Solon of Athens

In their pleadings Against Timarchos and On the false embassy, Aeschines and Demosthenes both evoke a statue of Solon erected on the agora of Salamis which would show the legislator with his hand inside his cloak, a gesture indicating his moderation when he spoke in public. The controversy about this representation has already been analysed in order to deepen various questions such as the conflict between the two speakers, our knowledge regarding Solon, the history of the Greek statuary or the reception of the past in Antiquity. The quarrel can be reinterrogated thanks to the heuristic tool of the truth-telling mechanism, used here in the sense of all the procedures, arguments and rhetorical figures that allow litigants to claim the truth. Then, the statue is a privileged means for both Aeschines and Demosthenes to put forward the direct knowledge that the jurors have of the facts. It is a point of tension from which one can examine the articulation between sight and knowledge in Classical Athens.

El proyecto eunómico de Solón, plasmado en sus reformas normativas, pero ya expresado en líneas generales en su poesía, responde a un cuestionamiento “teórico” de la estructura de la pólis griega que, enredada en un planteamiento hegemónico y unilateral, se veía abocada a una ruta tiránica clara. La fenomenología política soloniana, al poner el acento en el carácter de conjunto de la pólis, supuso un primer paso, aunque no desde luego el último, para el reconocimiento jurídico de secciones de la ciudadanía ateniense distintas del grupo hegemónico. Con las reformas solonianas, destinadas a hacer justicia a la parte olvidada pero no a igualarla, Atenas dio sus primeros pasos para convertirse en el núcleo cultural de la civilización griega. La isonomía, en cuanto programa constitutivo de la pólis griega, aparece aquí dependiente de un particular acto “teórico” que, desde una posición atópica respecto de las partes, es capaz de hacerlas comparecer como tales, como una estructura conflictivo-relacional. Los griegos vincularon así la “universalidad” con la “theoría”, mostrando el acto teórico-práctico de la legislación como el único garante del mantenimiento de la pólis mediante un reconocimiento de aquellas partes que, contribuyendo a la pólis, se veían aplastadas por las partes privilegiadas que, de ese modo, perdían la posición de privilegio al no poder sostenerse en las otras. Se entiende así que el proyecto político igualitario de la Ilustración haya fijado su mirada en la edad antigua, reclamándose imaginariamente herederos directos de la civlización griega y de sus “ideales”. Aunque el proyecto griego no sea de arranque ni mucho menos igualitario, es cierto que el gesto que lo caracteriza, el reconocimiento del nómos, conlleva unos resultados igualitarios que justifican la voluntad de filiación ilustrada. De este modo, la “resistencia a la tiranía” moderna, que plantea la necesidad de detener la inercia de la formación de hegemonías mediante un aparato coactivo-legal que disuelva los focos de desigualdad, puede reconocerse en los planteamientos eunómicos de Solón y, más en general, en los gestos de reconocimiento global que se producen en la cultura griega, culminando en las monumentales obras de Platón y Aristóteles.

The paper (accessible here too: http://hdl.handle.net/10889/14833) offers an interpretation of Solon's citizenship law (Plu. Sol. 24.4), focusing on its importance (the first of its kind) and its (occasionally misunderstood) meaning. Solon's law restricted the bestowal of Athenian citizenship rights only to the perpetual exiles and those who came to Athens with their entire family to practise a trade. Thereby Solon wished to limit transient settlement and labour in Attica in the early sixth century BC, thus providing for political and economic stability. The clarification of both the law's meaning and Solon's intentions is necessary, given the past and recent problematic readings of Plutarch's text.

The book tells the story of the Athenian elite between 600 and 400 BCE on the basis of the imagery on the luxury pottery from which the wealthy drank at their banquets. The statistical evaluation of more than 6,000 representations lend insight into the lives of the elite as horse owners, athletes, and revellers. The image analysis is prefaced by a cultural historical section that describes the history and socio-economics of the elite.

Das Buch erzählt die Geschichte der Elite Athens zwischen 600 und 400 v. Chr. anhand der Bilder auf der Luxuskeramik, aus der die Reichen bei ihren Festen tranken. Über 6000 ausgewertete Darstellungen liefern Erkenntnisse über das Leben der Elite als Pferdehalter, Athleten und Bankettgesellschaft. Der Bildanalyse ist ein kulturgeschichtlicher Teil vorangestellt ist, der die Elite über die Historie und sozioökonomische Aspekte definiert.

