words to 
 the man suffering from a physical disease : " Thy sins be forgiven thee." 
 
 71-76. See pages 12 ff. 
 
 71. Tcp/xa : the "goal" towards which men strive in the race for 
 wealth. 
 
 71. Trecfyaa fxivov : i.e., cf>av€p6v ; cf. Lysias x 19: "Oo-at Se 7rec/)ao-/xe- 
 vco? TToXovvrai (quoted from the laws of Solon) . . . ro /mev 7r€^ao-/xeVa>s 
 ccTTt cf>av€p(t><i , TToXelaOat Sk ^aSt'^etv. 
 
 71. "In the pursuit of wealth there is no fixed goal visible from the 
 start." The distant object of one's effort constantly recedes while one gives 
 chase. 
 
 71. Cf. Plut. de cupiditate divitiarum 4, 524 e : r^i/ h\ xpv^iKrjv iKuv-qv 
 (i.e., ireviav, " imaginary poverty ") ovk av IfxirX-qcr^iav om-ai/res ovre ^ujvre? our' 
 aTTodavovre.^. oOev ev tt/oos tovtov<; AeXeKxat vtto tov ^oAojvos 'ttXovtov 8* 
 ovSkv ktX' 
 
 72. I^iov : "means of living," " wealth." 
 
 73. Tts av Kopicretev aTravras : "what amount of wealth would be 
 sufficient to satisfy the greed of all ? " A reflection upon the appalling 
 magnitude of the sum produced by uniting the desires of all individuals in 
 the community. There is a full stop at the end of this line. The next 
 three lines repeat in a brief and pointed manner the principle enunciated in 
 vss. 11 if. 
 
 74 f. Wealth does indeed come as a gift from the gods ; but it is not an 
 unmixed blessing. Not infrequently the rich man is punished for his greed 
 by Zeus who employs as his instrument the arrj which is bred out of the 
 riches themselves. Such arr], whose chief symptom is a limitless lust for 
 money, is infectious, and when one case appears in a community, it is certain 
 that others will soon appear. Thus aXXore dXXos ex^t repeats the idea 
 suggested by aTrai/ra? in vs. 73, that avarice is often epidemic. 
 
 75. ii avTttiv : ck twv KcpBoiv. Some find the antecedent of avruiv in 
 
242 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 6vqTdla\ and claim that the pronoun is emphatic here : " good gifts come 
 from the immortals," says Kynaston, " but mischief and infatuation from 
 men's own willfulness." But the unemphatic position of the avTu>v, the ease 
 with wliich it is referred to KepSea, and the statement which follows (yv 
 oTTorav Zevs Tre/xxl/rj), all argue against this view. 
 
 75. dva(f>aLV€TaL : cf. Hom. //. xi 174 rrj Si t Ifj dvac^atVertti aiTrvs 
 6Xe0p6<;. 
 
 76. aAAore aAAos : that this phrase is sound in spite of the hiatus is 
 shown by xvii 4, Hom. Od. iv 236, Hesiod W. and D. 713, Theogn. 318, 
 992. Cf. also Archilochus frag. 9, 7 (H.-C.) ^XXore 8' 5AAo? e^" ^^^e (*•«•. 
 misfortune). 
 
 ON THE STROPHIC STRUCTURE OF XL 
 
 In 1862 Henri Weil pubhshed in a German periodical an article in 
 which he claimed to have discovered in the longest of Solon's elegiac poems 
 unmistakable evidence of strophic structure, and maintained that it was 
 highly probable that other elegies, if they had survived, would show the 
 same characteristics. In the present poem he discovers the following 
 divisions : part I, consisting of vss. 1-32 ; part II, vss. 33-64 ; part III, 
 vss. 65-76. It will be observed that the first two parts are of equal length, 
 each consisting of 32 verses ; the third part, of 12 verses, is an epode. 
 Furthermore, he discerns subdivisions within these parts. The first and 
 second parts are composed each of four groups of four elegiac couplets ; the 
 third part is composed of two groups of three couplets. 
 
 Now the symmetry of this apparent structure is extremely attractive in 
 itself and is recommended to the favor of scholars in an essay characterized 
 by the author's usual grace. One is disposed at first to accept it unre- 
 servedly. 
 
 The first effect of Weil's discovery was an unfortunate one. If Weil 
 could find a symmetrical structure in the poem, why should not another 
 scholar discover another symmetrical structure therein, of a different kind ? 
 This is what was done by von Leutsch in 1872. The German scholar 
 begins by pointing out that there is no good reason why the divisions in the 
 poem should be where Weil had found them : they could be placed equally 
 well elsewhere. Then he proceeds to demonstrate at great length that the 
 poem is really a vo/aos KiOapioSiKo^ with seven parts, of the type invented by 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 243 
 
 Terpander. The absurdity of this suggestion will be apparent to any one 
 who reads the argument of its erudite but stupid author, and has been re- 
 jected with ridicule by all. 
 
 Two years later, in 1874, Otto Hense came to the defense of Weil's 
 scheme, but he really presented no new argument. He proposed an emen- 
 dation (ttoBcI for SoKct in vs. 39) in order to save the couplet which was 
 necessary for the symmetry, but which Weil, following Bergk, had been dis- 
 posed to reject as spurious. 
 
 Bergk, in his fourth edition (1882), rejected Weil's scheme, explicitly 
 but without argument ; and Wilhelm Clemm, in an article published the next 
 year, heartily approved of Bergk's decision. Clemm's reason for rejecting 
 the plan was that Weil had not really divided the poem in the right places. 
 The introductory prayer, for example, ends not with vs. 8, but with vs. 6 ; 
 the second part consists of vss. 34-63, not 33-64 ; and the couplets of this 
 second part may be readily grouped in other ways than that proposed by Weil. 
 
 What are we to think of Weil's scheme 1 First of all, it has not been 
 pointed out by any of these scholars that it is essentially improbable, I 
 think I may say impossible, for any strophic arrangement in a Greek poem 
 to be based primarily on divisions in the subject matter and its grammatical 
 expression. Metrical structure is independent of subject matter and gram- 
 mar, though, of course, not inharmonious with them. As for the divisions 
 of the nome, we do not know on what principle they were made ; but it is 
 almost certain that they were based upon musical, if not metrical form, and 
 not upon the substance of the thought. This observation seems to me 
 sufficient to convince us that there is no truth in the proposed scheme, that 
 is, that Solon did not consciously produce the symmetrical arrangement 
 which Weil saw and which we can see, like a picture in the flames, when 
 Weil points it out. The true divisions of the poem, which are not always 
 just as Weil constitutes them, correspond to the paragraphs in prose dis- 
 course. No Greek could compose a poem without a certain architectonic 
 sense which would produce a symmetry sometimes indefinable but always 
 perceptible. But Greek metrical form is not so vague a thing as that : it 
 is precise and unmistakable. The only metrical form in the present poem 
 is that of the elegiac couplet. Croiset has shown, with fine critical insight, 
 both the truth and the falsehood of Weil's theory. His statement leaves 
 nothing more to be said. 
 
244 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 XLI 
 
 The chapter in which Stobaeus records this fragment contains many 
 other quotations from the poets in which the same melancholy view of hu- 
 man life is expressed. Note especially Theogn. 167 f. "AAA' aAAo) kukov 
 iaTL, TO 8' arpcKe? oA^to? ouSets | avOpiOTroiv ottoctov? lyeAto? KaOopa ; and 
 441 ovhel^ yap ttolvt iarl 7ravdA)8tos. 
 
 1. {xaKap<s : an Aeolic form which was restored by Stephanus in order 
 to justify the long ultima ; the word is found in Alcman frag. 42 (H.-C). 
 The quantity might be obtained by prolonging the liquid p, but in Homer 
 this license is allowed only in cases where the final syllable of a word ending 
 with a short vowel is made long before the initial liquid of the next word. 
 
 XLII 
 
 Reference: Clapp (1910). 
 
 XmapYj : this adjective was a common epithet of Athens in the fifth cen- 
 tury, and the Athenians took particular satisfaction in it. The first appear- 
 ance of it in association with the name of Athens is in Pindar Isthm. ii 20 
 rat? AiTTttpat? kv 'A^avat? ; and frag. 76 (Christ) w rat Xiir-apaX koI loari 
 <f>avoL Kol aoiSifMOL, I 'EAAciSo? tpu(Tp.a, kXuvoX 'A^avat, | 8ai/xdvtov iTTokUOpov. 
 If, as seems likely, the present quotation from Solon is drawn from a pas- 
 sage descri})tive of Athens, the famous epithet is a hundred years older than 
 has previously been suspected. The exact meaning of the word as an epithet 
 of Athens is doubtful ; Clapp argues that it refers to the brilliance of the 
 atmosphere ; but the present fragment may lend some weight to the opinion 
 that it refers to the soil as the source of life. 
 
 KovpoTp6cf)o<; : this word is used of Ithaca in Hom. Od. ix 27 rprjxd* 
 oAA' ayaOr) KovpoTp6<f>o<;. Whether in Solon's poem it was an epithet of 
 the personified Earth (T^), of course it is impossible to say. For the per- 
 sonified KovpoTp6(f)o^, see Jane E. Harrison, Prolegomena, pp. 267 ff". 
 
 XLIII 
 
 Photius states that Ktyxavetv was used by Solon in the sense of lirf. 
 ^UvaL, while Suidas' statement is that it was so used in the time of Solon 
 (ot Trepi SdAwva). In what way the words are synonymous is not clear. 
 Though KLyxpiVuv or klxolvuv is not infrequent in elegiac and iambic poets, it 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 245 
 
 never seems to bear any of the recognized meanings of iTre^Uvai. Probably, 
 as Bergk remarks, the word was used in an ancient law. It may have 
 meant "to catch one's enemy," "to bring about his conviction," a common 
 meaning of iire^uvat. 
 
 XLIV 
 
 pov<s was the name of a small tree, the sumach, or its fruit. Apparently 
 the word is here a neuter, which may have been the form used for seasoning 
 which was made from the fruit. It may have been in the poem from which 
 xxix, XXX, and xxxiii are all probably drawn. 
 
 XLV 
 
 This fragment is included in the collections of Gaisford, Schneidewin, and 
 Hartung, but not in those of Bergk and Hiller-Crusius. It consists of a 
 single iambic trimeter, and cannot, of course, be part of an elegiac couplet as 
 the Paroemiographi assert. Hartung is probably right in saying that 
 though these words themselves are not Solon's own, a similar sentiment was 
 expressed in one of his elegiac poems. Gaisford, however, thinks eAeyctwv 
 is a corruption for lafx/Siov or viroOrjKQyv. 
 
 XLVI 
 
 This fragment is included in the collections of Hartung, Bergk, and 
 Hiller-Crusius, but not in those of Gaisford and Schneidewin. The name 
 of Solon is not mentioned in connection with it in any of the testimonia, 
 and the assignment of it to Solon by the scholiast on Plato is uncertain. 
 
APPENDICES 
 
APPENDIX 1 
 SALAMIS 
 
 There is no difference of opinion about the fact that Salamis 
 came into the power of Athens at some time early in the sixth 
 century. The questions at issue are these : Did this important 
 event happen before or after the cardinal date of Solon's ar- 
 chonship ? Had Athens ever been in possession of the island 
 before ? Was the conquest effected by Solon or by Pisistratus or 
 by some other ? What is to be thought of the ancient tradition 
 which related with full circumstantial detail the manner of its 
 acquisition through the efforts of Solon ? ^ 
 
 The most important text bearing upon these matters is in 
 Plutarch's Life of Solon (chaps. 8-10). 
 
 From this passage we learn, in the first place, that there 
 was known in ancient times a poem by Solon, in elegiac verse, 
 entitled '' Salamis," consisting of one hundred lines. It is 
 probable that it was still extant in the time of Plutarch, because 
 Plutarch's judgment of its merit seems to rest upon his own 
 reading. He quotes the first two lines ; three other couplets, of 
 which two are successive, are preserved by Diogenes Laertius. 
 We have, therefore, only eight verses, or four couplets, from the 
 entire poem ; but Plutarch and his predecessors had the whole 
 hundred. 
 
 This poem was probably the most authoritative document 
 in the possession of ancient historians concerning the Athenian 
 
 1 A condensed review of the whole subject may be found in Busolt (1895, 
 pp. 213-222, 247, 248), with full bibliographical references. The most important 
 monograph is that of Toepffer (1886). Kirchner (1903), Lehmann-Haupt 
 (1912), and De Sanctis (1912), adopting various views advocated by earlier 
 writers, have not contributed anything of importance to the discussion. Refer- 
 ence to Beloch (1913) wall be made later. 
 
 249 
 
250 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 efforts to capture Salamis. The eight verses which are still be- 
 fore our eyes tell us something ; the ninety-two lost verses must 
 have told much more. If we are tempted to reject hastily cer- 
 tain features of the story, we should remember that this authen- 
 tic document could have preserved inviolate, under the seal of 
 metrical form, a more or less circumstantial record of the condi- 
 tions under which the poem was composed. What we learn 
 from the extant fragments and what we are to think of the 
 events which preceded the publication are questions which have 
 been discussed elsewhere (pp. 39 ff.). It remains to examine 
 the rest of Plutarch's narrative. 
 
 It will be observed that Plutarch's two accounts of the cam- 
 paign against Salamis are highly circumstantial and of an un- 
 questionably legendary cast. There is no known way in which 
 such stories as these could have been transmitted from the age 
 of Solon to the Attic chroniclers of the fifth century, except by 
 irresponsible oral tradition. Each story, as a whole, must be 
 rejected. But there may be embedded in them fragments of 
 truth which have a better claim on our credence. 
 
 The first story appears in several other authors besides Plu- 
 tarch. The earliest of these is Aeneas Tacticus of Stymphalus 
 (circa 362 B.C.), who tells what is manifestly the same story,, 
 but with very striking differences (^Comm. Pol, iv 8 ff.). In 
 Plutarch, Solon is the commander and Pisistratus is his lieuten- 
 ant ; in Aeneas, Pisistratus is in command and there is no 
 mention whatever of Solon. In Plutarch, the scene is laid at 
 Cape Colias, a promontory southeast of Piraeus and Phalerum ; 
 in Aeneas, it is laid at Eleusis. In Plutarch, the Athenians, 
 after the success of their stratagem, sail forth and capture 
 Salamis ; in Aeneas, they sail for Megara, and, pretending they 
 are Megarians bringing back the Athenian women as captives, 
 deceive the Megarians and inflict great losses upon them. 
 Thus, in the earliest extant form of the story, all connection 
 with Solon and Salamis is absent. 
 
APPENDIX 1 251 
 
 Justinus, in his epitome of Pompeius Trogus, tells the story 
 again (ii 7 f.). Here, as in Aeneas, the initiative is taken by 
 the Megarians, who desire to avenge themselves for the capture 
 of Salamis, which has already occurred. Again the scene is 
 laid in Eleusis, and Pisistratus is in command. Justinus adds 
 that Pisistratus almost succeeded in capturing Megara, and that 
 the glory of this achievement served him as a stepping stone to 
 the tyranny. 
 
 A version similar to that of Aeneas and Justinus appears also 
 in the Strategemata of Frontinus (ii 9, 9). 
 
 Plutarch's version, on the other hand, with Cape Colias, 
 Solon, and Salamis, is found again in the Strategemata of 
 Polyaenus (i 20, circa 163 A.D.). But here Pisistratus is not 
 mentioned at all, not even as Solon's lieutenant.^ 
 
 Evidently we have in this story a commonplace of strategy 
 which could be told as well of one captain as of another, and no 
 argument is needed to prove that it is of no historical value. 
 It could be told equally well of Pisistratus, who, as we know, 
 captured Nisaea, the port of Megara (Herodotus i 59), and of 
 Solon, who was the reputed conqueror of Salamis. To which 
 name it was first attached, it is impossible to say with assurance. 
 
 The search for the genesis of such a legend is alluring but 
 likely to be futile. Toepffer (pp. 22 ff.) offers a solution of 
 the problem as follows : He cites a number of texts to show 
 that events similar to those which form the basis of the story 
 were supposed to have occurred at Brauron on the east coast of 
 Attica, and since Brauron was the home of Pisistratus, he con- 
 cludes that the story was first told of Pisistratus at Brauron. 
 Later, when Pisistratus had distinguished himself in the war 
 with Megara, the scene was transferred to Eleusis. Still later, 
 when the fame of Solon had been greatly augmented by the 
 
 1 For the interdependence of these ancient authorities, see Toepffer, pp. 6 ff . 
 He takes for granted (p. 22) that the version of Aeneas, Trogus-Justinus, and 
 Frontinus is the earlier, and that of Plutarch and Polyaenus the later. This is 
 probable but can hardly be regarded as certain. 
 
252 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 tradition that he was the conqueror of Salamis, the story was 
 transferred to him. The several steps by which this last trans- 
 ference was effected are explained by Busolt (1895, p. 219, foot- 
 note) as follows. The Thesmophoria which were celel^rated at 
 Halimus, near Cape Colias, bore sufficient resemblance to the 
 ritual of the women at Eleusis to carry the story over to 
 Halimus. Then, since iNIegara was not accessible from Cape 
 Colias, the object of the Athenian attack was changed from 
 Megara to Salamis. Lastly, since Solon was the reputed con- 
 queror of Salamis, he became the leading figure in the new 
 version of the story and Pisistratus, who could not be left out, 
 was degraded to the rank of his lieutenant. 
 
 This is highly ingenious but quite unconvincing and unsup- 
 ported by any real evidence. Furthermore, the events which 
 took place at Brauron bear only a superficial resemblance to 
 those at Eleusis or Cape Colias. The essential feature — the 
 disguise of young men in women's garments — is entirely ab- 
 sent. The only point of similarity is that in both cases the 
 women were engaged in a religious ceremonial ; but in the one 
 case, at Brauron, they were actually seized and carried off ; in 
 the other, the attempt to seize them was made the occasion for 
 a clever ruse. 
 
 Until its origin can be more convincingly demonstrated, it 
 is reasonable to assume that the story is a folk tale which could 
 be told of any military hero, and that it has no discoverable 
 foundation in fact. It was localized at Eleusis and Cape Colias 
 probably because women's festivals were held in those places. 
 It may conceivably have originated in some piece of ritual 
 which required that men should be disguised as women,i but it 
 is quite as likely that the stratagem of the disguise was an 
 
 1 One is reminded of the 6a-xo(f)6poL, the two boys who were dressed in 
 women's clothes and marched at the head of the procession from Athens to 
 Phalerum at the festival of the Oschophoria. It is significant that the cult of 
 Athena Sciras, in connection with which the festival was celebrated, was brought 
 to Phalerum from Salamis. 
 
APPENDIX 1 253 
 
 original invention, either of the story teller or of some unknown 
 captain. In any case, it must be ruled out of court as evidence 
 for the history of the conquest of Salamis. 
 
 Plutarch's second account is of a different sort, and though 
 it contains a legend like that in the first account, it contains 
 more besides. ^ 
 
 Toepffer (pp. 7 ff.) claims that the legend came into exist- 
 ence at a time long subsequent to the conquest of Salamis. 
 His argument may be summarized as follows : The city of 
 Salamis on the northeastern shore of the island was founded by 
 the Athenians after their occupation. The old city of Salamis 
 lay on the south side of the island facing Aegina. But Solon's 
 landing is supposed to have been made on the coast facing 
 Attica. Now since the attack on the city, in order to be suc- 
 cessful, must be sudden and unexpected, the author of the story 
 must have been thinking of new Salamis. Therefore, since old 
 Salamis, the city actually seized by the Athenians, was for- 
 gotten, the story must have been invented long after the 
 conquest. 
 
