“Cleisthenes reforms gave the poor more rights than Solon had done.” To what extent do you agree with this opinion?
I think that Cleisthenes did give the poor more rights than Solon did. He went further than Solon did and reduced the gap between the poor and the wealthy by creating new demes based upon the area in which you lived rather than who your family were.
Cleisthenes had gained power by promising to give the poor more power, in order to weaken his rival, Isagoras’ support in the political areas. This allowed him to have the backing of the majority of the Athenian citizens, as they were mostly poor. However, it also meant that he had to follow through with his promise otherwise he would have the citizens against him and his regime. In order to make sure that no one else could seize tyrannical power, new cults and military functions increased the unity of the new tribe. The loyalty of the new tribes was now to Attica and not to the noble families as they were grouped into three areas of Attica. The basis of the Boule was strengthened making it more difficult for ambitious tyrants to take power. Breaking up the demes broke the power of the nobles and the old ionic tribes they had dominated. Also, the Boule of 500 became open to all over 30, except thetes and was most likely selected by lot which gave no advantage to the aristocracy. They served for one year and reappointment was allowed once but not in consecutive years making it hard for individuals to dominate. The nobles had reduced power of patronage when citizenship of valid males were admitted at 18. The Strategoi were directly elected by the people, yearly and they tended to come from noble or wealthy background. There were 10 of them, one from each tribe and were eligible for another election the next year but were held accountable to the people rather than to an area or faction. When ostracism was introduced, it gave the potential for political leaders to be exiled for 10 years by vote of the people, however 6000 votes were needed to ostracise them. This was another weapon against tyranny and made all leaders accountable to the people, so they had to look at the interest of everyone rather than just the rich. Local governments were created which reduced the power of the nobles over local affairs. This also provided opportunity for political experience which gave the poorer citizens greater confidence and expertise at political levels and reduced aristocratic power nationally. However, Cleisthenes could not have implemented any of his reforms without Solon laying the groundwork.
Solon began with seisachtheia, which gave a fresh start, economically to the poor. Farmers were allowed to own their land and Solon established a principle that no Athenian could be legally forced to work for another. However, the land was not redistributed as the poor demanded so it did not address the underlying economic problem. It only provided a temporary solution from poverty and made loans harder to get as the poor had to security, as they would pre-seisachtheia, offer themselves and their family up as security and as they could never pay back the loans, they would end up in a debt bondage to the noble family who presided over that piece of land. Seisachtheia also abolished horoi, resulting in a cancellation of the poor’s dependency on the nobles. Solon established a clear distinction between citizens and slaves which provided an economic basis for the creation of new classes with the rights of thetes to attend assembly. The justice system put the poor less at the mercy of the whims of the nobles, which in turn gave them more power and allowed them to not be dependent on the wealthy. The membership of the archons and Areopagus stayed the same, but the opportunity to move up the social classes was possible. Any political duties and opportunities were based upon agricultural wealth rather than birth, so if you were not noble but produced olives, which were used for almost everything in Attica, then you would have more political power than a noble. However, the problems with archons and the likelihood of tyranny were not dealt with. The power was in the hands of 3 rival groups who all sought to control leadership in Athens. The introduction of third party redress enabled any citizen to take legal action on behalf of someone who was wronged. This gave the poor greater access to the legal system, which gave then experience in the judicial system. The right of appeal against decisions of archons established trail in front of their peers and checking the power of officials meant that the magistrates were no longer infallible and could be held to account in front of the people. This was seen as very important as they had to abide by what the people wanted, instead of what they wanted the outcome to be. Solon abolished Draco’s code, the death penalty for every crime, except those on homicide, publication of new, fairer, less arbitrary laws with more appropriate punishments on the kurbeis in the town centre. Solon, however, did not deal with the fact that the main power was still in the hands of the nobles who exerted their influence through their clans. He aimed to mediate between the rich and poor, remove the threat of tyranny and establish Eunomia by giving the moor more political legal rights, but not equality.
To conclude, Cleisthenes was more successful in giving the poor more rights than Solon. He reduced the power of the nobles, which in turn amplified the power of the poor and enabled them to have more freedom within Attica. His reforms for the poor also helped the rest of Athens, in that there was more unity between the citizens as they were divided up as areas in Athens rather than by family. This also meant that those families, who had a lot of sway within Athens as a whole, were only really able to influence their tribe.
By Sushil Bhogal 12H