860 SOLON. Solon. The opinion of Niebuhr {Hist, of Rome, vol. i. note 1017, vol. ii. p. 304), which is sup- ported b)' Mr. Maiden {Library of Useful Know- ledge^ History of Rome, p. 144), was, that the division into phylae, phratriae, and genea, was restricted to the Eupatridae. All analogy confirms this view, which certainly is not opposed by more numerous or authentic testimonies on the part of ancient writers than are the universally acknow- ledged views of Niebuhr with respect to the Roman curiae and tribes. If it be the correct one, the demus in Attica must have been destitute of any recognized political organization, and must have profited by the legislation of Solon in very much the same way as the plebs at Rome did by that of Servius TuUius. The distinguishing feature of the constitution of Solon was the introduction of the timocratic principle. The title of citizens to the honours and offices of the state was regulated (at least in part) not by their nobility of birth, but by their wealth. All the citizens were distributed into four classes. (If the tribes included only the Eupatridae, it will be a mistake to speak of these classes as divisions of the citizens of the tribes ; they must have been divisions in which the Eupa- trid tribes and the demus were blended, just as the patricians and plebeians were in the classes and centuries of Servius Tullius.) The first class consisted of those who had an annual income of at least .500 medimni of dry or liquid produce (equi- valent to 500 drachmae, amedimnus being reckoned at a drachma, Plut. Sol. 23), and were called Pentacosiomedimni. The second class consisted of those whose incomes ranged between 300 and 500 medimni or drachmae, and were called Hippeis ('iTnrer? or 'Itttt^s), from their being able to keep a horse, and bound to perform military service as cavalry. The third class consisted of those whose incomes varied between 200 and 300 medimni or drachmae (see Grote, I.e. vol. iii. p. 157, note, for reasons for rejecting Bockh's estimate of the lowest pecuniary qualification of the third class at 150 drachmae), and were termed Zeugitae (Zeirytrot). The fourth class included all whose property fell short of 200 medimni or drachmae. Plutarch {Sol. 18) says that this class bore the name of Tlietes. Grote {I.e. p. 158) questions whether that state- ment is strictly accurate. There is no doubt, however, that the census of the fourth class was called the Thetic census {@rTiK6v re'Aos). The first three classes were liable to direct taxation, in the form of a graduated income tax. The taxable capital of a member of the first class was estimated at twelve times his yearly income, whatever that was. The taxable capital of a member of the second class was estimated at ten times his yearly income ; and that of one of the third class at five times his yearly income. Thus upon any occasion on which it became necessary to levy a direct tax, it was assessed at a certain per centage on the taxable capital of each. It is not correct, however, to say that the taxable property of one of the pentacosiomedimni was estimated at 6000 drachmae. It was at least that, but it might be more. In like manner, the taxable capital of one of the Hippeis might range from 3000 to 5000 drachmae, and so on. (Bockh, Public Economy of Athens, b. iv. ch. v.; Grote, I.e. p. 156). A direct tax, however, was an extraordinary, and not an annual payment. The fourth class were exempt from SOLON. direct taxes, but of course they, as well as the rest, were liable to indirect taxes. To Solon was ascribed the institution of the $ovTJ, or deliberative assembly of Four Hundred. Probably he did no more than modify the consti- tution of an earlier assembly of the same kind (Diet, of Antiq. art. Boule.) Plutarch (Sol. 19) says that the four hundred members of the Boule were elected {tmKe^dfxevos perhaps implies an election by the popular assembly), one hundred from each of the four tribes. It is worth noting that this is the only direct statement that we have about the Boule of Solon's time. It must be settled whether the the Boule is an dpxri, and if it is, whether it is one of the dpxo-i spoken of by Plutarch (c. 18), and Aristotle {Pol. ii. 9. § 2), before it can be affirmed that a member of any of the first three classes might belong to it, but not one of the fourth, or that it was elected by the popular assembly. Plutarch does not say that the members of the Boule were appointed only for a year, or that they must be above thirty years of age. In fact we know nothing about the Boule, but that its members were taken in equal propor- tions from the four genealogical tribes, and that the popular assembly could only entertain propo- sitions submitted to it by the Boule. Here again we feel greatly the want of more certain knowledge regarding those genealogical tribes, with the in- ternal organisation of which Solon does not seem to have interfered. We are strongly inclined to the opinion that even Mr. Grote represents the Boule of Solon's constitution as a far less aristo- cratical assembly than it really was, and that in point of fact it was an exclusively Eupatrid body, closely analogous to the Roman senate under the constitution of Servius Tullius. The most au- thentic and valuable statement that we have re- specting the general nature of Solon's constitu- tional changes is that of Solon himself (ap. Plut. Sol. 18, Fragm. 4. ap. Bergk, I.e. p. 322), from which it is clear that nothing can be more erro- neous than to speak of Solon's institutions as being of a democratical character. To the demus he gave nothing more than a defensive power, suffi- cient to protect them from any tyrannous abuse on the part of the noble and wealthy classes, with whose prerogatives, in other respects, he did not interfere (Arf^c^ ixiv yap edwKa toctov Kparos oaov eirapKuu, Tifj.i}s out' d^eAcof ovt eiropi^afx^vos ' oi S' eJxov dvuajiiiv Koi xP'jV""'* ^(rav dyr}Tol, Kal Toh €(ppaadiJ.r]P ixr)Beu dsiKes ^x^iv). Accord- ing to the view commonly taken of the four tribes, there seems no reason why a large proportion of the Boule might not have been members of the demus, for it is not credible that the Attic demus was entirely included in the lowest class, and if (according to the common view) the Boule was elected by the ecclesia, where the fourth class would be the most numerous, it seems that the result must almost necessarily have been, that the Boule should be little more than the exponent of the feelings and will of the demus. In the most moderate view of the case the constitution and working of such an assembly must have been a large infraction of the previous power and prero- gatives of the Eupatrids, and seems equally incon- sistent with the passage of Solon quoted above, and with the statement of Plutarch {Sol. 19) that the Boule was designed as a check upon the demus. Both these statements, and all that we learn of the