Plutarch is universally acknowledged as an acclaimed biographer and philosopher; yet, one can also describe him as a historian, in the sense that he preserves considerable information and unique testimonia of both historical nature and political significance, whilst narrating the lives of eminent personalities of antiquity. The present paper explores Plutarch's role as a (political) historian, as he registers the phenomenon of democracy in ancient Athens, from its birth to its culmination (and beyond). To this end, selected passages from Plutarch's Lives are closely read, in an attempt to evince Plutarch's systematic engagement with the political history of Athens, from the mythical figure of Theseus down to Ephialtes, Pericles, and even Phocion. The analysis of these texts demonstrates the many, different ways in which Plutarch invaluably enriches our knowledge regarding the political history of the city of Athens.

Collected and translated from Ancient Greek into Turkish with an introduction, notes, glossary, and indices, an anthology of Archaic Greek Poetry to exemplify the archaic aesthetic, including Homeric Hymns, Archilochus, Callinus, Semonides, Tyrtaeus, Hipponax, Mimnermus, Solon, Theognis, Alcman, Stesichorus, Ibycus, Sappho, Alcaeus, Sappho or Alcaeus, Anacreon, Simonides, Korinna, Praxilla, Carmina Popularia, Carmina Convivalia, Bacchylides, and Pindar.

******************************************************************************************

Bu kitap bir şiir antolojisidir, sözcüğün Yunancadaki anlamıyla şiirin bir “çiçek-dermesi”dir. Homerosçu İlahiler’in huşu veren buhuru, Arkhilokhos, Semonides ve Hipponaks’ın taşlamalarının keskin aromasıyla karışır; Kallinos ve Tyrtaios’un askeri teşviklerinden heyecanlanan okur, Solon’un yahut Ksenophanes’in bilge dizelerinin ferahlatıcı deminde soluklanır. Theognis’in kadim sofralarında, aşk hasretiyle kavrulan Mimnermos, Sappho, Alkaios ve Anakreon’un rayihaları yarışır. Bu bir demet çiçeğe kulak verenler Alkman, Stesikhoros ve Ibykos’un anlattığı mitlerin kokusundan sarhoş olur. Simonides yeğeni Bakkhylides’le birlikte Keos’un ıtırlarını sunarken, Pindaros Thebai’ın geniş düzlüklerinin eşsiz goncalarıyla rakip olur onlara. Korinna ve Praksilla’nın tenlerinde kadınca sedalar tüter ve daha nice isimsiz şair kendi kokularıyla temsil edilirler. 2750 yıl önceden 300 yılı aşkın süre boyunca kokularla Yunan dünyasında bir seyahattir Arkaik Yunan Şiiri!

Ebat: 13.5 x 21 cm
Sayfa Sayısı: 592
ISBN: 978-975-08-4132-3
Fiyatı: 42 TL
Kâzım Taşkent Klasik Yapıtlar Serisi 98

Nessuno più di Aristotele ha studiato la democrazia ateniese. Di quella che è stata la forma storica più rilevante dell’idea democratica Aristotele ha voluto comprendere l’evoluzione, la storia: perciò ha pensato il confronto, in prospettiva diacronica, delle manifestazioni dell’idea democratica che giudicava le più significative e intellegibili della storia ateniese. A guidare la ricerca aristotelica sulla democrazia ateniese è un assunto rilevante del suo pensiero politico: ogni costituzione (politeia, nel suo linguaggio) è conoscibile attraverso la concezione che esprime riguardo a «ciò che è giusto». È l’idea (eidos) della giustizia, anzi della giustizia come uguaglianza, a definire il carattere di un regime politico. Aristotele ha cercato l’idea democratica prioritariamente nella forma di volta in volta assunta dal dispositivo della cittadinanza. Nel caso della democrazia ateniese, l’evoluzione viene seguita dalla fase dell’emergenza dell’idea di cittadinanza democratica, agli inizi del VI secolo, fino a quando le regole stabilite rispetto alla definizione del gruppo dei cittadini e delle loro spettanze hanno ricevuto una forma stabile. Un ciclo compiutosi nel corso del secolo e mezzo che separa i provvedimenti adottati in materia di cittadinanza da Solone e da Pericle.

