Page:History of Greece Vol III.djvu/109

 ATHENS BEFORE SOLON. 93 until the days of Macedonian supremacy. Two centuries and a half later, when the orator JEschines argued the Athenian right to Amphipolis against Philip of Macedon, the legendary elements of the title were indeed put forward, but more in the way of preface or introduction to the substantial political grounds. 1 But in the year 600 u. c., the authority of the legend was more deep-seated and operative, and adequate by itself to determine a favorable verdict. In addition to the conquest of Salamis, Solon increased his reputation by espousing the cause of the Delphian temple against the extortionate proceedings of the inhabitants of Kirrha, of which more will be said in a coming chapter ; and the favor of the oracle was probably not without its effect in procuring for him that encouraging prophecy with which his legislative career opened. It is on the occasion of Solon's legislation, that we obtain our first glimpse unfortunately, but a glimpse of the actual state of Attica and its inhabitants. It is a sad and repulsive picture, presenting to us political discord and private suffering combined. Violent dissensions prevailed among the inhabitants of Attica, who were separated into three factions, the pedieis, or men of the plain, comprising Athens, Eleusis, and the neighboring terri- tory, among whom the greatest number of rich families were included ; the mountaineers in the east and north of Attica, called diakrii, who were on the whole the poorest party ; and the pa- ralii in the southern portion of Attica, from sea to sea, whose means and social position were intermediate between the two. 2 Upon what particular points these intestine disputes turned we are not distinctly informed ; they were not, however, peculiar to the period immediately preceding the archontate of Solon ; they had prevailed before, and they reappear afterwards prior to the deme of Mclite (Harpokrat. ad v), which forme.l a portion of the city of Athens. the pcdicis as representing the oligarchical tendency, and the diakrii as rep- resenting the dcmocratical, is not quite accr rate when applied to the days of Solon. Democratical pretensions, as such, can hardly be said to hava then existed.
 * JEschin. Fals. Legat. p. 250, c. 14.
 * Plutarch, Solon, c. 13. The language of Plutarch, in which he talks of