The Social, Political and Economic Situation in Athens

Archaic Greece
Student Name
Course
Instructor
Date
Question: What was Solon trying to achieve with his reforms? How do they reflect the social, political and economic situation in Athens?
Introduction
Reforms are an effective way of restructuring enterprises and systems to assist in attaining long-term objectives. They are the means of improving or amending what is wrong, unsatisfactory, and corrupt. In Athens, the emergence of Solon was a major change on both the political, social, and economic levels. The ideas Solon put forward through his writings helped move Athens from the oppression of dictators to another reality of a moderate democratic form. The Athenian lawgiver brought about a new constitution and a political dispensation for Athens. The changes granted several political, economic, and civil rights to the citizens who had remained disenfranchised. The prevailing laws were not enough as the hoplite power increased, and so did the threat of tyrant. However, in 594, the Athenians entrusted Solon to compromise a city-state divided based on different political opinions. The nobility was keen to maintain its power but at the same time willing to compromise. The poor peasants wanted their debt written off, the release from debt-induced slavery, and the retribution of land. Solon was aware of the danger unless he could bring a compromise between the nobility and the rest of the population. The legacy of Solon in Athens is evident. He was an opponent of tyranny and a moderate politician with a heart for both the rich and the poor. The combination allowed Solon to become a radical reformer.[Sagstetter, Kelcy. Solon of Athens: The man, the myth, the tyrant?. University of Pennsylvania, 2013.] [Ibid] [Duplouy, Alain. "The So-Called Solonian Property Classes: Citizenship in Archaic Athens." Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales-English Edition 69, no. 3 (2014): 409-439.]
The Debt Problem
Athens was experiencing a period of economic crisis. In particular, land ownership was problematic because it was concentrated in the hand of a few aristocracy. A majority of the citizens survived as dependents (hektemoroi) to those with the land. The hektemoroi paid out 1/6th of their harvest to the landowners. When the harvest was poor, the farmers did not survive. To cater to their families, the laborers had to put up their bodies as collateral so that they could borrow from their employers. It was challenging to repay the loans. The interest rates were very high, and also, the poor farmers were living on less than 5/6th of the whole produce. Failure to pay the debt forced them into slavery. Social inequalities escalated because of the increasing debt for the poor workers. The aristocratic landowners became wealthier while the poor farmers continued to sink in debt. The majority of the population was in debt, with the poor living on the starvation line. Such a huge divide destroyed the social fabric and was a recipe for a violent social response. Aristotle notes that the disparity between the rich and the poor had peaked. The creditors were ruthless in forcing the people to sell even their children.[Gallant, Thomas W. "Agricultural systems, land tenure, and the reforms of Solon." Annual of the British Sch...