SOLON. tnem, and alleviate the miseries that prevailed. He was chosen Archon (b. c. 594), and under that legal title was invested with unlimited power for adopting such measures as the exigencies of the state demanded. There were not wanting among the friends of Solon those who urged him to take advantage of the opportunity thus afforded him, and make himself tyrant of Athens. Plutarch (c. 14, comp. Bergk. /. c. Fr. 30, 32, p. 333) has preserved some passages of the poems of Solon, referring to the feelings of surprise or contempt with which his refusal was met by those who had suggested the attempt. Indeed there can be no doubt that it would have been successful had it been made. That Solon should have had firmness enough to resist such a temptation, argues the possession on his part of a singular degree of virtue and self-restraint. In fulfilment of the task entrusted to him, Solon addressed himself to the relief of the existing distress. This he effected with the greatest discretion and suc- cess by his celebrated diahurdening ordinance (aeia- dxOiia), a measure consisting of various distinct provisions, calculated to lighten the pressure of those pecuniary obligations by which the Thetes and small proprietors had been reduced to utter helplessness and misery, with as little infringement as possible on the claims of the wealthy creditors. The details of this measure are, however, involved in considerable uncertainty. Plutarch (iSoZ. 15) speaks of it as a total abolition of debts. This is in itself in the highest degree unlikely ; and, as is acutely remarked by Mr. Grote {History of Greece^ vol. iii. p. 137), would have rendered a debasement of the coinage unnecessary and useless. On the other hand it was certainly more than a reduction of the rate of interest, accompanied by a depreciation of the currency ( which was the view of Androtion ap. Plut. I. c. The extant fragments of the poems of Solon imply that a much larger amount of relief was afforded than Ave can conceive likely to be produced by a measure of that kind, even if (as Thirlwall supposes ; see [list, of Greece^ vol. ii. p. 34) the reduction of interest was made retro- spective, which is in fact only another way of saying that certain debts, or portions of del)ts, were wiped off. We gather from Solon himself (Fragra. 35, ap. Bergk /. c. p. 335 ; Plut. Sol. 15), that he cancelled all contracts by which the land, person, or family of a debtor had been pledged as security, so that the mortgage-pillars were re- moved, slave-debtors released, and those who had been sold into foreign countries restored. But it does not seem necessary to suppose that in every such case the debt was cancelled, as well as the hand., though such may have been the case with regard to some of the most distressed class. At the same time Solon abolished the law which gave the creditor power to enslave an insolvent debtor, or allowed the debtor to pledge or sell his son, daughter, or unmarried sister, excepting only the case in which either of the latter was convicted of unchastity. (Plut. Sol. 23). Most writers (comp. Thirlwall, /. c. ; Wachsmuth. Hellen. Alterthums- kunde^ § 56, vol. i. p. 472) seem to admit, with- out any question, the statement that Solon lowered the rate of interest. This, however, rests only on the authority (or conjecture) of Androtion, and as his account is based upon an erroneous view of the whole matter, it may fairly be questioned whether any portion of his statement is to be SOLON. 859 received, if the essential features of his view of the whole measure be rejected. On the whole we are disposed to deny that Solon did any thing to restrict the rate of interest. We know that So- lon's measures introduced a lasting settlement of the law of debtor and creditor at Athens, and so far from there being any evidence that the rate of interest was ever limited, we find that the rate of interest was declared free by a law which was ascribed to Solon himself (Lysias cont. Theomv. A. § 5. p. 360, cbmp. 356). To have introduced a restriction as a temporary measure of relief would have been merely a roundabout mode of wholly or partially cancelling debts, and would have required it to be retrospective, and not pro- spective. But for this last view of the case there is no authority whatever. With respect to the depreciation of the coinage, we have the distinct statement that Solon made the mina to contain 100 drachmae instead of 73; that is to say, 73 of the old drachmae produced 100 of the new coinage, in which obligations were to be discharged ; so that the debtor saved rather more than a fourth in every payment. (Comp. Bcickh, Metrologische Untersuchungen, c. xv. p. 276 ; Did. of Antiq. art. Seisachtheia. For the grounds on which Mr. Grote disputes the state- ment that Solon altered the weights and measures, see Classical Museum No. 1.) Respecting the story about the abuse made by three of the friends of Solon of their knowledge of his designs see Callias [Vol.1, p. 56G]. The probity of Solon himself was vindicated, as he was a considerable loser by his own measure, having as much as five talents out at interest, which he set the example of giving up. Though some of those who lost most through the operation of the Seisachtheia were incensed at it, as was natural, its benefits were so great and general that all classes united ere long in a common festival of thanksgiving, which was also termed Seisachtheia. Wachsmuth {I. c. § 5Q^ vol. i. p. 472) asserts very confidently that one effect of the Seisachtheia was to transform the serfs, or villein tenants, into landed proprietors. Of this there is no proof. Another measure of relief in- troduced by Solon was the restoration of all who had been condemned to atimia to their full privi- leges as citizens, except those who had been con- demned by the Ephetae, the Areiopagus, or the Phylo-basileis, for murder, homicide, or treason. (Plut. Sol. 19.) It seems that in the first instance nothing more was contemplated in the investment of Solon with dictatorial power than the relief of the existing distress. But the success of his Seisachtheia pro- cured for him such confidence and popularity that he was further charged with the task of entirely remodelling the constitution. As a preliminary step to his further proceedings he repealed all the laws of Draco except those relating to bloodshed. With our imperfect knowledge of the earlier po- litical constitution of the people of Attica it is impossible to estimate with any certainty the magnitude of the change which Solon effected. Till it can be settled whether the division into four tribes was restricted to the Eupatridae, or included the Geomori and Deniiurgi, it is impossible to as- certain in what position tlie ruling class stood to the unenfranchised demus, and consequently how far the latter was affected by the legislation of