Una de las figuras históricas más atractivas de la Grecia Arcaica es, sin duda, la de Solón. Miembro de una de las familias más distinguidas de Atenas, dedicó buena parte de su vida a limitar los excesos de los aristócratas, a introducir una serie de reformas para garantizar los derechos y obligaciones de sus conciudadanos y a elaborar una legislación para impedir que los poderosos pudiesen cometer en el futuro los desmanes que habían llevado a la ciudad de Atenas al borde del desastre. Solón se nos presenta, además, con voz propia, puesto que a su importante labor política y legislativa se añade su condición de primer poeta ateniense del que tenemos noticia.
La historia de Solón es la de un hombre a quien, a pesar de habérsele ofrecido explicíta e implícitamente el poder absoluto, la tiranía, sabe renunciar a ella tanto por responsabilidad moral cuanto por ahorrar sufrimientos a su patria y es también la del individuo que tiene que sobrellevar, una vez que abandona la política, la incomprensión que sus mectidas provocaron en sus contemporáneos. No obstante, la posteridad le recompensó elevándole a la categoría de Sabio y, al integrarlo dentro del grupo de los Siete Sabios, le convirtió en paradigma de moderación, de mesura y de justicia; con ello, su figura se proyectó más allá de su propio periodo histórico, sirviendo como ejemplo y modelo durante los siglos venideros. Este libro, que nos ofrece una visión integral de Solón, como político activo en la Atenas de su tiempo y como intelectual preocupado por los males de la sociedad, constituye un modelo de historia total conseguido a partir del estudio específico de una personalidad histórica de extraordinario interés.

Herodotus put forth in his work, the Histories, an explanation of the root causes of the conflict between the Greeks and the Persians. However, this war is only recorded in the last third of the book. The first two-thirds of the work is dedicated to Herodotus’ travels and insights into the various cultures and lands that he visited. Considered to be one of the first ethnographers, Herodotus devoted himself to studying both Greek and non-Greek cultures. Of particular note in his cultural studies is the pattern of fortune that he identifies among both Greeks and barbarians. This pattern of fortune and the divine is first set out in Solon’s visit to Croesus in book one.
Thomas Harrison states, “’Solonian’ ideas appear at times to be embedded in Herodotus’ narrative.” (Thomas Harrison, Divinity and History: the Religion of Herodotus, 52). The first example of Solonian thought is found in his visit to Croesus. In his visit, Solon explains to him what it means to be fortunate, laying out three ideas that definite fortune: the divine is jealous of human fortune, human fortune is unpredictable, and no man should be considered fortunate until he is dead, rather he is to be called lucky (Hdt. 1.32). This formula of fortune can be found later in Amasis and Polycrates (book 3) and Atrabanos and Xerxes (book 7). “The Histories are founded on the principle of the instability of human fortune.” Harrison states. (Divinity and History, 62).
In this paper, I will examine fortune which is first set forth by Solon and found later within the narrative. Using Thomas Harrison as a guide, I shall examine Herodotus’ use of Solonian fortune in order to extrapolate a theory of history that, I believe, Herodotus uses as a guide for his work This theory, founded upon Solonian philosophy, creates a narrative of history useful for explaining why the Greeks and the Persians went to war.

The law of hybris cited in classical Athenian texts and attributed to the lawgiver Solon was indeed a genuine Solonian law, rather than a classical enactment, and it was this law which introduced the system of third-party/volunteer prosecution and the appeal to the popular court which are amongst Solon's most celebrated reforms

The scholarship about specific ritual phrases of Oath, Curse and Invocation, has focused on their general structure. The aim of this paper is to examine specifically – in Archaic Age, but even in later texts – the centrality and the functionality of both the invocation and the physical contact with Gaea, considered as a primary and omnipresent entity, a strong and necessary basis and support of the perceivable reality, and in the end custodian of the lower world and of the definition and fulfillment of Justice in all its forms.

