Seisachtheia (, from ÃÂõïõùý seiein, to shake, and á¼ÂÃÂøÿàachthos, burden, i.e. the relief of burdens) was a set of laws instituted by the Athenian lawmaker Solon (c. 638 BCâÂÂ558 BC) in order to rectify the widespread serfdom and slavery that had run rampant in Athens by the 6th century BCE, by debt relief.
Under the pre-existing legal status, according to the account of the Constitution of the Athenians attributed to Aristotle, debtors unable to repay their creditors would surrender their land to them, then becoming hektemoroi, i.e. serfs who cultivated what used to be their own land and gave one sixth of produce to their creditors.
Should the debt exceed the perceived value of the debtor's total assets, then the debtor and his family would become the creditor's slaves as well. The same would result if a man defaulted on a debt whose collateral was the debtor's personal freedom.
The seisachtheia laws immediately cancelled all outstanding debts, retroactively emancipated all Athenian previously enslaved debtors, reinstated all confiscated serf property to the hektemoroi, and forbade the use of personal freedom as collateral in all future debts.
The desire for socioeconomic balance manifested itself in legal developments that were made in pursuance of greater equality and balance between the rich and poor, whereby policies like the seisachtheia sought to strike that important balance. Nevertheless, controversies regarding the implementation of seemingly equality-achieving policies remained.
How the seisachtheia worked is the subject of academic dispute due to divisions of opinion between ancient scholars. Aristotle and Plutarch observed that the seisachtheia worked by âÂÂprohibiting all loans on the security of the debtorâÂÂs personâ and achieving âÂÂdisburdenmentâ by the âÂÂcancelling of debtsâÂÂ. On this understanding of seisachtheia, many debt slaves were freed and could keep the value that their purchased land carried. However, other ancient scholars, namely Androtion, reported that SolonâÂÂs seisachtheia had only reduced the value of the interest due to their reform of the currency. However, the credibility of AndrotionâÂÂs view has been the subject of criticism by modern scholars, because, in contrast with the widely accepted view propounded by Aristotle in âÂÂThe Constitution of the AtheniansâÂÂ, scholars have concluded that âÂÂthe only possible reasonâ for AndrotionâÂÂs view for disagreeing with AristotleâÂÂs view is due to âÂÂpolitical biasâ and to advance his âÂÂconservativeâ agenda in the face of fourth-century social revolution demanding the redistribution of land and cancellation of debts. P. Harding offers an alternative view to understanding AndrotionâÂÂs observations of seisachtheia, arguing that Androtion mistakenly applied âÂÂfourth-century economic conditions to sixth-century affairsâ such that it required making the unrealistic assumption that Athenians understood the sophisticated practical effects of currency reform in SolonâÂÂs time. Harding also rebuts the âÂÂconservative agendaâ argument because, since Athenian citizens in AndrotionâÂÂs time were already âÂÂclearly conservativeâ when it came to property rights, it was pointless to misreport seisachtheia as merely currency reform to trick Athenian citizens into thinking that the conservative approach to property rights was backed by SolonâÂÂs reforms because citizens would have supported the conservative approach either way.
There is also scepticism behind SolonâÂÂs motives in enacting the seisachtheia. By discharging all debts, all debt slaves were freed from slavery. This angered the upper-class landowners, especially those of the pentakosiomedimnoi class, who had lost their slaves as a result of the seisachtheia. Since the upper classes monopolised political power in Athens, going against their will would appear to spell disaster for SolonâÂÂs political advancement. On the surface, it would seem as though the enactment of the seisachtheia was a misstep in his political career, but Solon, in his poetry, states that: âÂÂSince by the force of law I won my ends And kept my promise. Equal laws I gave To evil and to good, with even hand Drawing straight justice for the lot of each.â AristotleâÂÂs observations reinforce SolonâÂÂs self-proclaimed goodwill, where Aristotle states that Solon âÂÂpreferred instead to incur the hostility of both parties by placing his honour and the general welfare above his personal aggrandisementâÂÂ. However, some, like the âÂÂpartisans of the popular partyâ who belong to the upper class, were sceptical of SolonâÂÂs supposed moral uprightness, raising the accusation that SolonâÂÂs âÂÂfriends stole a march on himâ or that Solon âÂÂhad a share in the fraud himselfâ by buying large amounts of land at a loss, and once the debt had been cancelled by seisachtheia, âÂÂthey became wealthyâÂÂ. Aristotle vouched for SolonâÂÂs character by arguing that, due to his âÂÂmoderate and public-spiritedâ nature, it is only logical to conclude that these accusations are âÂÂfalseâÂÂ. Likewise, Plutarch cited SolonâÂÂs âÂÂwell-known sacrifice of five talentsâÂÂ, or even fifteen talents by Polyzelus the RhodianâÂÂs account, as having âÂÂdissipatedâ the accusations of fraud.
However, Plutarch does recognise that SolonâÂÂs friends, namely Conon, Cleinias, and Hipponicus, became known as âÂÂchreocopidaeâ (or âÂÂdebt-cuttersâÂÂ) for their fraudulent acts. P. J. Rhodes notes that modern scholars have âÂÂplausibly suggestedâ that the story of SolonâÂÂs friends profiting from the seisachtheia was to âÂÂdiscredit those menâÂÂ. There are further grounds that the accusations levied against SolonâÂÂs friends are baseless, since vast expanses of land could not be purchased in such a short period given that Solonian Athens was a society âÂÂin which land changed hands with difficulty and coinage was not yet usedâÂÂ. It is also notable that Aristotle completely omits to mention the accusations launched against SolonâÂÂs friends.