 Two criticisms may be brought against this argument. In 
 the first place, if Athens was fighting to recover Salamis, which, 
 as we have seen, may have been the case, the new city might 
 already have been built during a previous Athenian occupation . 
 In the second place, there is nothing to prove that Solon was 
 supposed to have landed nearer the new city. The only evi- 
 dence for this is Wilamowitz' proposed reading of Sv/jLocrav for 
 the manifestly corrupt reading ^v(3oiav which appears in the 
 manuscripts. Furthermore, Toepffer himself claims to prove 
 (pp. 11 ff.) that the promontory of Sciradium lay on the south 
 side of the island, and it was here that the ceremony was per- 
 formed which Plutarch accepts as a confirmation of the whole 
 story. 
 
 1 The stratagem which forms the kernel of this second account is also re- 
 ported by Aelian V. H. vii 19. According to Toepffer (p. 4), his narrative is 
 derived from the same source which was used by Plutarch. 
 
254 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 It is not necessary, however, to resort to such fine-drawn 
 arguments in order to convince ourselves that we are dealing 
 with a legend. Plutarch himself betrays the truth, as Toepffer 
 himself saw (p. 18), by his citation of the religious ceremony in 
 support of the credibility of the legend, which may be set down 
 without hesitation as an aetiological myth. It is altogether 
 natural that this piece of martial ritual should have been 
 associated with Solon and the capture of the island where the 
 ritual was performed, especially in view of the temple of Enya- 
 lius, about which more will be said later. 
 
 The Delphic oracle need not detain us. It can be rejected 
 immediately as a forgery. But it is interesting to note that it 
 must have been composed at a time when the method of burial 
 was regarded as important evidence in support of the Athenian 
 claim to the island. Now Plutarch informs us in the next 
 chapter that this very evidence was adduced by Solon before 
 the Spartan board of arbitration. If, as is probable, the argu- 
 ments which were advanced by the Athenians in the court of 
 arbitration, and indeed the arbitration proceedings themselves, 
 belong to a much later period, it is reasonable to conclude that 
 the oracle was an invention of the fifth century or later. 
 
 We are now left with two features in this second account 
 which cannot lightly be set aside as fictitious : the Athenian 
 decree calling for five hundred volunteers for the campaign and 
 promising them complete autonomy in the government of the 
 island in the event of its capture, and the foundation by Solon 
 of a temple in honor of Enyalius. Neither of these statements 
 is involved in the legend itself, and both deserve independent 
 consideration. 
 
 The decree calling for five hundred volunteers is a thing for 
 which Greek historians could have had authentic testimony.^ 
 In the first place, there may well have been a stone, set up in 
 
 1 Toepffer (p. 19, footnote 1) thinks that the number of cleruchs (500) is a 
 true record of some settlement. But it is uncritical suspicion for him to d^^iiy^ 
 as he does, without proof that it had anything to do with Solon. 
 
APPENDIX 1 255 
 
 Athens or in Salamis, bearing a decree passed by the Athenians 
 after the conquest of Salamis, in which was formally recorded 
 the political status of the five hundred men who had offered 
 themselves as volunteers. It is difficult otherwise to account for 
 the exact number five hundred, and for Plutarch's inclusion of 
 a comparatively unpicturesque detail like this in the midst of a 
 more lively narrative, which is otherwise altogether religious in 
 its origin. In the second place, if five hundred volunteers were 
 called and given their political independence in Salamis, their 
 descendants would inevitably have formed the aristocracy of the 
 island and would have sedulously preserved the tradition of the 
 origin of their high estate, whether orally from father to son or 
 in written records, similar to those of Athenian phratries. The 
 statement, therefore, about the five hundred volunteers is not to 
 be rejected on the ground that there could have been no authen- 
 tic record of such a matter. That there was such a record, of 
 course we cannot say ; but it is much, where our footing is so 
 uncertain, to be able to discern a possible path by which reliable 
 information concerning the event in question could have de- 
 scended to the time of written history.^ 
 
 Now if we are convinced that Plutarch's statement is not 
 necessarily a legendary specter, but may possibly be real flesh 
 and blood, we should next consider whether or not it is histori- 
 cally probable. If the conquest of Salamis was really carried 
 through by the efforts of Solon, is it likely that the method 
 employed would have been that indicated by the decree calling 
 for five hundred volunteers and offering political independence 
 in the event of success ? The answer is emphatically in the 
 affirmative. In the first place, a foreign war at this moment 
 would have done much to relieve the tensity of domestic affairs 
 in Athens. We know that Solon urged the prosecution of the 
 campaign ; conjecture need go no farther than to suggest what 
 
 1 The words 6<roi fxr) SiecpOdprfo-av iv ry fidxv Trdvras virocnr6v8ovs d(f)iJKei> suggest 
 the possibility of an inscribed record. 
 
256 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 may have been his motives. In the second place, an army re- 
 cruited in this way, fighting at once for their own personal ad- 
 vantage and for the glory of Athens, would have thus offered a 
 double hope of success. Salamis could be held for Athens, the 
 Megarians could be shut inside their own port of Nisaea, and the 
 sea would be open for Athenian commerce. The extraordinary 
 compatibility of these two statesmanlike aims justifies us in 
 attaching the greatest importance to Plutarch's statement about 
 five hundred volunteers. 
 
 We now come to the other feature of Plutarch's second 
 account of the campaign. Near the spot on the coast of Salamis 
 where the religious ceremonial was performed, says Plutarch, 
 stands the temple of Enyalius which was founded by Solon. 
 The form of this sentence deserves attention : a definite temple 
 is referred to {to lepov^ as if it were well known, and the verb 
 is in the present tense. Either Plutarch had seen it, or, at any 
 rate, he had no doubt of its existence. The foundation of it by 
 Solon is mentioned as if that, too, were a matter of common 
 knowledge. It is the locality of the temple which Plutarch 
 emphasizes : its proximity to the scene of the ritual is proof to 
 him that Solon, who founded the temple, also had a part in the 
 proceedings which engendered the ritual. The temple and its 
 foundation stand quite outside the aetiological myth. 
 
 But how could Plutarch or his sources know that this 
 temple had been founded by Solon ? Surely nothing is simpler. 
 Literary evidence or tradition need not be called on here. A 
 dedicatory inscription set up within the precinct would be the 
 best proof of all. And if the temple Avas so founded by Solon, 
 such an inscription could hardly have been lacking. Of course 
 we cannot be sure. There may have been simply a popular 
 tradition in Salamis that Solon was the founder of the shrine. 
 But, at any rate, this temple again cannot be overlooked in 
 assembling the evidence touching the question whether Solon 
 was concerned in the conquest of Salamis or not. 
 
APPENDIX 1 257 
 
 After the two accounts of the campaign which have just 
 been examined, Plutarch (^Sol. x) describes another episode in 
 the fortunes of Sahimis. The war between Athens and Megara 
 continued, he says, causing much hardship to both sides. In 
 the end, the two cities called in the Lacedaemonians to serve as 
 arbitrators and decide which was the lawful owner of the 
 island. A board of five Spartans, whom Plutarch mentions by 
 name, decided in favor of Athens. Solon was the Athenian 
 advocate in the trial, and we are told of the evidence which he 
 laid before the court in support of the Athenian claim. Now 
 Beloch has shown (1913, pp. 312, 313) that the settlement of 
 the rival claims through Spartan arbitration could not have 
 taken place till the end of the sixth century and that there is 
 good reason for fixing its date precisely at 508-7. If we accept 
 Beloch's conclusions, which are altogether convincing, we 
 recognize that there is no connection between Solon and the 
 arbitration, and that he was brought into the matter by tradi- 
 tion simply because of his poem and his reputation as the con- 
 queror of Salamis. 
 
 A few pages later Plutarch says QSol. xii 3) that during the 
 disturbances incident to the trial of the Alcmeonidae the Me- 
 garians attacked Athens, recovered Nisaea, and drove the 
 Athenians out of Salamis again. Plutarch's chronology is so 
 unreliable that we cannot say for certain just when this event 
 took place, if it took place at all. Some think that the loss of 
 Salamis referred to is that which Solon had in mind when he 
 spoke of the ^aXafJuva^ercov, and that it preceded the supposed 
 recovery by him. But we do not know that Athens ever held 
 Nisaea until it was won by Pisistratus, and for this reason the 
 loss of Nisaea and Salamis would have to be dated long after 
 Solon's archonship. If the Salaminian controversy was still 
 burning at the end of the century, it is probable that the loss 
 referred to by Plutarch was only one of many vicissitudes in the 
 fortunes of the island. 
 
258 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 This completes the examination of the tradition connecting 
 Solon with Salamis, as it is reported by Plutarch and by other 
 ancient authors who have something to say concerning the cir- 
 cumstances which are included in Plutarch's narrative. To 
 these texts we should add the following. Diodorus (ix 1) says 
 that Solon was of Salaminian family (a manifest error); and 
 Diogenes Laertius (i 45) applied to him the epithet 2aXa/itwo9, 
 as if he had been born in the island. From Aeschines (i 25) 
 we learn that in his time there was a statue of Solon in the 
 market place of the city of Salamis. The comic poet Cratinus 
 (ap. Diog. Laert. i 62), in his play called Xeipcove^^ represents 
 Solon himself as speaking the two folloAving lines : 
 OL/co) 8e VYjcrov, &)? jiev avOpcoircov X070?, 
 iairap/xei^o^; kutcl iraaav Kiavro^ ttoXlv. 
 The meaning of these lines is made clear by Plutarch (^Sol. 
 xxxii 4), who reports the story that Solon's body was burned 
 and his ashes scattered over the island of Salamis. He believes 
 the story to be merely a legend, though he admits that it has 
 the authority of Aristotle. Whether the body of Solon was 
 disposed of in this way or not, the legend, which became current 
 before the middle of the fifth century B.c.,^ must have been 
 founded on a popular belief that Solon was in some sense the 
 heroic founder of a colony in Salamis. If Solon obtained a de- 
 cree from the Athenians calling for five hundred volunteers and 
 promising them political independence, and if these same five 
 hundred men succeeded in their attempt and enjoyed the fruits 
 of their success, there was justice in their regarding him in 
 some sort as their otVto-TTJ?, and in course of time the story might 
 easily come into existence that his ashes had been scattered over 
 the island. At any rate, the two circumstances corroborate one 
 another in a striking way, especially as they do not appear 
 together in any artificially constructed ancient account. 
 
 In only three places do we find any divergence from the 
 1 Cratinus flourished about 454 b.c. 
 
APPENDIX 1 259 
 
 universal belief that Solon was the conqueror of Salamis. 
 Daimachus of Plataea (ap. Flut. Comp. Sol. et Puhl. iv 1) and 
 certain writers referred to by Aristotle in the Constitution of 
 Athens (xvii 2) deny that Solon won any military glory in the 
 war with Megara.^ This modification of the ancient tradition 
 we are justified in accepting. Neither of the stories of Solon's 
 military prowess in the fight for Salamis has any real founda- 
 tion ; and, furthermore, there is nothing in his character or in 
 his whole career, as we know it, which would lead us to suppose 
 that he had any talent for arms. All the more reliable evidence 
 supports his skill as a statesman rather than as a general. The 
 third dissentient voice is that of the Megarians themselves, who, 
 according to Fausanias (i 40, 5), claimed that Salamis had been 
 betrayed into the hands of the Athenians by Megarian traitors. 
 This again concerns the strictly military aspect of the conquest. 
 Either the story was a Megarian invention to lessen the discredit 
 attaching to themselves in the loss of the island, which is most 
 likely ; or Megarian treason served as an auxiliary to the 
 Athenians on one of the occasions when they were fighting for 
 the island. It does not touch Solon's real part in the business, 
 even if it occurred during the campaign which resulted from 
 Solon's exhortations. 
 
 We have now examined all the evidence concerning the re- 
 lation between Solon and the conquest of Salamis. We have 
 seen that antiquity with scarcely a dissenting voice ascribed 
 the glory of the achievement to him and no other. We have 
 found reason to reject some details in the tradition, and to 
 recognize in others the possibility or even the probability of 
 truth. It now remains to consider the views of some modern 
 scholars who resolutely deny the ancient tradition. These 
 
 1 Meyer (1893, p. 647) says that Daimachus was led by the apocryphal 
 nature of the story which Plutarch gives as his second account of the campaign, 
 to doubt the reality of the war. But Daimachus did not doubt the reality of the 
 war, and it is a mere fancy to find the source of Daimachus' opinion in the 
 second account. 
 
260 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 views vary in details, but they are united in the common asser- 
 tion that the credit for the conquest of Sahimis belongs, not 
 to Solon, but to Pisistratus. Our best approach to these views 
 will be through an examination of the texts which bear on 
 the connection of Pisistratus with the conquest. 
 
 Only two passages explicitly connect Pisistratus' name with 
 Salamis. One we have already seen in Plutarch, who says that 
 Pisistratus supported Solon's plea that the effort to conquer 
 Salamis should be renewed and took part wdth him in the 
 expedition Avhich sailed from Cape Colias after the success of 
 Solon's stratagem. 1 In Aeneas, however, and Justinus and 
 Frontinus, we find the stratagem itself attributed to Pisistratus 
 with no mention of Solon whatever. But the scene of Pisistra- 
 tus' stratagem is Eleusis, and not a word is said of Salamis. 
 Indeed, both Aeneas and Justinus say that after the execution 
 of the stratagem, Pisistratus proceeded to attack Megara 
 itself. 
 
 Herodotus, in his account of the rise of the Athenian 
 tyranny (i 59), informs us that before Pisistratus asked the 
 Athenians for a bodyguard he had distinguished himself in the 
 campaign against Megara, capturing Nisaea and performing 
 other great deeds. We have, therefore, by the side of the gen- 
 erally attested tradition that Solon was the conqueror of Salamis, 
 this new statement that Pisistratus too fought against the 
 iMcgarians and conquered Nisaea. If we accept both at their 
 face value, we shall have to assume that there were two wars, 
 or one long-continued war, between .Vthens and ]\Iegara, and 
 that the conquest of Salamis belongs to an earlier, the conquest 
 of Nisaea to a later, stage of it. This is also the view of Aris- 
 totle (^Con.sf. of Atli. xvii) who says tliat Pisistratus had greatly 
 
 1 Toepffer thinks that Pisistratus' name is omitted by Polyaenns because his 
 account is primarily concerned with Solon. Hue: and Bohren think he omitted 
 it IxM'ause he saw the chronolo<;ical discrepancy. It is more likely that he 
 omitted it because it is of no significance in the story ; to Toepffer, specialist in 
 the history of Pisistratus, the omission looms large. 
 
APPENDIX 1 261 
 
 distinguished himself in the war against Megara before he 
 attempted to seize the tyrann}', but that chronological consider- 
 ations show the impossibility of Pisistratus having been in 
 command in the fight for Salamis, as some claim that he was.^ 
 From these last words — '' as some claim that he was " — we see 
 that even l)efore Aristotle's time there had been some to say 
 that Pisistratus had been the military commander in the Sala- 
 minian campaign. This is the other of the two texts referred 
 to above which connect Pisistratus with Salamis. ^ 
 
 The case for Pisistratus rests upon this evidence.^ The 
 arguments Avhich may be drawn from it have been most recently 
 and most effectively presented by Belocli (1913, pp. 309 ff.), as 
 follows : 
 
 1. It was believed in later times that Solon had recovered 
 Salamis. But, considering the nature of the tradition, there is 
 not the slightest proof of the truth of this. It is manifestly 
 only a conclusion based on the poem. 
 
 2. Athens, in Solon's time, was not in a condition to think 
 of foreign conquest. 
 
 3. There were critical doubts even in ancient times whether 
 Solon had really held the military command against Salamis. 
 Daimachus of Plataea expressed such doubt ; and, Beloch might 
 
 1 Wilamowitz (1893, I, 268) considers Aristotle's evidence of no special value 
 l^ecaiise he was only copying from the Atthis. But admitting that he was copy- 
 ing from the Atthis (which, of course, cannot be proved), there is no reason to 
 "believe Aristotle wrong simply because he accepted the statement of an earlier 
 authority. 
 
 2 Strabo (ix 394) says that according to some authorities it was Pisistratus, 
 according to others Solon, who forged the Homeric line which was quoted before 
 the Spartan board of arbitration in support of the Athenian claim to Salamis. 
 But -we have seen that the arbitration belongs at the end of the sixth century, 
 long after the death of both Solon and Pisistratus. 
 
 3 It is surprising, says Toepffer (p. 41), that so important a matter as the 
 capture of Salamis should not have been definitely attached in early times to 
 some name : Solon was not credited with it till a comparatively late period, and 
 no ancient author attributes it to Pisistratus. This is rather a staggering blow, 
 one would think, for Toepffer's argument. But he disarms criticism. Probably 
 the true account of the acquisition of Salamis, he says, is given by Pausanias 
 (i 40, 5) : Salamis was betrayed into the hands of the Athenians, and there was 
 no Athenian conqueror ! 
 
262 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 have added, the unknown persons referred to by Aristotle ex- 
 pressly gave the credit of the military success to Pisistratus. 
 
 4. Pisistratus appears by the side of Solon in Plutarch's 
 first account of the campaign. It is chronologically impossible, 
 as Aristotle points out, that both men should have had a part in 
 it. If Salamis was conquered when Pisistratus was old enough to 
 hold a high military command, Solon was too old to fight. The 
 poem, to be sure, could have been written by Solon late in life, 
 but there is not the slightest reason for this assumption : it was 
 probably merely a " Schlag ins Wasser " like other chauvinistic 
 productions of the same sort. It is to be concluded then, that 
 not both men, but only one took part in the military campaign: 
 which was it ? If Salamis had been conquered by Solon, it would 
 never have occurred to any one to bring Pisistratus' name into the 
 business ; but if Pisistratus was the conqueror, it is only natural 
 that the credit should have been ascribed to Solon because of the 
 poem. Therefore the conqueror was Pisistratus. Plutarch's nar- 
 rative is an unsuccessful attempt to harmonize the tw^o versions. 
 The conquest of Salamis was accomplished in the same war in 
 which Pisistratus captured Nisaea ; but Herodotus does not men- 
 tion it because tradition had already transferred it to Solon. ^ 
 The following may be said in reply to these arguments : 
 1. If the tradition is unreliable in Solon's case, it is equally 
 unreliable for Pisistratus. But in a matter so important to 
 Athens as the acquisition of Salamis, it is more than probable 
 that people would remember accurately who deserved the credit 
 for it ; and the ancient tradition, beginning, as Beloch points 
 out, at a period earlier than Herodotus, was unanimous in favor of 
 Solon. It is a significant thing that the only ancient authorities 
 who raise the slightest question, Daimachus of Plataea and the 
 persons mentioned by Aristotle, refer solely to the military 
 command ; no one denies that Solon was the guiding statesman, 
 
 1 According to Toepffer (p. 29), Herodotus knew notliing as yet of the con- 
 nection between Solon and the Megarian war. This is a good example of the^ 
 way in which the argument from silence can be used on both sides. 
 
APPENDIX 1 263 
 
 and the very fact that these two expressly deny his military 
 leadership tacitly corroborates the rest of the tradition. 
 