Wealth and indigence are variable and essentially subjective ideas, characterized by the historical, economic, social and cultural contexts in which they are employed. The examples drawn from the literary texts of ancient Greece confirm the assumption. In Homeric poems, for example, wealth is seen as a resource for increasing social status, achieving success on opponents, and consolidating power. With Hesiod, there is a change of perspective, since wealth is not only commensurate with land ownership, but also with the sudden gains from trade and maritime traffic. The poet approves the wealth, only if it is acquired legitimately in full respect of divine standards. From the VII century B.C. the elegiac and jambic poets emphasize the fact that there is no direct correspondence between belonging to the aristocratic class and the possession of great substances; surely enrichment has in any case become the main aspiration for those who intend to free themselves in any way from poverty. At the same time, Theognis, accepting the ideology of the most intransigent aristocrats, considers wealth in negative terms, since he thinks that it facilitates the rise of enterprising individuals or coming up from demos. While public opinion accepts the idea that plenty of goods is an absolute value, the wise men repeat the fallacy of this judgment. This dichotomy goes on to Hellenism, when the debate on accumulation of wealth and the positive value of poverty becomes commonplace, after being filtered out of Cynical and Epicurean thought and diffused by the diatribe.

Al nome di Teognide di Megara è legata l’unica ampia raccolta di poesia monodica arcaica e classica a noi giunta per tradizione diretta: un insieme di elegie per un totale di poco più di 1400 versi, ai quali si devono aggiungere, per tradizione indiretta, almeno altre 4 elegie monodistiche (non considerando altri versi di dubbia attribuzione). Il testimone più antico di questa raccolta è il cod. A (Parisin. Bibl. Nat. Suppl. Graec. 388), del X secolo, pubblicato nel 1815; nella cosiddetta elegia del "sigillo", collocata più o meno all’inizio della raccolta (vv. 19-26), esso presenta l’affermazione: «sono versi di Teognide il Megarese» (v. 22 sg.). Il cod. A appare diviso in due libri A e B, di cui il secondo scompare nei testimoni recenziori della tradizione manoscritta: oggi si ritiene che il libro B sia una selezione delle elegie erotiche, operata in età bizantina (IX-X sec. d. C.). Teognide è noto come autore di elegie, radunate in una raccolta scritta, almeno a partire dal tardo V secolo a. C.: suoi versi vengono citati o imitati da Ferecrate, Crizia il tiranno, Senofonte, e da Platone, che ne parla come di un autore ben conosciuto e stimato. Secondo la Suda (X sec. d. C.), Teognide è vissuto nel VI sec. a. C. e ha scritto elegie per un totale di 2800 versi, come ammaestramenti morali per il suo giovane amante Cirno. È solo a metà del 1500 che si notano dei difetti nella raccolta di Teognide: alcune elegie sono assegnate dalla tradizione indiretta ad altri autori (Tirteo, Mimnermo, Solone), un certo numero di poesie è stranamente ripetuto due volte nella raccolta, e il disordine tematico regna ovunque. Si comincia dunque a dubitare che quanto tramandato sotto il nome di Teognide sia effettivamente tutto suo, e nasce la moderna Questione teognidea. La raccolta viene interpretata come un corpus, dal momento che non tutte le poesie possono essere del poeta Teognide, e il problema cui si cerca a lungo di dare risposta (principalmente nel XIX e nel XX secolo) è quello di come questo corpus si sia costituito: la risposta che generalmente viene data è che il corpus teognideo è un’antologia, formata per aggregazione di due, o tre, o quattro, oppure molteplici fonti, in un’epoca variamente identificata (le proposte vanno dallo scorcio del VI sec. a. C. alla tarda età bizantina). Sono state però individuate anche sequenze di elegie che devono ricondursi alle recitazioni simposiali dell’età greca arcaica: esse mostrano che la costituzione di almeno buona parte del corpus si deve ad un apporto simposiale molto antico, e possono far interpretare l’intero corpus come una raccolta nata dalla registrazione scritta di varie elegie eseguite oralmente nei simposi.
Per ricevere il libro, inviare un'email a giuliocolesanti@libero.it
To take the book, send an email to giuliocolesanti@libero.it

