Comparison of Solon and Publicola

Thus did Solon enhance the fame of Publicola. And Publicola, too, in his political activities, enhanced the fame of Solon, by making him the fairest of examples for one who was arranging a democracy. For he took away the arrogant powers of the consulship and made it gracious and acceptable to all, and he adopted many of Solon’s laws. For instance, he put the appointment of their rulers in the power of the people, and gave defendants the right of appealing to the people, as Solon to the jurors. He did not, indeed, create a new senate, as Solon did, but he increased the one already existing to almost double its numbers.

And his appointment of quaestors over the public moneys mad a like origin. Its purpose was that the consul, if a worthy officer, might not be without leisure for his more important duties, and, if unworthy, might not have greater opportunities for injustice by having both the administration and the treasury in his hands. Hatred of tyranny was more intense in Publicola than in Solon. For in case any one attempted to usurp the power, by Solon’s law he could be punished only after conviction, whereas Publicola made it lawful to kill him before any trial.

Moreover, though Solon rightly and justly plumes himself on rejecting absolute power even when circumstances offered it to him and his fellow-citizens were willing that he should take it, it redounds no less to the honour of Publicola that, when he had received a tyrannical power, he made it more democratic, and did not use even the prerogatives which were his by right of possession. And of the wisdom of such a course Solon seems to have been conscious even before Publicola, when he says[*](Fragment 6 (Bergk); cf. Aristotle, Const. of Athens, xii. 2. ) that a people

1. then will yield the best obedience to its guides
2. When it is neither humoured nor oppressed too much.

Peculiar to Solon was his remission of debts, and by this means especially he confirmed the liberties of the citizens. For equality under the laws is of no avail if the poor are robbed of it by their debts. Nay, in the very places where they are supposed to exercise their liberties most, there they are most in subjection to the rich, since in the courts of justice, the offices of state, and in public debates, they are under their orders and do them service.

And what is of greater moment here, though sedition always follows an abolition of debts, in this case alone, by employing opportunity, as it were, a dangerous but powerful medicine, Solon actually put an end to the sedition that was already rife, for his own virtue and high repute prevailed over the ill-repute and odium of the measure.

As regards their political careers in general, Solon’s was more brilliant in the beginning. For he led the way and followed no man, and it was alone and without colleagues that he effected the most and greatest of his public measures. But in the ending, the other was more fortunate and enviable.