 2. In the second argument Beloch exaggerates both the dis- 
 order in Athens and the magnitude of the effort required to 
 conquer Salamis. Athens was not in a state of civil war. 
 There was indeed profound discontent among the lower classes 
 due to the economic stringency and the restraint upon personal 
 liberty. It would have been an act of wise policy to distract 
 the minds of the people from their personal grievances by unit- 
 ing citizens of all classes in a concerted effort against Megara. 
 And the population, so united, would have been powerful 
 enough to wrest the island from the neighboring city. 
 
 3. Daimachus, as we have seen, may well have been right. 
 Aristotle himself, though he asserts that Pisistratus could not 
 have been the captain, does not expressly say that Solon was; 
 and yet he directly connects the war with Solon. Solon fired 
 the people to make the attempt ; the campaign Avas probably 
 conducted by the polemarch who was in office at the time.^ 
 
 4. We may admit that if Pisistratus was really the con- 
 queror of Salamis, the authorship of the poem might have 
 operated to deprive him of the credit of it and give it to Solon. 
 But, on the other hand, the fact that Pisistratus was known to 
 be the conqueror of Nisaea, coupled with the fact that Solon 
 was not famous for military exploits, would have been sufficient 
 to cause some writers to conjecture that it was Pisistratus and 
 not Solon who conducted the campaign. The Solonian author- 
 ship of the poem cannot properly be used as evidence that some 
 one else carried the undertaking through. The only real 
 ground for giving Pisistratus the credit is to be found in 
 Herodotus' report that he captured Nisaea and otherwise dis- 
 tinguished himself. But it is quite unreasonable to suppose 
 
 1 Toepffer (pp. 4 ff.) seems to think that by discrediting the legendary ac- 
 counts of the campaign, he proves that Solon had no part in the conquest. But 
 the refutation of these circumstantial accounts leaves the more serious arguments 
 in support of Solon's participation untouched. 
 
264 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 that there was only one brief war between Athens and Megara,^ 
 and that since Nisaea was captured at a time when Fisistratus 
 was old enough to hold a military command, Salamis must 
 therefore have been captured at the same time. If there is one 
 fact which is abundantly proved by ancient tradition and by 
 inherent probability, it is that the feud between Athens and 
 Megara lasted for decades, indeed almost for centuries. Beloch 
 himself recognizes that the legal proprietorship of Salamis was 
 still in dispute at the end of the sixth century. 
 
 When did these signal events occur ? ^ The ancients, with- 
 out exception, believed that they occurred before Solon's archon- 
 ship, which fell at some time between 594 and 590. If there 
 were really inscriptions relating to several circumstances in the 
 affair, as we have surmised, there was probably sound reason 
 for putting the conquest at this time. There is no reason 
 whatever for dating it after the archonship. Furthermore, if 
 the course of events was substantially as we have described 
 them, and if they actually preceded the archonship, we have a 
 plausible explanation of the extraordinary measure by which 
 Solon as archon was made supreme dictator in Athens. There 
 was nothing else in Solon's earlier life, so far as we know, to 
 justify the state in conferring such unbounded power upon him. 
 But the affair of Salamis would have won for him the enthusi- 
 astic confidence of all ; he had led the state in a patriotic enter- 
 prise ; he had earned the admiration of the poor without 
 alienating the respect of the rich ; and he had shown a states- 
 manlike comprehension of the internal problems for which 
 Athens must sooner or later find a solution. 
 
 1 This is made abundantly clear by Meyer (1893, p. 646) and Busolt (1895, 
 p. 221, footnote). 
 
 2 For the date of the poem, Busolt (1895, p. 217, footnote 2) quotes with 
 approval Gudschmid's observation that there is a youthful vigor about the frag- 
 ments of Solon's poem, and claims that it is monstrous to attribute the poem to a 
 man seventy years of age and a recognized leader in the state. But the poems 
 which are known to belong to his later period show ;vs much spirit ; and Wila- 
 mowitz' words arc worth repeating (1893. 1. 268): '*das stilgcfuhl, zehn versen 
 anzuriccheu, da.ss sie nur ein jiingling geschrieben haben kihine, ist etwas was 
 ich auch nur von den gottern zu erbitten fiir iiberhehung halten wlirde." 
 
APPENDIX 2 
 DATE OF THE ARCHONSHIP 
 
 There are several direct statements in the ancient authors 
 concerning the date of Solon's archonship. Sosicrates (ap. 
 Diog. L. i 62) fixes it at 01. 46.3 (594/3). Tatian {adv. Graecos 
 41) and Clement of Alexandria {Strom, i 63) assign it to 01. 46 
 (596/3) without more precise specification of the year. Suidas 
 {s.v. 'LoXcov) states: jeyove iirl rr)? /jl^' 'OXv/i7nd8o<; {01. 47 = 
 592-589) ol Be i/?' (01. 56 = 556-553). The records of the 
 date which was accepted by Eusebius do not agree with one 
 another: the Armenian version gives Abr. 1426 (= 0^.47.2 = 
 591); various MSS. of Jerome give Abr. 1421, 1423, 1426 
 (= 01. 46.1.3.; 47.1.2=596, 594, 592, 591). 
 
 Besides these direct statements, there are two indirect ways 
 of coming at the date, as follows: 
 
 Aristotle {Const, of Ath. xiv 1) says that Pisistratus became 
 tyrant in the archonship of Comeas, which fell in the thirty- 
 second year after the legislation of Solon. Now, according to 
 the Parian Marble, Comeas was archon 297 years before Diogne- 
 tus (264/3). If 297 is exclusive, the date was 561/0, if it was 
 inclusive, 560/59. 
 
 Again, the length of the tyranny in Athens is variously 
 given at 49 years (Arist. Const, of Ath. xix 6), 50 years 
 (Eratosthenes ap. Schol. Aristoph. Wasps 502; Marmor Parium 
 56 and 60; Aristotle Const, of Ath. xvii 1, where the reign of 
 Pisistratus is given as 33 years, and Const, of Ath. xix 6, where 
 the tyranny of his sons is given as 17 years), and 51 years 
 
 265 
 
266 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 (Arist. Pol. viii 1315 b, 30 ff., where Pisistratus' rule is given 
 as 33 years, and the rule of his sons as 18 years). The Pisis- 
 tratidae were expelled in 511/10. Therefore, according as tlie 
 figures 49, 50, 51, are regarded as inclusive or exclusive, the 
 archonship of Corneas fell in 562/1, 561/0, 560/559, 559/8. 
 
 Proceeding from these dates, we find, according as we take 
 the figure 32 as inclusive or exclusive, that the date of Solon's 
 legislation was 594/3, 593/2, 592/1, 591/0. If we accept one or 
 other of the dates of the Parian Marble (561/0 and 560/59), and 
 assume that the figure 32 is inclusive, which is more probable, 
 the date of Solon's legislation was either 592/1 or 591/0. 
 
 The following passage appears in Coyist. of Ath. xiii: SoX©- 
 VQ^ Be aTToBrj/jL'^aavTO'^, en tt)? 7roX,ea)? T€Tapay/jieur}<;, iirl fieu errj 
 rerrapa hirjyov iv riavyia' rip he. Tre/jLTrrq) jjuera rrjv ^6Xcopo<i ap'^rjv 
 ou KaTeo-TTjaav dpy^ovra Blcl ttjv ardaiv^ Kal ttoXlv eret irefxiTTcp hia 
 TTfV aurrjv alrCav dvapx^av iTTOirjaav. /xerd Be ravra Bid to)V 
 auTcov '^povcov Aafiaaia^i aipeOel<i dp')(^cov err) Bvo koX Bvo /jirjva^ 
 rjp^ev, eW i^rjXddr) /3ta r?)? dp)(^rj<;. 
 
 Now we know from the Parian Marble (53 f.) that the first 
 Pythian dycbv aTe(f>aviT7]<; occurred in the archonship of Dama- 
 sias, and it is fairly certain that the date of this first occurrence 
 was 582. Since Damasias held office for two years and two 
 months, he must have been elected not earlier than 584 nor 
 later than 582. 
 
 It now remains to discover the interval between Solon and 
 Damasias. This problem is complicated by the fact that Ta> 
 ire'fMTTTQ) erei may in each case be taken as either inclusive or 
 exclusive, and by the difficulty in the interpretation of Bid roiv 
 auTCiiv '^povcov. 
 
 Two meanings have been proposed for Bud rcov avrcov xpovfov: 
 (1) "after the lapse of the same length of time"; (2) "im- 
 mediately." Others delete the phrase as an interpolation. The 
 normal meaning of Bed with the genitive in expressions of time 
 is " at the end of an interval of," and if we had here Bed tov 
 
APPENDIX 2 267 
 
 avTov 'x^povov it would unquestionably be equivalent to toj 
 Tre/xTTTO) eret irdXiv. Aristotle probably used the plural because 
 he was thinking of the several terms of office included in this 
 thrice-recurring period. There is no convincing argument in 
 favor of the meaning '' immediately " ; and deletion is a counsel 
 of despair. 
 
 Now a survey of the passage as a whole leads one to suppose 
 that Aristotle is indicating three equal divisions in the time 
 which elapsed between the archonship of Solon and the first 
 year of the archonship of Damasias, marked by two years of 
 anarchy. How long were these divisions ? If Tre/jLTrro) was in- 
 clusive they were four years each, if exclusive, five years. Ac- 
 cording to the regular usage of Aristotle in the Const, of Ath. 
 ordinals are inclusive, and we should regard them as inclusive 
 here without hesitation if it were not for the four years of peace 
 spoken of in the first sentence. But it should be observed that 
 in spite of these four years Aristotle takes pains to add the 
 phrase fiera rrjv ap'^rjv after to) Tre/tTrTO), which suggests that he 
 is following his usual practice of inclusive reckoning. The 
 easiest explanation of the number four is that Aristotle had 
 first in his mind the threefold division into periods of four years, 
 and, wishing to say that there was peace in Athens up to the 
 beginning of the fifth year after Solon's archonship (reckoning 
 inclusively), he carelessly but naturally said that peace lasted 
 iov four years. The most probable interpretation of the passage 
 may be presented as follows : 
 
 1. Three years of peace 
 
 2. First year of anarchy 
 
 3. Interval of three years 
 
 4. Second year of anarchy 
 
 5. Interval of three years 
 
 6. First year of archonship of Damasias 
 
 Total, 12 years. 
 
268 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 Now since the first year of the archonship of Damasias 
 fell in 584/3, 583/2, or 582/1, the archonship of Solon must 
 have been in 596/5, 595/4, or 594/3. 
 
 Various ingenious attempts have been made to manipulate 
 the several lines of evidence in order to make them lead har- 
 moniously to some single date, but none of them is convincing. 
 The whole structure of argument is essentially unstable because 
 there is no single point of support which can be accepted as 
 fixed. 
 
 For the whole subject consult Busolt (1895, II, 258, footnote 
 3, 301, footnote 3, 311, footnote 2); Beloch (1913, pp. 160- 
 166); and Sandys (1912, pp. 50 ff.). 
 
APPENDIX 3 
 THE SEISACHTHEIA 
 
 Plutarch says (aSW. xv. Cf. also Comp. Sol. et Pnhl. iii) 
 that Solon's first official act ^ was a cancellation of debts and a 
 prohibition of further loans iirl toI<^ acufiaa-iv^ and that Solon 
 had applied to this measure the euphemistic term Seisachtheia,^ 
 or " disburdenment." 
 
 Aristotle (^Const. of Ath. vi) limits the measure to the first 
 of the two clauses, viz., the cancellation of debts, but he says 
 expressly, "they call this measure Seisachtheia " (^KoXovaLv, 
 with no subject expressed).'^ Now if Aristotle had seen the 
 word in a poem or a law of Solon he would have said, " he 
 called this measure Seisachtheia." It is necessary to conclude 
 therefore that Aristotle did not find it in Solon's own writings; 
 and if Aristotle did not find it there, it is probable that it was 
 not there at all. 
 
 Again, we observe that there was considerable variation 
 among the aiicients in their opinion of the meaning of the word. 
 
 Androtion and a few others (ap. Plut. /Sol. xv) said that 
 the relief which w^as termed Seisachtheia had been brought about 
 
 1 Wilamowitz (1893, II, p. 62) conjectures that the proclamation ordaining 
 the cancellation of debts was substituted by Solon for the usual proclamation 
 made by an archon on assuming office, in which he promised that he would pro- 
 tect all Athenians in the possession of the property which they held at the time 
 of his inauguration (Const, of Ath. Ivi 2). It is not certain, however, that tliis 
 proclamation was the rule so early as the time of Solon. 
 
 2 A similar definition of Seisachtheia is found in Diog. Laert. i 45 (Xdrpuxris 
 <T(jJixdT(jjv re kol KT7]ij.dT0}p) ; Apostolius xv 39 ; Philochorus ap. Siiidas a. v. Zei<r- 
 ctx^eta (=frag. 67, F. H. G. I, 393) ; Heracleides Ponticus irepl ttoXitciQu 1 5 
 (F. R. G. II, 208) ; Diodorus i 79. 
 
 3 Cf . Plut. Sol. XV who quotes Androtion as saying that the poor had given 
 the name Seisachtheia to Solon's measures of relief. 
 
 269 
 
270 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 by the reduction of the legal rate of interest and by a modifica- 
 tion of the currency and the prevailing system of measures. 
 
 Plutarch, after his account of the means of relief adopted 
 by Solon, goes on to say that though both parties were dissatis- 
 fied at first, they later saw the advantages in the plan and made 
 a sacrifice together, calling the sacrifice Seisachtheia. 
 
 Apostolius (xv 39) reports a proverb — leta-d'^^OeLd ctol /xT)Be- 
 TTore jevoLTo — which was quoted to people who owed money and 
 had not yet paid it. 
 
 Now if Solon had used it with definite reference to some 
 particular measure, it is probable that any reader of the poem 
 or law where it appeared could have known with some certainty 
 from the context just what measure was meant, and we should 
 not have such divergent explanations of the word as we actually 
 find — a cancellation of all debts, a cancellation of some debts, a 
 modification in the currency, a reduction in the legal rate of 
 interest, and a festival in celebration of a popular reform. It 
 is, of course, conceivable that Solon should have used it in a 
 poem with reference to his reforms in general, so that the con- 
 t3xt would not throw any light on what the reforms really were. 
 But in this case it would not have referred to any particular 
 measure. 
 
 It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that Solon did not 
 use the word at all, or that if he did, he did not use it as a name 
 for some particular measure. In either case we do not need to 
 ask the question what measure Solon called Seisachtheia. We 
 should say rather that others applied the term to some part or 
 the whole of Solon's reforms, and that it was not proper to any 
 measure in particular. Most people applied it to the cancella- 
 tion of debts ; some to the cancellation of debts together with 
 the supplementary law abolishing loans iirl tol^; aay/iao-Lv ; a few 
 to other financial reforms which Solon was supposed to have 
 introduced. Our proper inquiry is to discover the nature 
 of the reforms which Solon actually accomplished, not to 
 
AI>PEND1X 3 271 
 
 decide which one of them has the best right to be called 
 Seisachtheia. 
 
 Where the word came from we cannot tell. We may con- 
 jecture that it came into existence to voice the demands of some 
 radical democratic party in Athens who looked back to Solon as 
 the founder of the popular party, applied the term Seisachtheia 
 to the services which he had rendered to the people, and made it 
 a rallying cry for new ventures in reform. It is an apt expres- 
 sion for the aspirations of the lower class, and once born it was 
 destined to live. 
 
 We should now proceed to consider whether any or all of 
 the several performances to which the word Seisachtheia was 
 popularly applied may justly be attributed to Solon. 
 
 To begin with, we may safely reject the statement that it 
 was the name of a festival instituted in honor of Solon's services 
 to the state. There is no likely way in which such a fact as this 
 could be known to Plutarch or his sources ; neither of the two 
 parties in the state was disposed to rejoice over Solon's measures, 
 because both were disappointed in them ; and the notion that 
 Seisachtheia was the name of a festival arose easily in the case 
 of a word of ill-defined meaning like Seisachtheia because of 
 the similarity of its formation to that of well-known names of 
 festivals. 
 
 We are left, therefore, with the statements that Solon cancelled 
 some or all of the outstanding debts in Athens, that he established 
 a law prohibiting loans inl roU aw/jLaa-Lv, that he reduced the 
 legal rate of interest, and that he introduced modifications 
 in the currency and in tlie system of weights and measures. 
 
 Now these last two statements, which we have on the author- 
 ity of Androtion, will require more extended investigation. But 
 it should be observed in passing that they were made by Andro- 
 tion because he thought the word Seisachtheia referred to some 
 particular thing which required definition and because he re- 
 jected for some reason the other and more widely accepted be- 
 
272 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 lief that the Seisachtheia was a cancellation of debts. These 
 considerations cast a little suspicion on Androtion's testimony. 
 The first two statements are on a different footing. We 
 know beyond a doubt that Solon did something which produced 
 precisely the results Avhich would have been produced by a can- 
 cellation of debts (pp. 62 ff.). Whether he canceled all out- 
 standing debts our evidence does not permit us to say.^ Such 
 an act as this, calculated to meet an extraordinary emergency, 
 could hardly have been Avritten into the permanent body of laws 
 which were drawn up by Solon, and it is idle to conjecture how 
 such an order was promulgated. But the other action Avhich 
 is recorded as supplementary to this first sweeping order, 
 namely, the establishing of a law prohibiting loans irrl tol^ 
 (Too/jLaaiv^ we should confidently expect to find in his finished 
 code, and there is no doubt that our ancient authorities knew of 
 it from that source. It goes without saying that the act of 
 cancellation preceded tlie more extensive undertaking of re- 
 modeling the Athenian constitution ; but this particular law 
 may well have been published in advance and later given its 
 proper place in the completed code. The act of cancellation 
 would have had no more than a momentary value, if there had 
 
 1 Dionysius of Halicarnassus (v 65) reports a speech of M. Valerius Publi- 
 cola ill which he refers to the fame which Athens and Solon had won by re- 
 mitting the debts of the poor. No one had blamed the city for this measure nor 
 called the author of it a demagogue. De Sanctis (1912, pp. 206 ff.) not only re- 
 jects Androtion's theory of the Seisachtheia, but also claims that it could not have 
 meant the remission of all debts : " Ripugna affatto (raltronde il credere che 
 Solonc. il (juale si atteggiava a rappresentante della giustizia e in nome dellagius- 
 tizia ritiutava di procedere ad una nuova divisiono del suolo, si sia permesso uii 
 provvedimento cosi rivoluzionario come una plena abolizione dei debiti, prov- 
 vedimeiito il (juale senza dubbio scalzava la 'base veneranda ' della gijistizia ; 
 egli che nelle sue leggi dava amplissima f:u*olt4 di prestare ad interesse. E (luindi 
 evidente che il legislatore non aboli i debiti, ma iinpedi la esecuzione personale e 
 dicliiaro semplicemente nulle per sempre leipoteche prcse sullo persone dei citta- 
 dini e sui beiii. (ili 6 che secondo lui nessuno pu6 per ragione di denaro essere 
 privato della libert;\ trasmessa dagli avi, nb di (piel terreno dov'6 la sua casa col 
 focolare domestico, che il ])a(lre gli ha lasciato e che egli deve rimettere ai figli ; 
 onde insomma il cancellare le ipoteche era per Solone non altro che un atto di 
 giustizia. S'intende che, abolite le ipoteche sulle persone e sui beni, cadevano 
 con esse i crediti che n'erano guarentiti." See De Sanctis' whole discussion of 
 the Seisachtheia. 
 