Este libro explora la capacidad decisoria del pueblo (dêmos) en la asamblea ateniense y el modo en que esta subjetivación política des-inviste de autoridad a todo poder que no sea el de la propia reunión de la multitud ciudadana indiferenciada. La convicción que lo guía radica en asumir positivamente la anarquía de la democracia en tanto que efecto de la soberanía del pueblo como sujeto político. El análisis que se realiza intenta dar cuenta de la singularidad de esta actuación política del  pueblo ateniense.
El recorrido que proponemos no puede desplegarse más que en el cruce de las miradas de los antiguos con las ideas contemporáneas sobre la política y el sujeto, y, en este contexto, las posibles coincidencias entre demokratía y populismo como modos anárquicos de acción popular. No es ajena a la época actual la interrogación sobre qué es lo que da legitimidad a un sistema político. Se habla, por ejemplo, de democracia institucional o constitucional o de democracia plebiscitaria o populista. ¿Qué pueblo es el que da legitimidad a una o a otra? ¿Uno se apega a la ley mientras que el otro se configura en su articulación con un líder? La cuestión estriba en la magnífica polisemia del término pueblo, que denomina tanto a la totalidad de la comunidad como a la parte plebeya de la misma. La democracia deviene anárquica en la medida en que el pueblo como sujeto político opera sobre este entresijo, poniendo de relieve su capacidad igualitaria como fuerza no controlada ni dominada, de manera que la parte plebeya se funde con la totalidad comunitaria. La democracia es el acto soberano del pueblo, que puede reconfigurarla con cada decisión en que manifiesta su  fuerza. Tal es el argumento que este libro quiere invitar a pensar, reivindicando lo que el análisis histórico de la política antigua tiene de pensamiento político en el presente.

This book explores the decision-making capacity of the people (dēmos) in the Athenian assembly and the way in which this political subjectivation cut off the authority to all power other than that of the very meeting of the undifferentiated citizen crowd. The conviction that guides it lies in positively assuming the anarchy of democracy as an effect of the sovereignty of the people as a political subject. The analysis attempts to account for the uniqueness of this political action of the Athenian people.
The agenda we propose cannot be displayed except in the crossroads of the ancient political imaginary with contemporary views about politics and the subject, and, in this framework, the possible coincidences between dēmokratia and populism as anarchic modes of popular action. The question of what gives legitimacy to a political system is a crucial point at present. For example, it is talked about institutional/constitutional democracy or about plebiscitary/populist democracy. What people give legitimacy to one or the other? Does one adhere to the law while the other is configured in its relation to a leader? The question lies in the magnificent polysemy of the term “people”, which designates both the totality of the community and the plebeian part of it. Democracy becomes anarchic to the extent that the people as a political subject operate on this intricacy, highlighting the egalitarian capacity as a force neither controlled nor dominated, so that the plebeian part merges with the entire community. Democracy is the sovereign act of the people, which can reconfigure it with every decision in which the people expresses its strength. Such is the argument that this book wants to invite to think, claiming what the historical analysis of ancient politics has to offer to political thinkers in present times.

Herodotus’ work is best understood in connection with his contemporary philosophical movements and overall intellectual activity, especially in classical Athens. With his encyclopaedism and broad research interests, his anthropocentric view of science, and his passion for cultural anthropology, Herodotus comes close to the sophists and other versatile intellectuals of his time. The narration of didactic and exemplary stories, an emblematic component of Herodotean art, also owes something to the philosophical tales of the sophists, such as Prodicus, Protagoras, Antiphon, and Hippias, who composed reflective parables to represent in an aesthetic manner notions and syllogisms of ethics, cosmology, or social theory. Similarly, Herodotus’ novellas and anecdotes dramatize intellectual concepts, ideas and arguments that are important for the author’s philosophy of history and his view of human experience. In the most successful cases, the Herodotean stories encapsulate and illustrate the universal laws of history, the deeper forces which underlie historical evolution and condition the course of humanity.

This function will be examined through a series of examples drawn from more or less celebrated narratives of Herodotus’ oeuvre. The conversation of Solon and Croesus (1.30-33) juxtaposes the representatives of two opposed cultures with incompatible worldviews, somewhat like a sophistic agon. The history of humanity is hereby presented as a struggle between civilizations which are unable to comprehend each other. In parallel with this famous dispute, the confrontation of Greeks and Indians before King Darius (3.38) highlights the impossibility of mutual understanding between different cultures as the prime mover of the historical process. Thrasybulus’ riddling advice to Periander (5.92ζ-η), which echoes analogous wise formulations of Artabanus (7.10ε) and Solon (1.33), highlights the despotic structure of the cosmos; simultaneously, it reveals the hubristic desire of the powerful to replicate the cosmic order to which they are themselves subject. The final anecdote of Herodotus’ composition, Cyrus’ advice to his people (9.122), must be read together with the earlier narrative about the beginning of the Persians’ rise to world power (1.125-126). The two stories, in combination, establish the alternation of dominion and decline as a capital rule in the life of nations and reveal a central axiom of Herodotean thought, the circularity of history.

