Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T02:20:42.313Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Solon and the Megarian Question

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

A. French
A. French
Affiliation:
University of Adelaide
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The capture of Salamis from Megara in the sixth century B.C. can safely be said to mark a turning-point in Athenian development. Considerations both of economics and defence would lead one to expect the island to be a natural bone of contention between the two mainland cities, and hence for it to be controlled by the one which was temporarily stronger. The surprising thing is that in the early part of the sixth century the stronger should have been Athens.

We have, it is true, one piece of evidence which suggests that Athenian naval power and interests were already considerable in this period. This is the account, in Herodotus, Diogenes, and Strabo, of the struggle against Mytilene for Sigeion, a struggle terminated by the arbitration of Periander in favour of the Athenians. The causes and aims of the Athenian venture are a matter for speculation, but whether they went as traders, pirates, or settlers, or as all three, their going underlines the fact that there were in the Athenian community at the time a number of men who had invested their capital and were prepared to risk their lives in a distant naval venture: their successful opposition to the forces of Mytilene in its turn suggests that the naval strength at the disposal of the Athenians was correspondingly formidable. It is possible that the expedition began as a private venture, financed, directed, and executed by a band of interested Athenians without any official backing. In view of the position of Sigeion it seems most probable that the venture was connected with the flow of trade to and from the Pontus: Sigeion was perhaps the base at which friendly ships bound for Attica could find rest and refuge, and from which other ships coming from the straits could be raided with the object of diverting corn cargoes to the home market.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 77 , Issue 2 , November 1957 , pp. 238 - 246
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1957

Access options

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

References

1 Herod, v. 94–5. Diog. Laert. i. 74. Strabo 599 f. For the chronology of Herodotus's account see Page, , Sappho and Alcaeus, pp. 152–8Google Scholar. A fragment of an Attic vase found at Troy is dated to the late seventh century, and has been taken as corroborating the general truth of the story. See Bailey, B. L., ‘The Export of Attic Black-Figure Ware’, JHS lx, 1940, p. 62 Google Scholar.

2 Ἀθ. πολ. 8. 4.

3 Herod, v. 71. 2.

4 See B. L. Bailey, op. cit., Dunbabin, ‘The Western Greeks’. It would be interesting to know the effect of the loss of Salamis on the Megarian wool trade, but on this archaeology is silent.

5 Paus. i. 31. 2. See Seltman, , Athens, p. 11 Google Scholar.

6 Plut. Sol. 22. 1. .

7 Plut. Sol. 12. 2.

8 Thuc. i. 126. 5.

9 Herodotus (v. 71) preserves a tradition that action against Cylon was taken by the leaders of the naukraries. It is tempting to believe that this is a vague recollection of the opposition to a pro-Megarian interest in Athens by the ships' captains or owners.

10 It is notable that at the opening of the Peloponnesian War, the old issue of expelling the Alcmaeonidae was revived by Sparta, the political influence of this family being traditionally associated with a policy of opposition to the Peloponnesian states.

11 The chronology of the Megarian war is very confused in Plutarch, and other authorities (Herod, i. 59, Aristotle Ἀθ. πολ. 14) seem to refer only to the final victorious campaign. But Plutarch says specifically (ch. 9) that Solon himself defeated the Megarians, and implies that his was the origin of his influence at Athens: this episode must therefore be dated accordingly. At the same time he final conquest of Salamis is by agreement associated with Peisistratus who could not, by reason of age, have taken part in a campaign around, or before, 600 B.C. Since we are told that Megara recovered Salamis ( Plut., Solon 12 Google Scholar) we must conclude that Athens had captured it in the earlier episode.

12 Plut. Sol. 12. 2.

13 , Plut. Sol. 12. 3.

14 Plut. Sol. 12. 5–6.

15 Aristotle Ἀθ. πολ 13.4. .

16 Not all shepherds were landless. In the case of those who lived in the plains and simply grazed their sheep on the slopes, no conflict of interests, as between plain and hill, would arise. But the existence of this conflict suggests that the home, as well as the livelihood of many shepherds lay in the hills, i.e. that they had no share at all in that part of Attica best suited to growing their staple food, although some agriculture would be possible on mountain plots spared by erosion. It is a plausible suggestion that some of the mountain dwellers were descended from illegimate, hence landless, offspring. See Aristotle, Ἀθ. πολ. 13. 5.

17 For a detailed discussion of the ecological background see ‘The Economic Background to Solon's Reforms’, Class. Quart. vi Google Scholar.

18 Ibid.

19 No doubt the main purpose of the ban was simply to prevent the export of grain badly needed in Attica: it is to be noted that the consequent throwing of additional grain upon the home market could have the effect of depressing grain prices, unless further controls were applied, and hence of actually discouraging the expansion of grain production. The fact that the ban was a general one and not specifically a ban on grain export, would suggest that one of its purposes was to influence the pattern of agricultural production in Attica: the effect on the olive industry would be favourable, on the wine industry unfavourable if the level of production was above the capacity of the home market to absorb its output. The effect on the shippers would be, at least temporarily, unfavourable since they would lose the grain export trade at the same time as Solon's other measures were depressing the slave trade. Thus the immediate result of the ban would be to make more grain available for home consumption by a temporary sacrifice of commercial interests: its long-term effects would depend on other factors, including the movement of grain prices in Attica.

20 Plut. Sol. 23. 3 .

21 In the fifth century there were at least three sets of officials primarily engaged on the control of retail food prices in Attica, the .

22 Plut. Sol. 23. 3.

23 The lot of wool producers (and craftsmen) would be actually improved to the extent that there would be increased demand for their products: the prosperity of one section of a community can hardly fail to have some beneficial effect on its other members. But the benefit that they would reap as producers would be far out weighed by their losses as consumers, for expenditure on cereals would account for a high percentage of their budget. Until production could be expanded, and the common pool of goods and services increased, the share in that pool of wool and secondary producers must diminish as the share of grain producers increased.