APPENDIX 3 273 
 
 not been associated with it a law wliich was framed to prevent 
 the recurrence of a situation requiring so drastic a remed}'. 
 
 The following story is told by Aristotle (^Const. of Afh. vi). 
 When Solon was on the point of proclaiming the cancellation of 
 debts he communicated his purpose to certain persons belonging 
 to the upper classes. These men immediately borrowed large 
 sums of money and bought large tracts of land. Then when 
 debts were declared void, they were left wealthy without the 
 obligation of returning the money they had borrowed. This 
 was the origin of the group of men who were later called Palaeo- 
 pluti. According to some authorities, says Aristotle, Solon 
 was privy to this plan and shared in the spoils ; but writers 
 with democratic sympathies claim that it was done without 
 Solon's knowledge, and Aristotle accepts their view on the 
 ground that a man who had steadfastly refused the tyranny 
 would not have soiled himself with so petty an affair as this. 
 Plutarch (aSo/. xv. Cf. also Praee. G-er. Reip. 13, p. 807 d) 
 tells the same story, adding the names of some of the men whom 
 Solon acquainted with his plans — Conon, Clinias, and Hip- 
 ponicus. These men won the permanent nickname Chreocopi- 
 dae. He further relates that Solon had cleared himself of 
 blame by immediately relinquishing the debts due to himself, 
 which amounted to the sum of five talents. ^ 
 
 It is clear both that this story could not have been trans- 
 mitted in Solon's poetry and that it is precisely the sort of 
 scandal which would be invented by those who were desirous of 
 detracting from Solon's reputation. The milder version excul- 
 pating Solon from any personal advantage was probably put 
 forth by the democrats in answer to the more damaging version. 
 One may guess that the families of the Palaeopluti, who are 
 probably the same set of persons who are called by Lysias (xix 
 49) Archaeopluti, were accused of having made their fortune in 
 some crooked way, and that Conon, Clinias, and Hipponicus 
 
 1 In other versions this sum was given as 15 talents (Polyzelus of Rhodes ap. 
 Plut. Sol. xv) and 7 talents (Diog. Laert. i 45). 
 
274 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 were known to be the ancestors of certain prominent members 
 of the set.^ 
 
 1 Conon, Clinias, and Hipponicus were the ancestors of Conon, Alcibiades, and 
 Callias, who were therefore probably reckoned among the men who were called 
 Palaeopluti. The word Chreocopidae recalls the significant word Hermocopidae. 
 See Busolt (1895, p. 42, footnote). 
 
APPENDIX 4 
 THE LAWS AND THE AXONES 
 
 If we are disposed to doubt the fact that Solon wrote laws 
 we find sufficient testimony for it in his own words in ix 18 ff. 
 
 That he himself here uses the word Oeo-fjLoik shows that any 
 distinction between Oecr/JLOL and vofMot, by which the former is 
 applied to the laws of Draco and the latter to the laws of 
 Solon, is the invention of a later age.^ 
 
 What is meant by the phrase Cea/jLov^; ypdcf^etv? In later 
 times vofjLov 'ypd<^eLv meant " to propose a law," as y^rrj<f>La fia 
 'ypd(f>€iv meant "to offer a resolution." But it is not likely 
 that this technical sense is to be found in Solon's phrase. It 
 cannot be supposed that in the rudimentary state of parliamen- 
 tary procedure the word ypd(l)€Lv had yet acquired any technical 
 sense. Furthermore, Solon is speaking of his definite accom- 
 plishments : merely to have proposed laws without carrying 
 them through would not have been worth recording in his 
 poetic apologia pro vita sua. When he says he " wrote laws," he 
 gives the reader to understand that he did something of con- 
 siderable importance. We must take him at his word: ypdcfyetv 
 means '' to record by incised or written characters." 
 
 Now it should be observed that nothing is said in the sen- 
 tence about the character of the laws : they are not called 
 OeafjLoxs Bifcaiovf; or 6e<jp.ov<; ofjcoiov; tw KaKco re KCL'yaOw. The 
 emphasis of the thought seems to lie on eypaslra rather than on 
 deafiov^. The notable achievement was to draw up a written 
 code rather than to conceive and promulgate certain new and 
 
 1 For the use of the words deafids and v6/xos see Busolt (1895, p. 173, foot- 
 note 2). 
 
 275 
 
276 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 wise laws. The codification (he does not say the laws) was in 
 the interest of both classes of citizens. ^ Undoubtedly a written 
 code is the first requisite for the administration of impartial 
 justice. There is no reason to believe that Draco had compiled 
 the first code and that Solon had annulled all his laws excepting 
 those relating to bloodshed (^Const. of Atli. vii 1; Plut. Sol. 
 xvii 1). The fact is that certain laws relating to bloodshed 
 and attributed to Draco were known in the fifth century, but 
 that all other early laws were attributed to Solon. It is prob- 
 able, therefore, that Draco had done nothing but formulate, and 
 possibly record in writing, the laws relating to bloodshed. 
 Hence the fiction that he had imposed the death penalty for all 
 kinds of offenses. The Thesmothetae, if their office had been 
 instituted before Solon's time, had probably done no more than 
 record the Oea^ia which were pronounced by tlie magistrates 
 when they sat in judgment {Const, of Ath. iii 4). These Oeafjua 
 would serve as precedents, and the collection of them which had 
 accumulated could hardly be regarded as a written code in the 
 proper sense of tlie term. It remained for Solon to draw up a 
 genuine code and earn the name of father of Athenian laws 
 (Plat. S?/mp. 209 d). 
 
 What was the source of the laws which Solon formed into a 
 written code ? In the first place, it is clear that they could not 
 have sprung a new and perfect birth from his own brain. The 
 Athenians were an old community and had lived long under the 
 authority of recognized, though unwritten, rules of custom. 
 These rules for the life of the community could not have -been 
 altogether bad ; they were unstable, indeed, and ill-defined, but 
 they must have enjoyed the authority at least of the a^pacpoi 
 vofjLOL of a later day.^ It was Solon's task, as a legislator pleni- 
 potentiary, to grasp these unsubstantial forms of procedure, to 
 
 ^ See note on this passai^e in the commentary. 
 
 2 That &ypa(poi vdfxoL were lield to be valid before the archonship of Euchdes 
 (403 H.c.) is shown by the law which was passed at that time expressly forbid- 
 ding their recognition in the future (Andocides i 86). 
 
APPENDIX 4 277 
 
 embody them in precise terms, and to fix them in a permanent 
 record. Neither the Athenians nor any other community would 
 have tolerated a complete subversal of their veteran forms of 
 procedure. Many of the laws, therefore, in the completed code 
 must have been identical in spirit with customs already long in 
 force. ^ 
 
 Though we must believe that the earlier unwritten laws of 
 Athens formed the core of Solon's code, we must recognize 
 quite as fully the broad editorial powers with which Solon was 
 intrusted. In dealing with a mass of formless rules, it would 
 have been beyond Solon's ability to preserve his formulation free 
 from any modification due to his own personal opinion and 
 judgment, even if he had desired to do so. Though he had 
 tried to do no more than write at the dictation of the past, he 
 could not have avoided the necessity of choosing between con- 
 flicting precedents, and his own judgments would have formed 
 no inconsiderable part of his finished code. 
 
 But we cannot suppose that Solon desired, nor that he was 
 expected, merely to transcribe mechanically. He was endowed 
 with dictatorial powers to take counsel for the safety of the 
 state. There were abuses in plenty to be righted, and it was a 
 firm belief with Solon that as abuses came by Svavo/jbta^ so peace 
 and happiness came by evvofxla. He would therefore have re- 
 garded it as his bounden duty both to revise old precedents that 
 needed revision and to set up such new laws as were called for 
 by the times, to the end that evvojxia might prevail in Athens. 
 
 Finally, then, the code must indubitably have contained 
 three kinds of laws: (1) those which were identical with laws 
 or precedents previously in force ; (2) old laws modified 
 or revised ; and (3) new laws for which Solon was himself 
 responsible. 
 
 1 Plut. Sol. XV 1 : d\X' 17 fx^v dpiarou r)u^ ovK i ir rjy ay e v iarpe Lav ov5i KaiPOTO/JLlav, 
 {po^rjdels /XT] crvyx^as iravTCLTracn Kai rapd^as T7]p rrbXiv dcrdev^cTTepos yivqrai rod 
 KaTaaTTJcraL -rrdXiv /cat avvapixbffaadai. irpbs rb apiarov. This observation is both, 
 shrewd and true. 
 
278 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 When the important task of codification, conceived and ex- 
 ecuted by Solon in the manner described, was finally completed, 
 it remained to put the written laws before the world so that 
 they should be accessible to all men at all times. This could 
 be done only by inscribing them on tablets of wood or stone or 
 metal and setting them up in a public place. 
 
 What was the fate of these tablets and the laws inscribed 
 upon them ? 
 
 It is not to be doubted that an instrument, so serviceable 
 and so hard-won, would have been jealously guarded. But we 
 cannot suppose that in the tumultuous civic life of Athens, and 
 in an age when reverence for the inviolability of constitutional 
 law had not yet been born, the laws which were written by 
 Solon could have continued in use decade after decade without 
 supplement and revision. The tradition that Solon bound the 
 Athenians by oath to maintain his laws unchanged for a certain 
 period of time, ten years according to some (Herodotus i 29), 
 one hundred years according to others (Plut. Sol. xxv 1), is a 
 testimony that the ancients recognized the inevitability of 
 change.^ New laws must have been written, some consistent, 
 some inconsistent, with those already standing. And these laws, 
 according to the new fashion of inscription, would have been 
 set up on tablets by the side of the old. And so, at the end of 
 the sixth century, after the rule of Pisistratus^ and his sons and 
 the democratic reforms of Clisthenes, we may believe that there 
 existed in Athens a body of written laws which resembled the 
 code of Solon only as the man resembles the child he used to be. 
 It might have been possible still for a critical investigator to 
 distinguish the laws of Solon in the larger mass, and with the 
 interest of an antiquarian to have restored them as a curious 
 
 1 The inevitability of chaiifi^e and modification is further demonstrated by the 
 tradition that Solon left Athens in order not to be compelled to make changes 
 himself (Pint. Sol. xxv 4 ; Const, of Ath. xi). 
 
 2 Herodotus (i 59) says that Pisistratus made no change in the d^a-fiia; but this 
 is inherently improbable, and Herodotus could not have had any sure knowledge 
 of the matter. 
 
APPENDIX 4 279 
 
 historical document. Rut it goes without saying that this was 
 not done. Men looked forward to the future, not backward to 
 the past, and troubled themselves no longer with the earlier 
 stages of their course. It is, indeed, possible, tliough not likely, 
 that the tablets of Solon were accorded special honor and kept 
 intact and apart from the tablets on which subsequent legisla- 
 tion was recorded. But, on the whole, it is more than prob- 
 able that at the end of the sixth century no one, even with the 
 acuteness of modern scholarship, could have determined just 
 what laws had been the product of Solon's own mind: they 
 were lost forever in the mass of pre-Solonian unwritten 
 laws which he had formulated and post-Solonian laws which 
 had been passed after the institution of his code. There may 
 have been, indeed, certain laws which because of their subject 
 or some inherent distinguishing mark could have been safely 
 attributed to him ; but in the nature of things they must have 
 been very few. 
 
 Let us now proceed with the history of Athens in the fifth 
 century. Within twenty years after the beginning of the cen- 
 tury Athens was overwhelmed by a catastrophe which, while it 
 only served to temper the national spirit to hard steel, destroyed 
 almost completely at the same time the material city and all 
 that was in it. When the Athenians evacuated the city before 
 the battle of Salamis, they carried with them to the island of 
 Salamis and to the Peloponnesian coast much of their public and 
 private property. It is not inconceivable that they saved with 
 the rest the tablets on which their laws were inscribed, but it 
 must be admitted that this is altogether improbable. The 
 sacred objects of religious cult and the necessaries of private 
 life would surely have come first ; and in the confusion and 
 terror of the moment men would not have thought of the writ- 
 ten laws, which could easily be replaced if the Athenians really 
 survived the threat of annihilation. It is too much to assume 
 that when the Athenians found themselves reestablished in their 
 
280 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 own city and set themselves to repair the ruin wrought by the 
 Persians, they still possessed intact and in order the written 
 code which had existed before the invasion. But surely they 
 would have lost no time in restoring this code as best they 
 could from such fragments as survived and from memor} ; the 
 old laws, except those Avhich had become obsolete and inopera- 
 tive, were surely inscribed again, in similar if not the same 
 terms, upon tablets which, were set up in a public place to be 
 used as they had been used in the past. There is no record 
 that they were subjected to any sort of formal revision, but we 
 cannot suppose that the lawyers of the day were restrained by 
 undue reverence for the sanctity of a text from making obvious 
 corrections and improvements, at any rate in those laws which 
 they transcribed from memory. 
 
 Whatever may have been the form of the written laws of 
 Athens after the Persian storm had passed, it is certain that 
 the old order began anew: the body of jurisprudence was still 
 alive and the processes of life imply the constant death of old 
 laws and the birth of new. The code was steadily transformed 
 and enlarged to meet the changing requirements of the times. 
 The tablets containing laws which had fallen into disuse were 
 not always destroyed, but were still preserved in the archives of 
 the state, to be later unearthed by antiquarians and made the 
 subject of learned researches. Probably the old laws of the 
 sixth century, as they had been redrafted after the battle of 
 Salamis, remained fairly discernible ; but if the authentic work 
 of Solon liad been practically unrecognizable before the Persian 
 wars, certainly we may be sure that by the middle of the fifth 
 centur}^ there was very little indeed which could be attributed 
 to him with any certainty whatever. 
 
 A hint as to the fate of some of the earlier laws is afforded 
 by a fragment of the comic poet Cratinus (circa 453 B.C.) 
 which is preserved by Plutarch (Sol. xxv 1): tt/^o? rod ^6\covo<; 
 Koi ^pd/covTO<; olcn vvv (fypvyovai ra? Kd')(^pv<^ tol<; Kvp^eaiv. Evi- 
 
APPENDIX 4 281 
 
 dently some of the tablets on which the earlier laws attributed 
 to Solon and Draco were inscribed had fallen into a sad state of 
 disrepair and were not preserved with any particular care.^ 
 
 From this time on, we find the practice growing of attrib- 
 uting the older laws to Solon or to Solon and Draco. Tliis 
 should not surprise us or mislead us into thinking that the laws 
 of Solon were actually extant as a whole and definitely recogniz- 
 able. It was the universal Greek habit to attribute the great 
 works of the past to definite persons without much critical re- 
 gard to probability. The name of Solon came to stand for the 
 body of early Athenian law. Herodotus (ii 177) and Diodorus 
 (i 77, 5) report an Egyptian law which they say was borrowed 
 by Solon and incorporated in the code of Athens. In the 
 Clouds of Aristophanes (1187 ff.) Pheidippides pretends that the 
 name of the last day of the month (evr) koI vea) was instituted 
 by Solon as a relief to luckless debtors. In the Birds (1660) a 
 law of Solon concerning inheritances is quoted verbatim. 
 Finally, in the orators numberless laws are attributed to Solon, 
 some of which may be old, but many of which bear unmistakable 
 signs of later composition. 
 
 Before we come to the orators, however, there are two decrees, 
 belonging to the end of the fifth century, which should be dis- 
 cussed for the light they throw on the history of Athenian laws. 
 
 An inscription of the year 409/8 is preserved ((7. /. ^. i 61) 
 which records the psephisma of a certain Xenophanes. The 
 resolution of Xenophanes which was adopted and w^hich is here 
 recorded was that the avajpa^el^ roiv vo/ulwv should make a copy 
 of Draco's law concerning homicide and set it up before the 
 
 1 Professor W. K. Prentice suggests that Cratiniis may be referring to a prac- 
 tice similar to one which is common in Syria. The Syrian bread is made of meal 
 and water without leaven. The ingredients are mixed into a paste, which is then 
 spread on a sheet of metal made hot for the purpose, and is thus cooked or 
 parched. The word (ppvyovai would be appropriate for such an operation. All 
 this indicates that the KvpjSeis may have been made of metal and not necessarily 
 of wood. Cf. Pollux viii 128 A^Xtol xa^'^o^ f'^^- ; Schol. Aristoph. Birds 1354 
 K^p^eis x^-^KO.^ (xavides kt\. 
 
282 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 King's Stoa ; and the law itself, or part of it, is inscribed on the 
 same stone immediately after the psephisma. Unfortunately 
 the stone is so badly mutilated that we cannot tell where the 
 original was from which the copy was made. But there is no 
 question that the law was definitely believed to have been written 
 by Draco. 
 
 In the year 403, after the restoration of the democracy, there 
 was a complete revision of the laws, of which we are told by 
 Andocides (i 81 ff.).^ It appears that a measure was adopted 
 to meet the immediate emergency, providing that a commission 
 of twenty should direct the affairs of the city until definite laws 
 could be established ; meantime the laws of Solon and the Oea-fjioi 
 of Draco should be in force. But, Andocides continues, it was 
 discovered that many persons were liable to punishment for 
 offenses committed unknowingly against the laws of Solon and 
 Draco because they had been ignorant of these laws. It was 
 decided therefore to subject the Avhole body of laws to a careful 
 scrutiny and to set up in the Stoa those laws which were finally 
 passed and accepted. The psephisma of Tisamenus which 
 appears in the text of Andocides, making the proposals wliich 
 Andocides refers to, may be spurious or it may be authentic. 
 But it adds little to what can be inferred from Andocides' OAvn 
 words. It appears from all this that laws which were known 
 as the laws of Solon and Draco were still on record, but that 
 they had sunk into disuse and were little known, and that a 
 new and official code was set up, which, though it was founded 
 on the earlier laws, had been subjected to a revision so 
 thoroughgoing that it was practically a new creation. Though 
 the original copies of the old laws may not have been destroyed 
 they could hardly be quoted thereafter as valid in legal 
 disputes. 
 
 It should now be clear what opinion we ought to hold of the 
 
 1 The rule of the Thirty may have been as disastrous a period for the con- 
 tinuity of the Athenian laws as the period of the Persian invasion itself. Cf. 
 especially Schol. Aeschines i 39. 
 
APPENDIX 4 283 
 
 laws quoted by the orators of the fourth century and attributed 
 to Solon or Draco. It would be rash and even absurd to main- 
 tain that any one of these laws is identical with any one of the 
 laws written by Solon two hundred years before.^ Indeed, the 
 orators themselves were probably not deceived in this matter.^ 
 They attribute laws often enough to Solon and Draco, but quite 
 as often they speak of "the lawgiver" without a name, or of " the 
 lawgivers of those times." The name of Solon is used as the 
 collective term for the legislative activity of the past,^ and is 
 introduced partly through the Greek desire for a personal hero, 
 partly for the purpose of reenforcing the orator's argument be- 
 fore the court by the authority of the great name of the father 
 of Athenian laws. 
 