abstract – The aim of this paper is to ascertain what is worthy of mention (axiologon) in Aristotle's account of Solon of Athens in his Athenaion Politeia (5-13, 1). The section on Solon in the treaty is remarkably useful due to the quantity of the information, the quality of data passed down and the originality of the key to interpreting his reform. However, it is noteworthy that, although Aristotle knew almost all of Solon's laws, as shown by his composition of a work on his axones, he choose to include only some of the laws in Ath. Pol. Therefore, I will compare the account of Solon's reforms and laws in the treaty with Plutarch's Life of Solon, in order to examine the criteria that led to Aristotle's selection. For this purpose, I will present the laws in a synoptic way, according to the macro-area of Athenian law to which they pertain, namely that concerning private law, moral crimes, offences against the community and family law. I conclude that in the Ath. Pol. Aristotle selected the laws of Solon that pointed to a change or some features of discontinuity with the past in the structure of the constitution, in order to illustrate the ethos of Solon's politeia.

As politician and poet, Solon embodies a combination of societal roles that was not without parallel in the 7th and 6th centuries BCE (and existed still in some traditional societies of the 20th century AD).¹ But the hybrid was rare by the time of our earliest surviving comic productions in the mid-5th century, when men of state (like Cleon) were more likely to serve as targets for verbal artists (such as Aristophanes) rather than gain fame as composers of verse. The tragedian Sopho-cles (who served as stratēgos and proboulos) and the elegiac poet and dramatist Critias (a member of the oligarchic council of 411 BCE and one of the Thirty Tyrants in 404 BCE) are the only prominent blended-career types that come to mind. Thus it is not surprising that Solon came to be refracted on the Athenian comic stage in such a way that one particular aspect stood out, his activity as legislator (nomothetēs), while his poetic activity was hardly noticed. On the other hand, as this brief survey of the scattered relevant remains will show, Solon's poetic affiliations emerged in some important moments, as playwrights recognized a creative fellow-spirit. We need to consider, first of all, comedies in which " Solon " was a character. The fragments offer only tantalizing hints of this structural role, but what can be gleaned will help one understand the construction of social and political memory at key points in Athenian history. Next, we shall examine several citations of Solon by name in extant plays and fragments from all periods of comic production. While such passages add little to the biographical dossier, they do demonstrate how rhetorical and poetic habits collaborated to preserve Solon as a figure good to think – and play – with. Finally, this survey will attempt to show that, even when he is not overtly named in a surviving comedy, Solon's figure must have influenced audience responses. Solon most memorably trod the Athenian comic stage in what was to become the most famous of lost comedies, the Demes (Dēmoi) of Eupolis, a well-known rival of Aristophanes, none of whose works survives intact. Produced sometime

Resumen: El propósito del presente texto es subrayar que Solón es el cimiento de la filosofía arcaica ateniense y el abuelo de la filosofía moral clásica. El núcleo de mi argumento se apoya en el hecho de que pensamientos de Aristóteles acerca de la felicidad y la vida idónea, temas centrales de la ética, parecen haber sido profundamente influidos por Solón.
Abstract: The aim of this paper is to highlight that Solon is the cornerstone of Athenian archaic philosophy and the grandfather of classical moral philosophy. The core of my argument lies in the fact that Aristotle's thoughts about happiness and the best way of life-the main ethical issues-seems to have been deeply influenced by Solon.