 Besides the laws which are referred to by the orators and 
 those which are incorporated in the text of their speeches, a 
 large number of laws attributed to Solon are to be found in 
 Plutarch and Diogenes Laertius and more still may be gathered 
 here and there in Greek and Roman literature. We also have 
 
 1 The following may be noted as examples of the confusion and uncertainty" 
 about laws. Diogenes Laertius (i 55) quotes a law of Solon and then adds that 
 Lysias attributed it to Draco. Isocrates (xii 144) says that the laws are at 
 present in a state of conf iision and full of inconsistencies ; it is impossible to tell 
 at a glance which are serviceable and which are not. In Istros (frag, xxxv) 
 there is an allusion to a law forbidding the export of figs, without any mention 
 of its author ; elsewhere it is attributed to Solon. Schol. Aeschines i 39 says 
 that the laws of Draco and Solon were destroyed (Xvfxaivea-Oai) by the Thirty ; 
 later the laws which had been lost were restored and new ones were set up. 
 That even the eea-fxoi were not a fixed and unchanging body of laws is shown by 
 the ephebic oath in Pollux viii 106. 
 
 2 Demosthenes (xviii 6) seems to have a clear idea of what Solon had done ; 
 oi v6/xoi ovs 6 Tideis i^ dpxv^ XdXcop, eijvovs wv v/jliv Kat dTj/xoTiKds, ov fxbvov tu) ypdrj/ai 
 Kvpiovs (^€To deiv elvai, dXXd /cat rw tovs diKd^ovras d/xiv/uLOK^yat. The act of writing 
 them down was the great thing. In Demosthenes xxiv 142 we seem to have a 
 definition of the laws of Solon : roi/s tov S6Xa>j'os v6/xovs toi>s irdXai bedoKiixaap-^vovs 
 ovs ol irp&yovoc edevro. The implication is that the older laws of Athens were all 
 included under the name of Solon, and that there was no real belief that they 
 were all written by him, though it may have been thought that they w^ere col- 
 lected by him. 
 
 3 In [Demosthenes] Ixi 49 f. the statement is made that the laws of Solon 
 are used by the greater part of the Greek world. This can only mean that the 
 laws of other states were modeled upon or resembled the laws of Athens, and 
 " the laws of Solon " means " the ancestral laws of democratic Athens." 
 
284 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 the names of a number of Greek writings now lost which must 
 have been monographs on the very subject of the hiws.^ 
 
 From this it appears that from the fourth century B.C. the 
 laws of Athens received much attention from scholars. Are we 
 to suppose that they had access to any authoritative source of 
 information concerning the laws of Solon himself ? Is it likely 
 that after the checkered career of Athenian laws during the sixth 
 and fifth centuries it was possible even for scholars to discern 
 the veritable laws of Solon ? Unquestionably no. We may ad- 
 mit that even after the revision of the code under Euclides they 
 could still have consulted the earlier records on which the new 
 code was founded. But this, as we have seen, would have 
 brought them very little nearer the truth. A review of the laws 
 discussed by Plutarch and Diogenes Laertius, who must have 
 drawn their information from Didymus and other earlier writers, 
 is enough to convince the reader that they are not the work of 
 a single lawgiver, but rather a collection of early laws dating 
 from various times and springing from various conditions of 
 society. That many of them Avere old is shown by the interest 
 taken in them by the lexicographers, as well as by a passage in 
 the Daitaleis of Aristophanes (fr. 222 Kock). Lysias also 
 (x 15 ff.) quotes from several laws, which he attributes to Solon, 
 passages containing obsolete words whose meaning he expounds. 
 
 It appears that the older laws in Athens were recorded on 
 tables called Kvpfiei^ and a^ove<;. There are several descriptions 
 of these objects in the ancient authors, lexicographers, and 
 scholiasts, but they are not consistent with one another. ^ Ap- 
 parently no one had taken the trouble to describe them as long 
 as every one knew what they were. Later some thought the 
 Kvp/3€t^ and a^ove^ were identical; others distinguished them in 
 various ways. It was generally agreed that an affwi^, as its 
 name implies, was a contrivance which revolved on an axis, 
 
 1 See p. 21 and the list in Sondhaiis (1909). 
 
 2 On Kvp^eLs and &^oves see Busolt (1895, p. 290, footnote 3). 
 
APPENDIX 4 285 
 
 vertical or horizontal, so that any one consulting the inscription 
 could read it through without moving from liis place. Sucli a 
 device as this Avould naturally have been made of wood, or it 
 might even have been made of metal plates set in a wooden 
 frame. But there is evidence to show that there were also re- 
 volving tables of stone. 
 
 A curious Avedge-shaped fragment of marble was found in 
 Athens in 1885 which some think was part of an axon (^C.I.A. iv 
 559). It is inscribed on two opposite faces, and though the in- 
 scription is too much mutilated to yield any meaning whatever 
 it is possible to see that on one face the writing read from the 
 top to the bottom and on the other from the bottom to the top. 
 The character of the letters serves to prove that the inscription 
 belongs to the first half of the fifth century. Kumanudis ^ very 
 plausibly conjectures that the fragment was part of a stone im- 
 itation of the earlier type of wooden axones. According to his 
 reconstruction, the axon was a contrivance revolving on a hori- 
 zontal axis, so formed that a vertical cross-section would re- 
 semble a four pointed star, thus: 
 
 If the reader stood before this machine and turned it around as 
 he read, it is easy to see why the writing should run from the 
 top to the bottom on one face of each wedge and from the bot- 
 tom to the top on the other. This was certainly a clumsy and 
 heavy contrivance in stone, and the only reason people could 
 have had for making it is that they were imitating in durable 
 material a familiar and convenient wooden type. 
 
 1 'E077^epis 'ApxaioXo7tKT7, III (1885) 215 ff. 
 
286 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 The only important conclusion from all this is a corrobora- 
 tion of the claim previously made that there was no sure and 
 continuous existence of the unmodified Solonian code from the 
 beginning of the sixth century to the end of the fifth. When 
 Aristotle says that the laws of Solon were immediately inscribed 
 on the Kvp^ei^ and Plutarch says they were immediately in- 
 scribed on a^ove<;^ they were making assertions which could not 
 be supported by any real evidence. Since many of the old 
 Athenian laws were in Aristotle's time still preserved on Kvp^ei^i 
 and a^ove^ and since the whole body of early law was attrib- 
 uted to Solon, they naturally assumed that his laws had origi- 
 nally been published in this way.^ Plutarch says (^Sol. xxv 1) 
 that fragments of a^ove^ were still preserved in his time, and 
 there is no reason to doubt his statement. But it would be a 
 piece of wild credulity to believe that these were fragments of 
 axones on which the laws of Solon had been originally inscribed. 
 
 The general conclusion is as follows. The laws attributed to 
 Solon by the orators, by Plutarch and Diogenes Laertius, and by 
 other ancient writers belonged to the body of ancient Athenian 
 law which was still in existence at the end of the fifth century. 
 This body of law was of two centuries' growth, and was the 
 creation of many minds and of many times. Incorporated in it 
 were no doubt some of the laws written by Solon, though prob- 
 ably in a greatly modified form. It is not only wrong to 
 assume that all laws attributed to Solon are actually by his 
 hand unless the contrary can be proved, but it is also rash and 
 uncritical to admit the Solonian authorship of any law unless its 
 authenticity can be shown by indubitable proofs. 
 
 1 riutarch {Sol. xix 3) quotes the exact words of the ei^jhth law of the thir- 
 teenth axon, which begins 'Ari/xiov 6aoi Ati/ulol ijaav irplv ^ 26Xa;j'a dp^ai. The 
 reference to a definite axon does not prove that this is a genuine law of Solon, 
 but simply that it was one of the ancient laws recorded on the axones which 
 were in existence at the end of the fifth century. P>en the name of Solon does 
 not prove its authenticity : indeed the law reads as if it were passed at some time 
 subsecpient to Solon in the interest of the descendants of Athenians who had been 
 disfranchised before the archonship of Solon. 
 
APPENDIX 5 
 
 CHANGES IN WEIGHTS, MEASURES, AND CURRENCY 
 AND IN THE CALENDAR 
 
 The principal and only direct evidence for the reforms 
 which Solon is supposed to have introduced in the Athenian 
 currency and in the system of weights and measures, is to be 
 found in the two following passages. ^ 
 
 Const, of Ath. x: ''These, then, would seem to be the demo- 
 cratic innovations which were embraced in the Solonian code. 
 Equally democratic in their nature were the cancellation of 
 debts, which was effected before the legislation, and the en- 
 larged standard in weights, measures, and currency, which was 
 introduced afterwards. Under Solon the measures were made 
 larger than the Pheidonian measures, and the mina, which had 
 previously been equivalent in weight to seventy drachmae, was 
 brought up to the full standard by the addition of the necessary 
 thirty. The coins of early times were two-drachma pieces. 
 Solon also established a system of weights in correspondence 
 with the coinage, so that sixty-three minae made a talent; and 
 this increase of three minae was distributed proportionately 
 among the stater and other divisions of the talent." 
 
 Pint. Sol. XV : " Some writers, of whom Androtion is one, 
 say that the welcome relief which came to the poorer classes, 
 was effected, not by a cancellation of debts, but by a reduction 
 in the rate of interest, and that they gave the name Seisachtheia 
 to this public benefaction and to two other acts which accom- 
 
 1 On the reform in the weights, measures, and currency, see Busolt (1895, 
 pp. 262-264); Seeck (1904, p. 181); Lehmann-Haupt (1906, p. 307, footnote 2); 
 De Sanctis (1912, pp. 218 ff.); Beloch (1913, pp. 333 ff.). 
 
 287 
 
288 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 panied it, the enlargement of the standards of measurement and 
 the settlement of monetary values. Previously the mina had 
 consisted of seventy-three drachmae ; Solon ordained that it 
 should consist of one hundred. The result of this was that 
 the nominal value of the coins paid in discharge of a debt re- 
 mained the same, but the real value was lowered ; those who 
 had debts to pay were greatly benefited, while at the same time 
 the creditors suffered no loss." 
 
 Other evidence for early Attic currency and early systems 
 of weights and measures is to be derived from scattered state- 
 ments in ancient literature and especially from extant coins and 
 metallic weights. It will be necessary first to discover just 
 what Androtion and Aristotle understood these changes to be, 
 and then to inquire whether their statements are in accord 
 with the knowledge which we gain from other sources. 
 
 We observe, first of all, that there is a marked similarity be- 
 tween the two passages. The -same words are used and the in- 
 crease in the number of drachmae in a mina is described in the 
 same way. It is fair to assume that Plutarch is quoting, in 
 part at least, the exact words of Androtion, and that Androtion 
 served as one of the sources of Aristotle. But, at the same 
 time, there are striking divergences. Androtion declares that 
 the reforms which he describes were an essential part of the 
 Seisachtheia; Aristotle says explicitly that they were introduced 
 even later than the publication of the laws. According to 
 Androtion, the number of drachmae in a mina before the change 
 was 73 ; according to Aristotle it Avas 70. Androtion speaks of 
 an increase only in measures ; Aristotle extends the increase to 
 weights and coins. Aristotle adds details which are not in Plu- 
 tarch's quotation from Androtion. The definiteness of the 
 statements in both authors is sufficient to show that they were 
 writing of something about which they believed they had defi- 
 nite knowledge, and they are evidently writing about the same 
 thing. The questions then present themselves : First, what 
 
APPENDIX 5 289 
 
 were the facts about the weights, measures, and currency which 
 they are attempting to convey ? Second, whence did they learn 
 these facts ? Third, how can we account for the differences be- 
 tween the two reports ? The attempt to answer these questions 
 may lead us, for a moment, rather far from Solon and his poli- 
 cies, but it is necessary as a preliminary to a proper under- 
 standing of Solon's part in the matter. 
 
 How, then, could Androtion, and Aristotle after him, know 
 anything about the precise nature of changes made by Solon in 
 the first decade of the sixth century ? We think first, as usual, 
 of Solon's own poems. But there is no trace of evidence on 
 this subject in the fragments that remain, and we must confess 
 that Solon would have scarcely imposed on his Muse the drudg- 
 ery of describing monetary and metrological reforms. Were 
 the new regulations written into the laws and inscribed on the 
 Axones ? Aristotle says plainly that whatever was done touch- 
 ing weights, measures, and currency, was done after the codi- 
 fication of the laws was complete. Where else shall we turn ? 
 Wiicn these two sources fail us, we must be very cautious indeed 
 about accepting the statements of the biographers. It is not 
 beyond the range of possibility that there should have been 
 preserved upon stone the standards of measurement employed at 
 an earlier day ; there may have been weights of stone or metal, 
 preserved as curiosities ; there were undoubtedly coins which 
 had been minted two or three hundred years before Androtion's 
 time. If all of these earlier standards were regarded as pre- 
 Solonian, and if the standards of Androtion's day were regarded 
 as the result of Solon's reforms, it was easy, by simple calcula- 
 tiong, to determine exactly what the Solonian reforms were. 
 We must conclude, then, that Androtion derived his exact 
 information from an examination of the standards of weight, 
 measure, and currency which prevailed in Athens and else- 
 where in his own day, and of such ancient coins and weights as 
 were preserved in private ownership or in temple treasures. 
 
290 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 Let us now look more closely at the statements which are 
 actually made about the changes. 
 
 According to Plutarch's quotation, the mina had first con- 
 sisted of 73 drachmae and was then increased to 100 drachmae. 
 Does this imply that drachmae were reduced in weight or that 
 the mina was increased ? Obviously the former, because An- 
 drotion claimed that the change would be of advantage to 
 debtors. We may, therefore, draw up the following table : 
 73 old drachmae = 1 standard mina 
 100 new drachmae = 1 standard mina 
 60 standard minae = 1 standard talent 
 4380 old drachmae = 1 standard talent 
 
 Aristotle speaks of an increase in the currency. This in- 
 crease must be either in the unit of weight or in the number of 
 coins. If Aristotle holds the same view as Androtion, he must 
 mean increase in the number of coins. Later he says that one 
 talent will be equal to 63 minae. But a talent of 63 minae is 
 quite unheard of, and unless we are compelled to recognize such 
 a talent here we should be glad to explain the matter in another 
 way. Besides, Aristotle himself, in the last sentence, tacitly 
 assumes that the talent contains only 60 minae. Let us assume 
 then what he means is that a talent, which consists of 60 new 
 minae of 100 drachmae, is equal to 63 old minae of 70 drachmae. 
 This may be presented in tabular form thus : 
 
 70 old drachmae = 1 old mina 
 100 new drachmae = 1 new mina 
 
 60 new minae = 1 standard talent 
 
 63 old minae = 1 standard talent 
 
 4410 old drachmae = 1 standard talent 
 
 Now, since 1 talent = 60x100 or 6000 drachmae, 
 
 we may write 
 
 4410 old drachmae = 6000 new drachmae 
 or IS^ old drachmae = 100 new drachmae 
 
APPENDIX 5 291 
 
 Here, then, we have substantial agreement between the 
 two reports. Only, Aristotle allows an increase in the weight 
 of the mina and implies an increase in the weight of the 
 talent, while Androtion confines the change to a decrease in 
 the weight of the drachma. ^ In order to see which theory 
 of the change was the correct one, let us turn to external 
 evidence. 
 
 In Greece in the sixth century there were two principal 
 systems of currency, the Aeginetan and the Euboean. Coins 
 of the Aeginetan standard, whether they were minted in Aegina 
 or elsewhere, were in use throughout the Peloponnese, in the 
 greater part of the mainland of Greece, and in the islands of the 
 southern Aegean. Coins of the Euboean standard were current 
 in the cities of Euboea and in their colonial domain, that is, the 
 Chalcidice, Sicily, and Italy. It was formerly supposed that 
 these two systems differed in the unit of weight, but that in 
 both alike a talent consisted of 60 minae and a mina of 100 
 drachmae. But we know now, from an inscription discovered 
 at Delphi, that the Aeginetan mina consisted of 70 drachmae. ^ 
 Furthermore, it is now fairly certain that the silver mina was of 
 a fixed value throughout Greece until the time of Alexander 
 and that the Aeginetan, Euboean, and other systems of currency 
 differed only in the division of the mina. We hear of Aeginetan 
 drachmae and staters but not of Aeginetan silver minae and 
 silver talents, which were identical with Euboean silver minae 
 and silver talents. There was an Aeginetan commercial mina 
 which differed from the Aeginetan and Euboean silver mina. 
 But in Athens the commercial weights were brought into corre- 
 spondence with the coin weights, as Aristotle was aware. As 
 
 1 This method of reconcihng the two passages is due to De Sanctis (1912, 
 pp. 222 ff.). For the general subject see Hultsch, Griechische und romische 
 Metrologie (ed. 2), This contains the ancient evidence and references to modern 
 works which had appeared before the date of pubhcation. For later studies of 
 the Athenian currency see Head, Historia Numorum, ed. 2, and for systems of 
 weights, Pernice, Griechische Gewichte, Berhn, 1894. 
 
 2 For further proof see Beloch (1913, p. 336). 
 
292 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 the Aeginetan mina was divided into 70 drachmae, so the 
 P^uboean was divided into 100. 
 
 Now it seems practically certain that both Androtion and 
 Aristotle are describing a transition from the Aeginetan cur- 
 rency to the Euboean. Scholars had reached this same conclu- 
 sion even before the discovery of the Delphic inscription. We 
 know that the permanent Attic standard, which was widely 
 adopted throughout the Greek world, was the same as the Eu- 
 boean. And we must conclude from the passages now before us 
 that Athens in earlier times had employed the Aeginetan stand- 
 ard. Aristotle seems to be correct in the figure 70, but wrong 
 in the value of the mina ; Androtion, conversely, gives the 
 wrong figure 73, and keeps the mina at a fixed value. And yet 
 they find almost the same number of drachmae in a talent. 
 These irregularities have not yet been satisfactorily explained. 
 The following explanation, which is offered by Beloch, is plau- 
 sible. Androtion gave 73J as the number of old drachmae in a 
 mina, deriving this figure from the weight of Aeginetan 
 drachmae (or didrachms) current in his time or from the rate of 
 exchange. Plutarch in quoting dropped the fraction. Aris- 
 totle read Androtion and misunderstood him, thinking that the 
 mina and talent had been increased in weight, the mina from 
 73.1 to 100 drachmae, the talent from 60 x 73i- or 4J:10 to 6000 
 drachmae. But Aristotle knew that the Aeginetan mina was 
 divided into 70, not 73|^ drachmae. So, in order to correct 
 Androtion's statement, he said that the mina was raised from 
 70 to 100 drachmae, and the talent from 60 minae to 63 (old) 
 minae. This gave him the same result — a talent of 4410 old 
 drachmae. 
 
 Next Aristotle says that the coins of early times were two- 
 drachma pieces. This statement is made because the standard 
 Attic coin, possibly from the very beginning of coinage in 
 Athens, was the tetradrachm. Hut does lie mean that the di- 
 drachm was in use before Solon's time and that Solon introduced 
 
APPENDIX 5 293 
 
 the tetradraclim; or that the coins in use for a number of years 
 after the Solonian reforms were didrachms ? We cannot say. 
 There are plenty of Aeginetan didrachms extant and plenty of 
 Euboean didrachms. There are no coins which can be definitely 
 assigned to Attica earlier than the tetradrachms, and it is not 
 known when coins were first struck in Attica. 
 
 So much for the currency. What was done in the matter 
 of the measures ? Both Aristotle and Androtion assert that 
 they were enlarged, and Aristotle adds that they were made 
 larger than the Pheidonian measures (for the value of the Phei- 
 donian measures, see Beloch, 1913, pp. 348, 349), which, he 
 implies, were previously in use in Athens. Now concerning the 
 relation between Athenian and Pheidonian measures Aristotle 
 could not have been wrong, because the Pheidonian measures 
 were still in use in some parts of Greece in his day, and it was 
 a simple matter to compare them with the Athenian measures. 
 It was formerly supposed that the Pheidonian and Aeginetan 
 measures were identical ; but since the Aeginetan measures 
 were larger than the Athenian, they were unquestionably 
 larger then the Pheidonian. Whether the Pheidonian meas- 
 ures were actually in use in Athens in early times is quite 
 uncertain ; Aristotle probably had no means of discovering 
 the truth. 
 
 If we review the results of this discussion, we see that Solon 
 was credited with the introduction into Athens of the Euboean 
 custom of dividing the silver mina into 100 drachmae. He also 
 established a system of commercial weights which was in corre- 
 spondence with the coin weights, ^.e., a market mina was iden- 
 tical with a silver mina and a market talent with a silver talent. 
 Larger market talents, we know, were also in use, but they too 
 belonged to the same system, being equal to one and one half or 
 two times the silver talent. The Athenian measures, which 
 were the same as the Euboean measures, were also in corre- 
 spondence with the weights, as follows: 
 
294 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 1 ft. =297-298 mm. 
 1 medimnos = twice the cube of the ft. = 52.4 1. 
 1 metretes = 1^ times the cube of the ft. =39.3 1. 
 1 talent (1st) = the water-weight of the cube of the ft. 
 
 = 26.2 kg. 
 1 talent (2d) = the water-weight of the metretes. 
 1 talent (3d) = the water-weight of the medimnos. 
 
 Before the introduction of this complete system, we are 
 told that the Athenians used the Aeginetan coinage, presumably 
 the Aeginetan weights, and the Pheidonian measures. The 
 change was evidently a great step forward in the direction of 
 orderliness and convenience. This may have been its only pur- 
 pose. But there is undoubtedly something significant in the 
 fact that the old order was Aeginetan and Peloponnesian, while 
 the new was Euboean and Ionian. Aegina and Athens were 
 inveterate enemies. Chalcis and Eretria were the friends of 
 Athens. Scholars have seen, therefore, a shrewd stroke of 
 policy in the change (see U. Koehler, Mitth. d. arch. Inst. X, 
 1885, 151 ff.). The Chalcidice, Sicily, and Italy were under 
 the Euboean influence, and Athens could extend her commerce 
 to those regions far more successfully if she adopted their stand- 
 ards of weight and coinage. In return for their timber and 
 grain, Athens could send them oil and manufactured goods. 
 These are sound reasons for the change and they are far more 
 plausible than the reason which Androtion offered and which 
 must have been only a guess. These reasons might have been 
 in the mind of a statesman like Solon who had had experience 
 in trade. But is there anything to show that they were really 
 the personal reasons of an economic reformer, and not simply 
 the impersonal causes which grew out of the natural economic 
 development of the state ? 
 
 It has been the liabit in ancient and modern times to call 
 the system of weights and measures which was in use in Athens 
 throughout the great period of her history, the Solonian system. 
 
APPENDIX 5 295 
 
 The psephisma of Tisamenus quoted by Andocides {Myst. 83 
 TToXtreveo-OaL ^AOrjvaiov^; Kara ra rrdrpca, vofioL^ 8e xPV^^^^ "^^^^ 
 SoXojz^o? ical fxerpoL^ Kol araOfjLol<;) refers to the hxws of Solon and 
 his weights and measures. But the consideration of possible 
 sources of Androtion and Aristotle shoAved clearly enough that 
 there was nothing more tangible than tradition to connect the 
 name of Solon with the changes which actually took place. It 
 was evidently the Athenian practice to ascribe to Solon the 
 system of weights, measures, and currency just as they ascribed 
 to him any law which could not be ascribed to any one else. 
 That Solon did not really do what they thought he did, seems 
 likely on the following grounds : 
 
 1. Since there was actually a change, it was inevitable that 
 it should be attached to the greatest available name, just as the 
 earliest coinage of Athens was attached to Theseus, and a 
 system of weights and measures to Pheidon of Argos. 
 
 2. It is much more likely that such a change should come 
 about gradually, to meet new commercial needs, than that it 
 should be effected with the definite purpose of bringing about a 
 commercial change. 
 
 3. There would have been no great advantage for Athens 
 in changing from the Aeginetan to the Euboean system. If 
 Athens was commercially at a disadvantage in competition with 
 Aegina, she would have been equally at a disadvantage in com- 
 petition with Chalcis and Eretria. 
 
 4. It seems hardly likely that Solon could by formal decree 
 have effected a change from one system of weights and measures 
 to another, unless the change had really been working itself out 
 naturally for some time; and if this was the case, Solon de- 
 serves no credit for the change. There were no machines or 
 dies of standard size to interfere with a natural transfer from 
 one system to the other. When trade had once been established 
 with countries of the Euboean domain, it required no extraor- 
 dinary statesmanship to provide for the coining of money which 
 
296 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 would serve the new needs. The thing could be done on the 
 motion of one man as well as another. The only effective form 
 of arbitrar}^ action would have been the actual issue of coins of 
 the new standard. I>ut there is no certainty that any coins of 
 any kind were minted in Athens till after Solon's time. 
 
 On these grounds it must be concluded that the Solonian 
 authorship of the reforms in the system of weights, measures, 
 and currency is far too uncertain to justify us in letting it 
 weigh in the balance in our judgment of the man and his career. 
 
 The Solonian authorship of the changes attributed to him by 
 Aristotle has already been looked upon with suspicion by Otto 
 Seeck. But his discussion includes much that is fanciful, with 
 unjustified assumptions leading to unjustified conclusions. 
 
 Plutarch attributes to Solon certain changes in the Athenian 
 calendar. " Observing," he says (^Sol. xxv, Perrin's transla- 
 tion), "the irregularity of the month, and that the motion of the 
 moon does not always coincide with the rising and setting of the 
 sun, but that often she overtakes and passes the sun on the same 
 day, he ordered that day to be called the Old and New, assigning 
 the portion of it which preceded the conjunction to the expiring 
 month, and the remaining portion to the month that was just be- 
 ginning. . . . After the twentieth he did not count the days by 
 adding them to twenty, but by subtracting them from thirty, on 
 a descending scale, like the waning of the moon." This is ob- 
 viously an invention to explain the two features of the calendar 
 which are mentioned. Such things as these would not have found 
 a place in any record, and there is no way, so far as we can see, by 
 which Plutarch or his sources could liave actually known that 
 Solon made such innovations. The peculiarities, for which an 
 origin was sought, were more likely the result of popular habit. 
 The attribution of them to Solon may rest entirely on the 
 fooling of Pheidippides in the Clouds of Aristophanes (1187 ff.), 
 who claims that the evr] koL vea was devised by Solon as a popu- 
 lar measure to provide a respite for men who were threatened 
 with a lawsuit. 
 
APPENDIX 6 
 
 TRAVELS 
 
 The evidence for Solon's travels is as follows : (1) that he 
 went abroad after his archonship : Herodotus i 29 ; Const, of 
 Ath. xi, xiii ; Pint. Sol. xxv ; (2) that he went abroad because 
 of the threatened tyranny of Pisistratus : Diog. Laert. i 50 ; 
 Schol. Plat. Rep. x 599 e ; Schol. Dem. xlv 64 ; (3) that he 
 Yisited Ugi/pt : Herodotus i 29 ; Plat. Tim. 21 e; Const, of Ath. 
 xi ; Plut. Sol. xxvi ; Plut. de Is. et Os. 10, 354 e ; Diog. Laert. 
 i 50 ; Schol. Plat. loc. cit. Cyprus : Herodotus v 113 ; Plut. Sol. 
 xxvi; Diog. Laert. i 50; Schol. Plat. loc. cit.; Schol. Dem. 
 loc. cit. Cilicia: Diog. Laert. i 51 , Schol. Plat. loc. cit.; Schol. 
 Dem. loc. cit. Miletus: Plut. aS'o^. vi. Sardis : Herodotus i 29; 
 Diodorus ix 2, 26 ; Plut. Sol. xxvii ; Plut. quomodo adulator 15, 
 58 e ; Diog. Laert. i 50 ; Schol. Plat. loc. cit. 
 
 Did he go abroad at all ? 
 
 It is a familiar fact that foreign travel is often included in 
 the ancient biographies of distinguished men, and that by this 
 means meetings and interviews with distinguished foreigners 
 were explained. One is inclined to suspect, therefore, that the 
 travels of Solon were invented, partly for their own sake, 
 partly to account for the interviews with Croesus and Thales, 
 Consequently evidence from his own poems, direct or indirect, 
 must be sought. 
 
 1. Aristotle's words in Const, of Ath. xi sound as if they were 
 a paraphrase of statements made by Solon himself : '' he went 
 to Egypt, partly for the purpose of trade, partly for sight- 
 seeing, saying that he would not return for ten years, and giv- 
 
 297 
 
298 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 ing as his reason his belief that it was not right for him to stay 
 and explain his laws, but that every one should do what was 
 prescribed." Other reasons are added by Aristotle which he 
 manifestly gathered from Solon's own writings. It is not im- 
 probable, therefore, that Solon wrote a poem in which he dealt 
 with the conditions in Athens following his legislation and 
 announced his determination to go abroad for ten years, for 
 business and pleasure, and in particular to visit Egypt. There 
 is nothing to prove the existence of such a poem. These several 
 features had appeared previously in Herodotus, viz., an absence 
 of ten years, sight-seeing as a motive, Egypt as a destination. 
 The motive of trade is added by Aristotle with some emphasis, 
 as if he had read Herodotus' words and felt that they were 
 inadequate as a description of the occupations of Solon during 
 his travels. The three features supplied by Herodotus might 
 well be inventions : the number ten agrees with the number of 
 years during which, according to Herodotus, the laws were to 
 remain in force ; sight-seeing is an easily invented motive for 
 travel in the case of one of the Wise Men ; Egypt was the 
 place to which all wise men resorted. The whole case, there- 
 fore, hangs on the accuracy of Aristotle's words, " saying that 
 he would not return for ten years " : either this statement was 
 found in a poem, or it was inferred from the tradition. This 
 path, therefore, does not bring us to any sure evidence. 
 
 2. Plutarch states that Solon went to Egypt and "spent 
 some time, as he himself says, * at the outpouring of the Nile, 
 hard by the Canobic shore.' " Does this mean that Solon said 
 he spent some time in Egypt ? Or is it Plutarch who says that 
 he spent some time in a place which somewhere in his poems he 
 describes in the words quoted? A literal interpretation of 
 Plutarch's statement supports the former ; but we cannot be 
 sure that he did not mean the latter. If the first alternative is 
 the true one, it would appear that Plutarch is quoting from a 
 poem written after the visit to Egypt, and in that case it could 
 
APPENDIX 6 299 
 
 not be the poem which might have served as the source for 
 Aristotle, unless Aristotle too derived his information from a 
 poem written after Solon's visit to Egypt and not from one 
 written before. Now since Solon might easily have written 
 the line which Plutarch quotes without ever having left Athens, 
 we are again left without any sure evidence. 
 
 3. Herodotus states that Solon visited Philocyprus in Cyprus 
 and that in an elegiac poem (eV eireai) he spoke in the highest 
 terms of that prince. Here we have a definite reference to a 
 poem by Solon. Can we believe that Herodotus learned of the 
 visit to Cyprus in this poem ? Let us turn to Plutarch's ac- 
 count of the matter. After describing what Solon is supposed 
 to have done in Cyprus, Plutarch continues : " Solon himself 
 makes mention of this consolidation. In his elegies, namely, he 
 addresses Philocyprus, and says," — here follows xxv. It can 
 hardly be doubted that this quotation is a portion, probably the 
 close, of the very poem referred to by Herodotus. Without 
 the evidence of Herodotus, we might be tempted to think that 
 Plutarch's quotation was a forgery based on the legend of a 
 visit to the town of Soli in Cyprus. But with the mutual cor- 
 roboration of Herodotus and Plutarch, we may safely assert 
 that Solon visited Cyprus at any rate. 
 
 The question, then, whether Solon went abroad at all, must 
 be answered in the affirmative. 
 
 Where did he go? 
 
 Since the fact of his travels has been established, it is rea- 
 sonable to believe that the literal interpretation of Plutarch's 
 statement which was quoted above should be accepted : Solon 
 himself said that he spent some time in Egypt. That he went 
 to Egypt before he went to Cyprus, is probable from the fact 
 that in xxv he seems to contemplate a direct return to Athens. 
 Herodotus says that Solon visited the court of Amasis in Egypt. 
 But this is chronologically quite improbable since the reign of 
 
300 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 Amasis fell between 569 and 525, and Solon was almost cer- 
 tainly at home again in Athens before the beginning of his 
 reign. In ii 177 Herodotus says that Solon derived his law 
 against idleness from a law of Amasis. 
 
 It has been shown that he went to Cyprus. Here, accord- 
 ing to Plutarch (^Sol. xxvi), he persuaded Philocyprus to move 
 his city from an unfavorable location on a height to a more ad- 
 vantageous situation in the plain, and assisted him in the 
 reorganization of the city. Out of gratitude to Solon, Philo- 
 cyprus changed the name of the city from Aipeia to Soli. 
 Where could Plutarch have learned these facts ? Either from 
 Solon's poem or from the record of some Cyprian tradition. He 
 himself quotes the fragment of Solon's poem as evidence for 
 Solon's reorganization of the city (crui/ot/ctcr/zo?) ; but the only 
 thing in the way of evidence afforded by the poem is the word 
 oIklo-^io^ itself, which does not necessarily imply a reorganization 
 of the city under Solon's guidance. If, therefore, Plutarch had 
 the whole poem before him, it is fair to conclude that he could 
 find no better evidence than the passage he quotes. He may, 
 of course, have simply copied the fragment from his source ; 
 but it is more than likely that the quotation was made in the 
 source for the same purpose. It is more than likely, then, 
 that there was no real evidence for Plutarch's statements in the 
 poem itself. That a Cyprian tradition is at the bottom of 
 the thing is indicated by Plutarch's preliminary statement 
 that the city had been founded by Demophon, the son of 
 Theseus. It looks as if an account of the KTi(ji<^ of the city, of 
 the familiar type, lay at the back of the whole story. If there 
 had been any interesting information in the poem, it would have 
 been natural for Herodotus to mention it in the passage where 
 he alludes to the poem. If tlie story depends on a Cyprian 
 tradition, we cannot accept it as true. It may^ indeed, be true; 
 but it is too easy to see how a tradition like this could have 
 originated without any real foundation in truth, for us to accept 
 
APPENDIX 6 301 
 
 it as genuinel}" historical. The nucleus of the tradition may be 
 found in the following. (1) The similarity between the name 
 of Solon and the name of the city of Soli. It cannot be sup- 
 posed that the city was actually named for Solon any more than 
 Soli in Cilicia ; the name would not take this form but would 
 probably be Soloneia. Furthermore, Solon refers to the people 
 of Soli, the ^6\loi^ in a way which would be a little unbecoming 
 if the city had just been named for him. (2) The existence of 
 the name Soli and the name Aipeia side by side for the same com- 
 munity. Aipeia was attached to an old abandoned settlement 
 on the hill and may have been a Greek translation of an earlier 
 Semitic name. (3) Solon's fame as an administrator and legis- 
 lator. (4) The record in Solon's own poem of his actual visit 
 to Philocyprus. The tradition, therefore, is untrustworthy ; and 
 the poem probably conveyed no definite information. 
 
 All that we can safely infer from the poem and from He- 
 rodotus and Plutarch is that Solon sojourned for some time 
 with Philocyprus, the young king of Soli, in Cyprus, and that a 
 warm mutual regard grew up between them. Considering So- 
 lon's recent legislation and his hatred of the tyranny, it is 
 reasonable to suppose that he would not have admired Philo- 
 cyprus if he had not found him an enlightened and high-minded 
 ruler, and he may have done something to strengthen him in his 
 policy of justice and benevolence. 
 
 The reports of his visits to Soli in Cilicia, to Miletus and to 
 Sardis may be definitely rejected as legendary. The visit to Cili- 
 cia was invented because of the similarity between the name of 
 Solon and the name of the city; the visit to Miletus was invented 
 for the sake of the interview with Thales, which has no historical 
 foundation; and the visit to Sardis Avas invented in order to 
 bring about the interview with Croesus which is equally 
 apocryphal. Of course it cannot be denied that Solon may 
 have visited all these places ; indeed a visit to Miletus would 
 have been most natural. But we have no real knowledge of it. 
 
302 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 When did he go abroad ? 
 
 There are three possibilities : before his archonship, when 
 he was engaged in trade ; within a year or two after his ar- 
 chonship; or just before the establishment of the tyranny of 
 Pisistratus. 
 
 1. Herodotus states that the son of Philocyprus perished 
 in battle against the Persians in 498 B. c. Supposing he was 
 as old as sixty at this time, he must have been born not earlier 
 than 558. If the father was as old as sixty at the time of the 
 son's birth, he would have been born in 618. He must have 
 been at least 25 at the time of Solon's visit, which would then 
 have occurred in 593 at the very earliest. Since extreme figures 
 have been employed in this calculation, it is safe to say that the 
 visit must have taken place after the archonship. This disposes 
 of the first of the three possibilities. 
 
 2. Now if Solon had left Athens just before the establish- 
 ment of the tyranny of Pisistratus, he must have been a very 
 old man. In the few years of life remaining to him, it is not 
 likely that he could have been so far reconciled to Pisistratus 
 as to speak cheerfully of a happy return to his fatherland. Yet 
 this is just what he does in xxv. The late date is probably to 
 be rejected : it may have originated in the legend of Solon's 
 death and burial in Cyprus, which is practically contradicted by 
 the poem ; in the belief that Solon, the stout opponent of 
 tyrants, must have been hated by Pisistratus ; and in the effort 
 to remove the chronological impossibility of the interview with 
 Croesus, which was recognized before Plutarch. 
 
 We must conclude, therefore, that Solon's travels fell early 
 in the interval between his archonship and the accession of 
 Pisistratus. 
 
APPENDIX 7 
 RELATIONS WITH PISISTRATUS 
 
 The evidence upon which we are to determine the character 
 of the relations between Solon and Pisistratus is as follows: 
 Arist. Const, of Ath. xiv; Diodorus ix 4, ix 20, xix 1; Pint. 
 Sol. xxix f., an sent 21, 794 f. ; Diog. Laert. i 49 ff. ; Aelian 
 V. H. viii 16 ; Aul. Gell. xvii 21, 4 ; Schol. Plat. Rep. x 599 e; 
 Schol. Dem. xlv 64. 
 
 Certain features in these several accounts are manifestly 
 legendary. Such is the story of Solon's claim to be wiser than 
 some and braver than others ; the story that he put on his full 
 armor, or placed his arms before his door, and either called upon 
 his fellow-citizens to join him in the defense of their liberties 
 or at least proclaimed that he had himself done his utmost; the 
 story, in its various forms, of Solon's reply when Pisistratus asked 
 him what gave him confidence to oppose his plans ; the story 
 that Solon compared the machinations of Pisistratus with the 
 wiles of Odysseus; the '^ famous saying" that it would have 
 been easier for the Athenians to prevent the tyranny while it 
 was in preparation, but now it was a greater and more glorious 
 task to uproot and destroy it when it was already full grown. 
 These things cannot be accepted as historical, because it is alto- 
 gether improbable that they should have been recorded in 
 Solon's poems. 
 