in: Il mar nero 9, 2012-2018 (2019), 7-47

Thales of Miletos should be regarded, like his fellow 'Seven Sages' of Greece, first as a politician-statesman and only second as the founder of the Milesian school of philosophy. Around 600 BCE, oligarchic or tyrannical Greek city states confronted frequent staseis, political insurrections, in reaction to abuses by ruling elites. Wise men like Solon in Athens or Pittakos in Mytilene stepped in with reforms aimed at reducing social disparities and creating a politically active middle class. Thales and his student Anaximander promoted a cosmology aligned with these legislative reforms. Isonomia (equal rights), symmetry and equilibrium applied to nature, with the earth as the motionless center of the kosmos. Thales applied natural philosophy to the new city plan of Miletos (ca. 575–550 BCE), fitting houses and temples into a street grid oriented in accordance with the sun and winds. He enlarged the agora as the symbolic heart of the city state, and gave his co-citizens the advice " adorn yourself by taking a magistracy ". When the Persians pressed the Ionian cities in 546 BCE, Thales recommended that they unite into a federal state, with Teos as capital. When Thales died, he was buried in the agora of Miletos and venerated as a heroic city-founder. ----

This paper took some time to be printed and I still lack a pdf.... Due to its topicality I decided to make it accessible asap to promote discussion on the history of democracy and its currently endangered state. The achievements of enlightenment and international human rights are ruined by 0.00001% or so of humankind. This is simply perverse!

Spirit, Power and Axis of everything, in our mortal eyes there is Emptiness: for the truly complete in these empty ones is empty. The Moon, the Axis of everything in our world, is therefore empty for them, and SHOULD BE empty. // Дух, Сила и Ось всего, в смертных очах — Пустота: ибо истинно полное в них, пустых, пусто. Луна, Ось всего в нашем мире, для них посему и пуста, и ДОЛЖНА БЫТЬ пустой.

In questa voce bio-bliografica viene descritto l’aspetto filosofico-politico di Solone.
Noto come uno dei Sette Sapienti, nel legislatore si riscontra una concezione obiettiva
della legge, cioè scopre la legge naturale della vita in comune, sia sociale che politica.
Nell’Elegia delle Muse, il legislatore dà conto del suo modo di agire, assumendo su di sé la paternità e, con essa, la responsabilità delle sue azioni politiche. Anzi, il suo modo d’agire è totalmente trasfuso in una norma, che supera la sua personalità e la sua effimera vita, donandosi alla storia. Solone fu ispirato nella sua azione dal Nómos, cioè da una Norma riconosciuta obiettivamente da tutti. In particolare, il Nómos soloniano, oltre ad assorbire in sé la forza numinosa di Kratos quale elemento maschile, si immerge in Phiúsis, ovvero la natura dell’essere e del divenire, del micro e macrocosmo. E dalla Phiúsis, che è il diritto di natura, giustizia coerente nelle sue manifestazioni, elemento femminile ricettivo e quieto tanto quanto spietato e vindice, il Nómos riemerge come forza che serve per imporsi nella polis corrotta

The focus of this paper is on Solon's attitude towards wealth as can be extracted by his legislation and poems. The argument is that part of the rationale of Solon's legislation aimed at the regulation and check of the influence of wealth in the Athenian administration of justice and the emerging legal system of the polis. In this era of spreading monetisation, there was a conscious effort on the part of the Athenian lawgiver to place limits on the use of wealth and to make economic resources a positive feature, at the service of law and community, rather than the opposite. In the Solonian reforms we find traces of subsequent dominant characteristics of the Athenian legal system (such as amateurism and egalitarianism) which might offer new insights on the modern manifestations of inequality before the law.

In Comm. Bern. on Lucan 1, 97 the institution of the Athenian asylum is curiously attributed to Solon, while the mythographic and literary tradition on which the Bern scholium relies attributes it to the Heraclidae. It is therefore possible that Solon is a corruption of ’Ιόλαος or Iolaus. In fact, Iolaus was Hercules’ nephew and defender of his sons after the hero’s death, as appears, for example, in Euripides’ Heraclidae.

Scholars have assumed for a long time that Plutarch, writing from the mid first century to early second century AD, held a wholly negative view of democracy, and especially the radical Athenian variant. These scholars have not looked, however, at how and in which contexts Plutarch actually used the word δημοκρατία in his Parallel Lives and Moralia, and what sorts of institutions and ideals he attached to δημοκρατία as an actual, practiced form of government. Plutarch did not exclusively identify δημοκρατία with Athens, nor did he exclusively identify it with the famous radical form of democracy that Athens practiced in parts of the 5th and 4th century BC. When Plutarch discussed or characterized δημοκρατίαι, he did so in a broader sense than has been previously acknowledged, to discuss multiple different states, including non-Greek states, from very different periods of time and space, nor did he always speak negatively of δημοκρατία.