 What remains in the ancient accounts ? That Solon op- 
 posed the request of Pisistratus for a bodyguard; that he tried 
 to turn Pisistratus from his purposes; that he tried to persuade 
 the people to overthrow the tyrant before he became strong; 
 
304 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 that in the end Pisistratus treated Solon with consideration and 
 made him his counselor. The last of these statements could 
 hardly have been based upon a poem; it was probably a con- 
 clusion drawn from the well-known mildness of Pisistratus' 
 rule, his preservation of the established laws, and the absence of 
 any tradition that he had treated Solon harshly. The other 
 statements may have rested upon some real evidence. But it 
 should be observed that they could easily be invented on the 
 basis of the poems in which in general terms Solon had pro- 
 claimed the insidious dangers of tyranny, and of Solon's well- 
 known hatred of the tyrannical form of government. 
 
 There is practical unanimity among the ancient authors that 
 xiii and xiv (see the Testimonia for these fragments) Avere 
 concerned with the tyranny of Pisistratus, and that xiii was 
 written before, and xiv after, his usurpation. 
 
 If we accept the form in which these poems are given by 
 Diodorus (as we are justified in doing), we observe, in the first 
 place, that there is nothing to show whether each of these poems 
 is complete in itself or whether they were parts of longer poems. 
 In the poems as we have them there is no allusion to Pisistratus. 
 
 xiii seems to be made up entirely of general statements. 
 Certainly the sentences with ireXerat, jLyveTai, and ean are 
 universal in their application; oWurat^ eireaev (a gnomic aorist), 
 and xpl sound as if they too were universal. If eireaev were a 
 normal narrative aorist, the sentence would mean that Athens 
 was already in the power of a tyrant ; but all the authors hold 
 that this was written before the tyranny ; therefore they at 
 any rate must have taken eireaev as a gnomic aorist. Further- 
 more, the emphasis in the sentence manifestly lies in et? fiovdp- 
 ^ov . . . hovXoavvrjv, whereas if eireaev were particular, the 
 emphasis sliould be on uLSpeirj. Tlie poem must have been 
 written at a moment when certain men in the city were acquir- 
 ing undue power and influence, and the people, blind to the 
 danger threatening their own freedom and moved by admiration 
 
APPENDIX 7 305 
 
 for the men in whom the danger lay, were even disposed to in- 
 crease their power. When did this danger threaten ? Certainly 
 not before Solon's archonship, because then the people had no 
 freedom which could be imperiled. The poem must refer, 
 therefore, to conditions subsequent to the archonship ; but 
 there is nothing to justify us in being more precise. 
 
 From xiv we learn that the people have already been de- 
 prived of some measure of freedom by the men Avhom they have 
 themselves raised to power. This result is due to their own 
 blindness towards the machinations of these ambitious men. 
 The plural tovtov; is significant. This could hardly have been 
 used if Pisistratus had already made himself sole master of 
 Athens. The men referred to must have been unscrupulous 
 demagogues, but more than this we cannot say.^ 
 
 xiii sounds as if it were written at an earlier stage in the 
 development of Athenian politics than xiv ; but at the same 
 time it must be admitted that xiii could easily form a part of 
 the poem containing xiv. Verses 5-8 of xiv are as general in 
 their intention as the whole of xiii. It should be remembered, 
 moreover, that Plutarch quotes verses 5-7 of xiv for the period 
 before the usurpation. 
 
 There is nothing in the poems as we have them to connect 
 them with the usurpation of Pisistratus. What there may 
 have been in the portions which are lost or in other poems, we 
 cannot tell. But the single indication offered by the plural 
 TovTov^ is enough to make us suspicious of the judgment of the 
 ancient authors. 
 
 xxxvi shows clearly that Solon had been called mad because 
 he claimed to see more than the people in general saw ; and 
 that he was confident of the vindication of his accuracy. This 
 might well be a quotation from a poem proclaiming a threat- 
 
 1 Beloch (1913, p. 353) refers tovtovs -qv^-qaaTe pv/xara d6vT€s to PisistratiLs' 
 bodyguard. Since Solon refers to dovXoavvrj as past, these lines, he says, must 
 have been written after the expulsion of Pisistratus. 
 
306 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 ened usurpation. It might even be a part of the poem to which 
 xiii and xiv belonged, supposing they were drawn from the 
 same poem. Tliere is nothing to prove that the couplet belongs 
 to this period ; but Diogenes Laertius' quotation of it here 
 makes it more than probable. 
 
 In the end we must conclude that there is no real proof of 
 the traditional reports of Solon's opposition to the usurpation 
 of Pisistratus.^ But w^e can say positively that the Athenians 
 were threatened with tyranny by various men (cf . tovtou?) after 
 the time of Solon's archonship and that Solon stoutly opposed 
 it. It is easy to see in Aristotle's account of the decade after 
 the archonship ( Const, of Ath. xiii f .) that tliere may well have 
 been many abortive attempts at a tyranny before Pisistratus 
 was finally successful. But though it may not be possible to 
 connect Solon's name and Solon's poems with any definite 
 events, the poems nevertheless reveal the mind of the man dur- 
 ing these troubled years. It is impossible to say whether the 
 occasion of the poems preceded or followed Solon's travels. He 
 must have remained in Athens long enough after his legislation 
 
 1 On the relations of Solon and Pisistratus see Busolt (1895, pp. 299, 300, 
 and 314, 315). Von Stern (1913, p. 437) concludes that the statements about 
 Aristion's proposal to give Pisistratus a bodyguard of 50 men went back to the 
 Attic chronicle. "Der Atthidograph, der zuerst diese Angabe gebracht hat, 
 muss sich dabei auf vollstandig authentisches Material gestutzt, das Protokoll der 
 Volksversammlung selbst eingesehen haben." Then he asserts that there could 
 have been no doubt that Solon opposed this proposal. "Esist ein geradezu 
 zwingender Schluss, den ein neuer Historiker ganz ebenso machen wiirde, wie 
 der alte Chronist, dass Solon bei seiner Kampfesfreudigkeit gegen diesen Antrag 
 gesprochen habe. . . . Dass Solon bald nach der Begriindung dieser Herrschaf t 
 im Archonjahr des Hegesistratos ruhig in Athen gestorben und mit alien Ehren 
 bestattet war, hat der Chronist wohl einem Beschluss iiber die Beerdigung auf 
 Staatskosten entnehmen konnen." That Aristion's proposal may have been 
 known from a stone, I admit ; that Solon opposed it is not unlikely, even at his 
 advanced age ; but it is quite as likely that the incident should have been in- 
 vented. The suggestion concerning the public burial merits little consideration. 
 Solon's " Kampfesfreudigkeit " is imknown to me. Von Stern's paper is chiefly 
 valuable as a study of the development of the " solonisches Portrat." 
 
APPENDIX 7 307 
 
 for the dissatisfaction to manifest itself which we learn of in 
 his apologetic poems and for him to compose these poems. This 
 might have been a matter of a few months or a few years. Of 
 the length of his absence we know nothing. Even if we were 
 convinced that he wrote a poem in which he announced that 
 he would not return for ten years, this would not justify us in 
 believing that he actually did remain away for that length of 
 time. 
 
APPENDIX 8 
 DEATH AND BURIAL 
 
 According to Phanias of Eresos (ap. Plut. Sol. xxxii) Solon 
 lived less than two years after the usurpation of Pisistratus ; 
 the usurpation occurred in the archonship of Corneas, and Solon 
 died in the archonship of Hegest.ratus, the successor of Corneas. 
 That the death of Solon was placed in a definite archonship is 
 also apparent from Const, of Ath. xvii 2, although the name of 
 the archon is not given. Aelian, also, says (F. H. viii 16) that 
 Solon died at an advanced age soon after the usurpation. Ac- 
 cording to Heracleides Ponticus (ap. Plut. Sol. xxxii) he lived 
 for a long time after the usurpation. Diogenes Laertius (i 62) 
 states that he died in Cyprus at the age of eighty. Cyprus is 
 given as the place of his death also by Vit. Sol. (Westermann, 
 p. 113), Schol. Plat. Rep. x 599 e, Schol. Dem. xlv 64, Suidas 
 s. V. So\a)z^, and Valerius Maximus v 3, Ext. 3. That he was 
 eighty years old is also stated by Schol. Plat. loc. cit. 
 
 Plutarch (^Sol. xxxii) reports a story that his body was 
 burned and his ashes scattered over the island of Salamis. He 
 himself finds the story incredible ; but it has the authority, he 
 says, of Aristotle and other reputable writers. Diogenes Laer- 
 tius (i 62) says that before his death in Cyprus, Solon had given 
 directions that his bones should be carried back to Salamis and 
 there burned, and that the ashes should be scattered over the 
 country. This is the reason, he continues, why Cratinus in his 
 comedy called Xet/jcot'e? puts into Solon's mouth the words : 
 
 Ofc/c(w 8e vijaov, ft)? /lev avOpoiircov X070?, 
 iairapfievo^ Kara Trdaav Ata^'ro? iroXiv. 
 
 308 
 
APPENDIX 8 309 
 
 Aristides xlvi 172 (vol. 2, p. 230 Dindorf) alludes to the belief 
 that Solon's ashes had been scattered over Salamis and that he 
 was the guardian of the island. Aelian ( V. IT. viii 16) states 
 that Solon was buried at the public expense close by the city 
 wall (i.e., of Athens) at the left of the gate as one enters, and 
 that his grave was surrounded with a wall. Valerius Maximus 
 (/. c. ) says that Solon spent his old age in Cyprus and was not 
 even buried in his native land, implying that he was buried in 
 Cyprus ; and he gives an anecdote of Solon's deathbed of which 
 nothing need be said (viii 7, ext. 14). 
 
 We have found reason to believe that Solon visited Cyprus 
 soon after his archonship, and in xxv he announced his return 
 to Athens. It is probable therefore that the tradition of his 
 death in Cyprus is to be rejected, together with the erroneous 
 tradition that he went to Cyprus at the time of the usurpation of 
 Pisistratus. It has been suggested that the date of his travels was 
 pushed forward in order to provide chronological justification 
 fo the interview with Croesus ; and it is also suggested that the 
 tradition of his death and burial in Cyprus may have originated 
 in the belief that he was in some sort the founder of Soli and in 
 the desire of the people of Soli to have his bones buried in their 
 land. 
 
 The legend of the scattering of the ashes over Salamis is at 
 least as old as the middle of the fifth century B.C. (Cratinus). 
 Its significance as a legend has been discussed above ; but we 
 cannot admit that it is more than legend. If, however, this 
 legend was known in the fifth century, it seems unlikely that 
 at the same time a grave by the walls of Athens should have 
 been recognized as Solon's grave (Aelian). This grave must 
 have been later identified, rightly or wrongly, as Solon's resting- 
 place. 
 
 Is any special authority to be attached to the statement of 
 Phanias of Eresos because he assigns the death of Solon to a 
 definite archonship ? There may have been some documentary 
 
310 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 record of this fact, in the form of a grave inscription or an in- 
 scription on a statue. But it is perhaps more likely that gen- 
 eral considerations led writers to conclude that Solon could not 
 have lived long after the date of Pisistratus' usurpation, and 
 therefore to assign his death to the very next year. We must 
 conclude that the date of his death and his age at death cannot 
 be exactly determined. At any rate no event in his life is 
 recorded which can be placed later than the year of Pisistratus' 
 usurpation, which is variously fixed at 561-60 and 560-59. 
 
 Towards the end of the fifth century a statue of Solon was 
 set up in the market place of Salamis (Aeschines i 25 f.; Dem. 
 xix 251). Aelian ( V. H, viii 16) says that a bronze statue was 
 set up in the market place, presumably the market place of 
 Athens ; and Pausanias (i 16, 1) saw a bronze statue of Solon 
 in front of the Stoa Poicile. 
 
APPENDIX 9 
 
 A. List of the Ancient Authors in whose Works Fragments of 
 Solon's Poems have been Preserved 
 
 Anatolius. irepl 8e/ca8os kol twv ivros avTrjs apiOfxiov. A recension of this 
 tractate by J. L. Ileiberg is to be found in an article by him entitled : 
 "Anatolius sur les dix premiers nombres," which appeared in Annales 
 Internationales d'histoire, Confjres de Paris, 1900. 5^ Section, Ilistoire 
 des Sciences V (1901), 27 ff. 
 
 Apostolius. In Paroemiographi Graeci, II. 
 
 AristideSj ed. Dindorf, Leipsic, 1829. 
 
 Aristotle. Constitution of Athens; ed. Sandys, London, 1912. 
 
 Metaphysics; ed. Bekker. 
 
 Politics ; ed. Bekker. 
 
 Rhetoric ; ed. Bekker. 
 
 Arsenius. In Paroemiographi Graeci, II. 
 
 Athenaeus, ed. Kaibel, Leipsic, 1887-1890. 
 
 Basilius Magnus. Sermo de legendis libris gentilium. In Migne, Patro- 
 logia Graeca, XXXI, 575 ff. 
 
 Choricius Gazaeus, ed. Boissonade, Paris, 1846. 
 
 Clemens Alexandrinus. Stromata i-vi; ed. Stahlin, Leipsic, 1906. 
 
 Demosthenes, ed. Butcher, Oxford, 1903. 
 
 Diodorus Siculus, bks. i-xv, ed. Bekker-Dindorf-Vogel, Leipsic, 1888-1893; 
 bks. xvi-xx, ed. Bekker-Dindorf-Fischer, Leipsic, 1906. 
 
 Diogenes Laertius, ed. Cobet, Paris, 1878. 
 
 Diogenianus. In Paroemiographi Graeci, I. 
 
 Eusehius. Evangelicae Praeparationis Libri xv; ed. Gifford, Oxiord, 1903. 
 
 Gregorius Cyprius. In Paroemiographi Graeci, 11. 
 
 Hermias. Hermiae Alexandrini in Platonis Phaedrum Scholia; ed. Cou- 
 vreur, Paris, 1901. In Bibliotheque de I'Ecole des Hautes Etudes; 
 Sciences Historiques et Philologiques, Fasc. 133. 
 
 lohannnes Siceliotes. In Rhetores Graeci, VI. 
 
 Lucian, ed. Jacobitz, Leipsic, 1907-1913. 
 
 Macarius. In Paroemiographi Graeci, II. 
 
 Nicetas Choniates. De rebus post captam urbem gestis. In Migne, Patro- 
 logia Graeca, CXXXIX, 968. 
 
 311 
 
312 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 Philo, ed. Cohn and Wendland ; 5 vols., Berlin, 1896. Volume 1, contain- 
 ing De opificio mundi, is edited by Cohn. 
 
 Photiiis. Lexicon; ed. Naber, Leyden, 1864. 
 
 Phrynichus, ed. Rutherford, London, 1881. 
 
 Plato, ed. Burnet; 5 vols., Oxford, 1899-1906. 
 
 Plutarch. Vitae Parallelae ; ed. Sintenis, Leipsic, 1873-1875 
 
 Moralia ; ed. Bernardakis, Leipsic, 1895. 
 
 Pollux. Onomasticum ; ed. Dindorf, Leipsic, 1824. 
 
 Proclus. In Platonis Timaeum commentaria ; ed. Diehl, Leipsic, 1903-1906. 
 
 Scholia to Demosthenes : ed. Dindorf, Oxford, 1851. 
 
 Scholia to Pindar; ed. Abel, Budapest, 1883-1891. 
 
 Scholia to Plato ; ed. Hermann, Leipsic, 1870. 
 
 Scholia to Sophocles; ed. Elmsley-Dindorf, Oxford, 1825-1852. 
 
 Stohaeus. Florilegium ; ed. Wachsmuth-IIense ; 5 vols., Berlin, 1884-1912. 
 
 Suidas. Lexicon ; ed. Bekker, Berlin, 1854. 
 
 Tatian, ed. Schwartz, 1888. In Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte 
 der altchristlichen Literatur ; ed. Gebhardt und Harnack, IV. 
 
 Theodoretus. Graecarum affectionum curatio ; ed. Raeder, Leipsic, 1904. 
 
 Theognis, ed. Hudson- Williams, London, 1910. 
 
 Zenohius. In Paroemiographi Graeci, I. 
 
 B. List of the Editions of the Fragments of Solon 
 
 Bach, Nicholas. Solonis carminum quae supersunt. Bonn, 1825. 
 
 Bergk, Theodor. Poetae Lyrici Graeci ; ed. 4, vol. 2, Leipsic, 1882. 
 
 Biese, Alfred. Griechische Lyriker in Auswahl fiir den Schulgebrauch 
 
 herausgegeben ; ed. 2, Vienna, 1902. 
 Boissonade, J. F. Poetes grecs. 3 vols., Paris, 1823-1832. 
 Brunck, R. F. P. 'H^ik^ ir-oi-qcns sive gnomici poetae Graeci ad optimorum 
 
 exemplarium fidem emendavit ; ed. 2, Leipsic, 1817. 
 Bucherer, Fritz. Anthologie aus den griechischen Lyrikern. Gotha, 1904. 
 Buchholtz-Peppmiiller. Anthologie aus den Lyrikern der Griechen fiir den 
 
 Schul- und Privatgebrauch erklart und mit litterarhistorischen Ein- 
 
 leitungen versehen von E. Buchholtz. Band I, Die Elegiker und lambo- 
 
 graphen enthaltend, 5. Aufl. besorgt von R. Peppmiiller, Leipsic, 1900. 
 Fortlage, F. A. Solonis Atheniensis carminum f ragmenta ; Graeca cum 
 
 var. lect. notisque ed. Leipsic, 1776. 
 Gaisford, Thomas. Poetae Minores Graeci. Vol. 3, Leipsic, 1823. 
 Hartung, J. A. Die griechischen Elegiker. Griechisch mit metrischer 
 
 Uebersetzung und prufenden und erklarenden Anmerkungen. Vol. 1, 
 
 Leipsic, 1859. 
 
APPENDIX 9 313 
 
 Hiller-Crusius. Antliologia Lyrica sive Lyricorum Graecorum Veterum 
 praeter Pindaruiu Reliquiae Potiores. Post Theodorum Bergkium 
 quartum edidit Eduardius Hiller. Exemplar emendavit atque novis 
 Solonis aliorumque fragmentis auxit O. Crusius. Leipsic, 1897. 
 
 Kynaston, Herbert. Extracts from the Greek Elegiac Poets. London, 1890. 
 
 Lorenzo, N. di. Solonis carmina selecta con comenti ad uso delle scuole 
 del dott. Torino, 1905. 
 
 Pomtow, Johannes. Poetae lyrici Graeci minores. Leipsic, 1885. 
 
 Schneidewin, F. G. Delectus Poetarum Elegiacorum Graecorum. Got- 
 tingen, 1837. 
 
 Stoll, H. W. Anthologie gTiechischer Lyriker fiir die obersten Klassen der 
 Gymnasien mit litterarhistorischen Eiuleitungen und erklarenden 
 Anmerkungen; 6. Aufl., 1. Abt., Halle, 1888. 
 
 Wilamowitz-Mollendorf, U. von. Griechisches Lesebuch. Berlin, 1902. 
 
 Sappho und Simonides. Untersuchungen iiber griechische Lyriker. 
 
 Berlin, 1913. 
 
 (\ General Bibliography 
 
 The titles of historical works which appeared earlier than 1895 may be 
 found in Busolt (1895). They are not repeated here except in certain in- 
 stances. A complete philological bibliography may be found in the reports 
 on the Greek lyric poets in Bursian's Jahresberichte in the following volumes : 
 XXXIII (1883), XLVI (1886), and LIV (1888) by E. Hiller; LXXV 
 (1893), XCII (1897), CIV (1900), and CXXXIII (1907) by J. Sitzler. 
 
 Adler, G. Solon und die Bauernbefreiung in Attika. Vierteljahrschrift 
 
 fur Staats- und Yolkswirtschaft, IV (1896), 107-132. 
 Beloch, K. J. Griechische Geschichte ; 2. Aufl,, 1. Bd., Strassburg, 1. Abt. 
 
 (1912), 2. Abt. (1913). 
 Bergk, T. Kritische Analekten. Philologus, XVI (ISfC ;, 685, 586. 
 Zur griechischen Literatur. Rh. Mus., XXXVI (1881) -- Kleine philo- 
 
 logische Schriften. 2. Bd., Halle, 1886. 
 Blass, F. Solon und Mimnernos. Jahrb. f. class. Phil., CXXX V[I (1888), 
 
 742. 
 
 ed. Demosthenis Orationes ; ed. 4, vol. 1, Leipsic, 1903. 
 
 Boissonade, F. F., ed. Anecdota Graeca. Vol. 4, Paris, 1832. 
 
 Busolt, G. Griechische Geschichte ; ed. 2, Gotha ; vol. 1, 1893 ; vol. 2, 1895. 
 
 Cavaignac, E. Sur les variations du sens des classes " soloniennes." Rev. 
 
 de phil., XXXII (1908), 36 ff. 
 Cerrato, L. Studio sui frammenti del carmi soloniani. Riv. di fil., VI 
 
 (1878), 75-126. 
 Solone : Saggio critico-biografico. Riv. di fil., VII (1879), 209 ff., 289 ff. 
 
314 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 Christ, W. Die solonische Miinz- und Gewichtsreform nach Aristoteles. 
 
 S-B. d. philos.-philol. u. hist. Classe d. K. B. Akad. d. Wiss., Munich, 
 
 1900, pp. 118-132. 
 Clapp, E. B. AtTrapat 'A^avat. Class. Phil., V (1910), 100, 101. 
 Classical Review V (1891), 105 ff. Notes on the text of the 'AOrjvatojv Uo- 
 
 kiTcta by various scholars. 
 Clemm, W. Zu den griechischen Elegikern. Jahrb. f . class. Phil., CXXVH 
 
 (1883), 1-18. 
 Cramer, J. A. Anecdota Graeca. Oxford, 1839. 
 
 Croiset, A. La poesie de Pindare et les lois du lyrisme grec. Paris, 1880. 
 Croiset, M. La morale et la cite dans les poesies de Solon. C-R. de I'Acad. 
 
 des inscriptions et belles-lettres, 1903, pp. 581-696. 
 Crusius, O. Die Schrift vom Staate der Athener. Philologus, I (1891), 177. 
 
 Solon 21. Philologus, LIV (1895), 559. 
 
 Daremberg, C. Etat de la medecine entre Homere et Hippocrate. Paris, 
 
 1869. 
 Diels, H. Solon frag. iv. 21. Hermes XXIH (1888), 279-288. 
 
 Onomatologisches. Hermes XXXVII (1902), 480, 481. 
 
 Drerup, E. Ueber die bei den attischen Rednern eingelegten Urkunden. 
 
 Jahrb. f. class. Phil., Supp. XXIV (1898), 221-366. 
 Flach, H. Geschichte der griechischen Lyrik. Tiibingen, 1884. 
 Fraccaroli, G. Due versi di Solone. Riv. di fil., XXI (1893), 49, 50. 
 Gilliard, C. Quelques reformes de Solon : Essai de critique historique. 
 
 Lausanne, 1907. 
 Girard, J. Le sentiment religieux en Grece d'Homere a Eschyle. Paris, 
 
 1869. 
 Glotz, G. La solidarite de la f amille dans le droit criminel en Grece. Paris, 
 
 1904. 
 Gomperz, T. Kritische Bemerkungen. Wiener Studien, II (1880), 1-20. 
 Hadley, W. S. A correction in Solon. Class. Rev., VII (1903), 209. 
 Hammer, J. E. Ad Solonem. Nord. Tidsskrift, XI (1902-1903), 47. 
 Haupt, M. Index lectionum hibernarum 1859. In his Opuscula (Leipsic, 
 
 1876), II, 173. 
 Hecker, A. Epistola critica. Philologus, V (1850), 466, 467. 
 Heidenhain, F. Zu Solon (frag. 9 Bgk.). Jahrb. f. class. Phil., CXXV 
 
 (1882), 442-446. 
 Heinemann, I. Studia. Solonea. Diss. Berlin, 1897. 
 Hense, O. Di una elegia di Solone. Riv. di fil., II (1874), 305-314. 
 Hiller, E. Die literarische Thatigkeit der Sieben Weisen. Rh. Mus. 
 
 XXXIII (1878), 518-529. 
 (1883, 1886, 1888). See introductory note. 
 
APPENDIX 315 
 
 Jebb, R. C. On a fragment of Solon. Jour, of Phil., XXV (1897), 98-105. 
 
 Keene, C. H. Miscellaneous Notes, riermathena, V (1885), 90-97. 
 
 Keil, B. Die Solonische Verf assur g in Aristoteles Verfassungsgeschichte 
 
 Athens. Berlin, 1892. 
 Kenyon, F. G. Aristotle on the constitution of Athens. London, 1891. 
 Aristotle on the Athenian Constitution ; translated with introduction 
 
 and notes. London, 1891. 
 Kirchner, J. Prosopographia Attica. 2 vols., Berlin, 1901-1903. 
 Kumanudis, S. A. 'Ec^iy/xept? 'Ap^atoAoytKTy, III (1885), 215 ff. 
 Lane, Mary C. Index to the Fragments of the Greek Elegiac and Iambic 
 
 Poets. Cornell Studies, XVIII (1908). 
 Larsen, S. En solonisk Studie. In Festskrift til J. L. Ussing, Copenhagen, 
 
 1900. 
 Leeuweu, J. van. Ad Solonis fragmentum xiii. Mnem., XXXII (1904), 
 
 259, 260. 
 Lehmann-Haupt, C. F. Weiteres zu Aristoteles *A6r}vaL0)v IIoAtTeta. Her- 
 mes, XXXV (1900), 636 ff. 
 Schatzmeister- und Archontenvrahl in Athen. Klio, VI (1906), 304- 
 
 322. 
 Griechische Geschichte. In Gercke and Norden, Einleitung in die Al- 
 
 terturaswissenschaft. 3. Bd., Leipsic, 1912. 
 Leutsch, E. L. von. Die griechischen Elegiker. II, Solon. Philologus, 
 
 XXXI (1872), 129-171. 
 Linder, C. G. De Solonis Elegia quae YnO0HKAI EI2 EAYTON inscri- 
 
 bitur quaestiones nonnullae. Philologus, XIII (1858), 499 ff. 
 Ludwich, A. Zu den Solonischen Fragmenten in der TroAtreia ^Kdrjvaioiv. 
 
 Berl. phiL Wochenschr., XXIII (1903), 700, 732, 733, 765. 
 Lugebil, K. See Rost and Lugebil. 
 
 Madvig, J. N. Adversaria Critica. Vol. 1 (Hauniae, 1871), 570. 
 Mekler, S. Lucubrationum criticarum capita quinque. Progr. Wien, 1895. 
 Mess, A. von. Aristoteles 'AOrjvatoiv IIoXtTeia und die politische Schriftstel- 
 
 lerei Athens. Rh. Mus. LXVI (1911), 356 ff. 
 Meyer, E. Geschichte des Alterthums. Vol. 2, Stuttgart, 1893. 
 Murray, G. A. G. Adnotationes ad poetas elegiacos Graecos. Philologus, 
 
 XLVIII (1889), 363-365. 
 Nageotte, E. Histoire de la po^sie lyrique grecque. Paris, 1888. 
 Xauck, A. Zu Solon und Sophocles. Philologus, V (1850), 575, 576. 
 Niemeyer, K. Zu Aristoteles 'Adrjvaiiov XIoAtrcttt. Jahrb. f. class. Phil., 
 
 CXLIII (1891), 405 ff. 
 Paroemiographi Graeci; ed. von Leutsch und Schneidewin, Gottingen, 
 
 1839-1851. 
 
316 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 Perrin, B. Plutarch's Lives with an English translation. Vol. 1, New York, 
 
 1914. 
 Piccolomini, E. In Aristotelem et Herodam animadversiones criticae. Riv. 
 
 di fil., XX (1892), 460. 
 Di una reminiscenza Soloniana presso Cratino e presso Aristofane. 
 
 Rendiconti della Reale accademia dei Lincei. Classe di scienze morali, 
 
 storiche e filologiche, Serie quinta, IV (1895), 69-85. 
 Piatt, A. Notes on Solon. Jour, of Phil., XXIV (1896), 248-262. 
 
 On a fragment of Solon. Jour, of Phil., XXVI (1898), 64, 65. 
 
 Richards, H. Aristotle's Constitution of Athens. Class. Rev., VII (1893), 
 
 209 ff. 
 Rost, J., and Lugebil, K. Zu Solons Fragmenten. Neues Jahrb. f. Phil., 
 
 CXXIX (1884), 816-820. 
 Sanctis, G. de. AT©IS- Storia della repubblica ateniese dalle origini alia 
 
 eta di Pericle. Turin, 1912. 
 Schaefer, G. IL, ed. Demosthenes. London, 1825. 
 
 Schmidt, M. Zu Solons zwoHter Elegie. Mus. f . Phil., V (1847), 624-626. 
 Schneidewin, F. W. Variae Lectiones. Philologus, III (1848), 110 ff. 
 Seeck, O. Quellenstudien zu des Aristoteles Verf assungsgeschichte Athens. 
 
 Beitrage zur alten Gesch., IV (1904), 164-181, 270^26. 
 Shilleto, R., ed. Demosthenes de falsa legatione. Cambridge, 1874. 
 Shorey, P. Solon's Trochaics to Phokos. Class. Phil., VI (1911), 216-218. 
 Sitzler, J. Zu Solons Fragmenten. Jahrb. f. class. Phil., CXIX (1879), 
 
 668-672. 
 Einige Bemerkungen iiber die Sprache der griechischen Elegiker. 
 
 Jahrb. f. class. Phil., CXXV (1882), 504-518. 
 
 (1894, 1897, 1900, 1907). See introductory note. 
 
 Sondhaus, K. De Solonis legibus. Diss. Jena, 1909. 
 
 Stadtmiiller, H. Emendationes in poetis Graecis. In Festschrift zur 36. 
 
 Versammlung deutscher Philologen und Schulmanner zu Karlsruhe, 
 
 1882, 59-75. 
 Stern, E. von. Solon und Peisistratos. Hermes, XL VIII (1913), 426-441. 
 Toepifer, J. Quaestiones Pisistrateae. Diss. Dorpat, 1886. In his Beitrage 
 
 zur griech. Altertumswissenschaft, Berlin, 1897. 
 
 Attische Genealogie. Berlin, 1889. 
 
 Tucker, T. G. Solon eh iavTov. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc, 1887, 4, 5. 
 Voemel, I. T., ed. Demosthenes Orationes contra Aeschinem de corona et de 
 
 falsa lef/atione, Leipsic, 1862. 
 Weigel, F. Quaestiones de vetustiorum poetarum elegiacorum Graecorum 
 
 sermone ad syntaxim, copiam, vim verborum pertinentes. Diss. phil. 
 
 Vindob., Ill (1891), 109 fe. 
 
APPENDIX 9 317 
 
 Weil, H. Ueber Spuren strophischer Composition bei den alten griech- 
 ischen Elegikern. Rh. Mus., XVII (1862), 1-13. 
 
 ed. Les Plaidoyers politiques de D^mosthene. Vol. 1, Paris, 1883. 
 
 Westermann, A. Btdypa<^ot. Yitarum Scriptores Graeci Minores. Bruns- 
 wick, 1845. 
 
 Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, U. von. Aristoteles und Athen. Berlin, 1893. 
 
 AVilbrandt, ]M. Die politische und soziale Bedeutung der attischen Ge- 
 schlechter vor Solon. Philologus, Supp. VII (1898), 133-227. 
 
 Wilcken, U. Zu Aristoteles IIoAtTeia 'A^7;vaiW. Hermes, XXX (1895), 620. 
 
 Wulf, H. De f abellis cum collegii septem sapientium memoria coniunctis 
 quaestiones criticae. Diss. phil. Halenses, XIII (1895), 163 ff. 
 
318 
 
 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 
 
 D. Table of Parallel References 
 
 This 
 Edition 
 
 Berqk 
 
 HlLLER- 
 
 Crusius 
 
 Bergk 
 
 This Edition 
 
 HlLLER- 
 
 Crusius 
 
 This Edition 
 
 i 
 
 18 
 
 17 
 
 1 
 
 XX 
 
 1 
 
 XX. xxxiv. 
 
 ii 
 
 23 
 
 21 
 
 2 
 
 xxxiv 
 
 
 xxxv 
 
 iii 
 
 
 27 a 
 
 3 
 
 XXXV 
 
 2 
 
 xii 
 
 iv 
 
 
 
 27 c 
 
 4 
 
 xii 
 
 3 
 
 vi 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 27 b 
 
 5 
 
 vi 
 
 4.5 
 
 vii 
 
 vi 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 vii 
 
 6 
 
 xxiii 
 
 vii 
 
 6.8—. 
 
 4.5 
 
 7 
 
 xxiii 
 
 7 
 
 xiii 
 
 viii 
 
 —.34.35.— 
 
 30.31 
 
 8 
 
 vii 
 
 8 
 
 xxxvi 
 
 ix 
 
 —.36, 1-19. 
 
 32 
 
 9 
 
 xiii 
 
 9.10 
 
 xiv 
 
 
 37 
 
 
 10 
 
 xxxvi 
 
 11 
 
 xix 
 
 X 
 
 
 32 a 
 
 11 
 
 xiv 
 
 12 
 
 xl 
 
 xi 
 
 36, 20f.— 
 
 32 b 
 
 12 
 
 xix 
 
 13 
 
 xli 
 
 xii 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 13 
 
 xl 
 
 14 
 
 xvii 
 
 xiii 
 
 9 
 
 7 
 
 14 
 
 xli 
 
 15 
 
 xxxi 
 
 xiv 
 
 11 
 
 9.10 
 
 15 
 
 xvii 
 
 16 
 
 xxxii 
 
 XV 
 
 27 
 
 27 
 
 16 
 
 xxxi 
 
 17- 
 
 i 
 
 xvi. xvi a 
 
 24 
 
 22 
 
 17 
 
 xxxii 
 
 18 
 
 xxv 
 
 xvii 
 
 15 
 
 14 
 
 18 
 
 i 
 
 19 
 
 xxvi. xxxvii 
 
 xviii 
 
 31 
 
 36 
 
 19 
 
 xxv 
 
 20 
 
 xxxix 
 
 xix 
 
 XX 
 
 12 
 
 11 
 
 20 
 
 xxxvii 
 
 21 
 
 ii 
 
 1 
 
 1, If. 
 
 21 
 
 xxvi 
 
 22 
 
 xvi. xvi a 
 
 xxi 
 
 32 
 
 28 
 
 22 
 
 xxxix 
 
 23 
 
 xxvii 
 
 xxii 
 
 33 
 
 29 
 
 23 
 
 ii 
 
 24 
 
 xxviii 
 
 xxiii 
 xxiv 
 
 7 
 28 
 
 6 
 25 
 
 24 
 25 
 
 xvi. xvi a 
 ::xvii 
 
 25 
 
 26 
 
 xxiv 
 
 xlvi 
 
 xxv 
 
 19 
 
 18 
 
 26 
 
 xxviii 
 
 27 
 
 XV 
 
 xxvi 
 
 21 
 
 19, 5f. 
 
 27 
 
 XV 
 
 27 a 
 
 iii 
 
 xxvii 
 
 25 
 
 23 
 
 28 
 
 xxiv 
 
 27 b 
 
 V 
 
 xxviii 
 
 26 
 
 24 
 
 29 
 
 xlvi 
 
 27 c 
 
 iv 
 
 xxix 
 
 39 
 
 34 
 
 30 
 
 xlv 
 
 28 
 
 xxi 
 
 
 40 
 
 35 
 
 31 
 
 x-.aii 
 
 29 
 
 xxii 
 
 xxxi 
 
 16 
 
 15 
 
 32 
 
 xxi 
 
 30.31 
 
 viii 
 
 xxxii 
 
 17 
 
 16 
 
 33 
 
 xxii 
 
 32 
 
 ix 
 
 xxxiii 
 
 38 
 
 33 
 
 34 
 
 viii 
 
 32 a 
 32 b 
 
 X 
 
 xxxiv 
 
 2 
 
 1, 3-6 
 
 35 
 
 viii 
 
 xi 
 
 XXXV 
 
 3 
 
 1, 4f. 
 
 36 
 
 ix. xi 
 
 33 
 
 xxxiii 
 
 xxxvi 
 
 10 
 
 8 
 
 37 
 
 ix 
 
 34 
 
 xxix 
 
 xxxvii 
 
 20 
 
 19, 1-4 
 
 38 
 
 xxxiii 
 
 35 
 
 XXX 
 
 xxxviii 
 
 42 
 
 Scholia 30, 
 p. 333 
 
 39 
 40 
 
 xxix 
 
 XXX 
 
 36 
 
 xviii 
 
 xxxix 
 
 22 
 
 20 
 
 41 
 
 xliv 
 
 
 
 xl 
 
 13 
 
 12 
 
 42 
 
 xxxviii 1 
 
 
 
 xli 
 
 14 
 
 13 
 
 43 
 
 xlii 
 
 
 
 xlii 
 
 43 
 
 — 
 
 44 
 
 xliii 
 
 
 
 xliii 
 
 44 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 
 
 xliv 
 
 41 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 
 
 xlv 
 
 30 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 
 
 xlvi 
 
 29 
 
 26 
 
 
 
 .- 
 
 

 
 
 .o> s^-^^'^. ■■^^^'- \> 
 
 >s- - ■^' 
 
 >.„^'<' . 
 
 ^v <j^. 
 
 -o" c « ' ^ * 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 >• " ^ A. 
 
 
 0^ : 
 
 
 %t 
 
 
 
 ./^-^ 
 
 x^''-'^ A Xi. 
 
 
 
 
 .^ -^c^. 
 
 -■>, 
 
 ./. ' 'J s o \ 
 
.■-l^' 
 
 ,^^ 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 •^>.,v>- 
 
 
 •x'^^ % 
 
 o 0^ 
 
 :\. 
 
 
 
 -•':. -^^^ 
 
 .^'^ 
 
 ...'i"' ^ 
 
 
 5.^ 
 
 ,S -7\ 
 
 ''^A v^^ 
 
 "oo^ 
 
 v^ 
 
 ^ -^A 
 
 
 ■^,, ': 
 
 <-^ v^- 
 
 ''^- ^^'*' 
 
 ..s^ ^^.. 
 
 
 *. 
 
 
 \- 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 /■ 
 
 
 ^^^.^;;:#^\\ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 '\ 
 
 
 , s A 
 
 
 
 
 " ./. 
 
 ... ■' ' 
 
 f, ^ 
 
 
 "a v*' -\ 
 
 
 
 
 \V •/*. 
 
 s -r. 
 
 >. ^^ 
 
 "^'ft a"^ 
 
 
 oo' 
 
 
 t'?-- 
 
 A' 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 0002b7bifli5 
 
 Wk