Resultados generales de la prueba: pre – test grupo experimental

This is the fragment where Solon's aristocratic ideals, consequent upon his birth, surface in the most evident way. Paederastic love was a well known component o f the aristocratic way o f life (cf. fr. 16). As to horses, the connection o f horsemanship and rich classes is another fact: as remarked by A rist. Pol. 1289b35-8, one o f the criteria providing distinction in wealth among the yyojpipoL was LTTTroTpo4)La, since t o u t o yap où pdbiov pf] 'ïïXouToùvTas' TTOLeLv SioTTep e irl Twy dpxaiw v ô a a iç iroXeoiv év t o î ç LTTTTOLÇ f | ôùvapLÇ f ) v , o X iya p xio i irapd t o ù t o l ç fjoav (see also 1 3 2 1 a 5 -ll; besides Thuc. 6.12.2; Xen. Hipparch. 1.9-12, Isae. 5.43, Isoc. 6.55 and 16.33); the fa m ily o f Philaidai, claim ing to descend fro m A ja x, were given the epithet TeT0pLiTTroTp6({x)ç (cf. Hdt. 6.35.1), and the names o f many Athenian aristocrats included the root ltttt- (cf. A r.

N ub. 60-7). The second richest class o f Solon's system, the lirire îç , were so called because they were expected to serve as cavalry in the army and be able to equip themselves w ith horses, and the highest class, the pentakosiomedimnoi, had to serve also in the same corps (cf. Spence 1993, 180f.). A fte r all, later, in order to reduce the m ilitary relevance o f the landowners and to lim it the power o f the aristocrats, both Hippias and the post-Peisistratean democracy adopted at different levels the device o f restricting the role o f the Athenian cavalry in war actions (cf. Anderson 1961, 128-130); Regarding the passion fo r hunting w ith dogs and horses it was a typical sport o f w e ll-o ff people, see e.g. PI. Ly. 205c, 211d-e, and cf. Méautis 1972, 37-9, L ilja l9 7 6 , 42, Stupperich 1977, 177.

The themes o f the fragment are very traditional, yet the personal m ark o f Solon's ideology can be seen through a comparison w ith a close parallel to Solon's fragment:

Hom.Hym n Dem. 486-9 p e y ’ ôX ^l o s o v t l v’ eKeti/ai (Persephone and Demeter)

iTpo(f)poyéüas“ (|)iXwyTai ... a li|ja ôé ol iré pirouaiy ê(|)éoTioy èç péya ôwpa flXoÙToy,

os dyôpwTTOLÇ d4>€yos ôyqTOLOL SiScooiy, a text on the blessed condition o f the

initiated, whose term inology is also paralleled in fr. 18 (see Introd.). A lth ough the frequency o f the topos o f the makarismos (see ad 1. 1) does not allow any confidence in a

concrete intertextual connection, and in the Hym n the agrarian dimension o f life is obviously stressed, the parallelism illustrates w ell how much Solon favours a rather more modem view o f wealth than the agrarian surplus o f com w ith which the author o f the

H ym n and, more generally, the archaic Greek culture were concemed — cp. the common

genealogy o f Ploutos as the son o f Demeter and lasion, and the passages quoted by Richardson ad Dem. 489 and by West ad Theog. 969. The result w ould be to refuse the concept o f richness as accumulation o f food stu ff or generally o f surplus (the idea o f the ‘ house f u ll o f €o0Xd‘ o f Hom. H ym n 30.10, which Solon appears to understate while speaking o f nepLwaia xpTQ^ara in fr. 18.7T), and to favour a more 'm obile' idea o f

]7 „G .:P .^(2 3 W.^J

wealth, which includes in itse lf the moment o f the enjoyment o f it in the social dimension stressed by the references to the Traiôeç and the ^é v o ç .

1 ôXpLoç, (}: The poetic construction usually XdibeWtdmakarismos, often in the fo rm o f ôXpLOç/|idKap follow e d by a clause defining the respect in which someone is happy, is very common in archaic poetry: cf. Hom. Od. 11.450, Hes. Theog. 954, H o m .H ym n Dem. 480-2, 486-7 quoted, Hom .Hym n 25.4f. and Hom .Hym n 30.7-8, A lc m . PM G

1,37-9, Hippon. /E G 43 (=5 Degani)and *117.6 (=°196D egani),Thgn. /E G 934, 1013, 1173, 1375, Pind. Ol. 7.10, Pyth. 10.22 and fr. 137, Bacchyl. 3.10, Choeril. PE G 2 .1, Soph. El. 160, Eur. Bacch. 73, Cyc. 495, I G F 256, TG F 793, TG F 910, T G F 1057 (this poetic idiom was already in Homer settled enough to be reversed: cf. Hom. Od. 1.8 vqiTioi OL, ktX., 3.161 axerXio?, bg k tX.). See on p.aKapLapog Norden 1913, 9 9 f., D iric h le tl9 1 4 , 1967.

iraLÔeg .. . c |)lX o l: The phrase Traiôeg (|)lXol is Homeric {Od. 19.455='dear sons'), but I do not believe that the meaning here can be the Homeric one ("happy the man who has dear children"), as was maintained by Harrison 1902, 111, L in fo rth 1919, 176T, and Frankel 1975, 230. In favour o f an erotic interpretation o f the distich (see at least Bowra 1938, 74 and de Heer 1969, 33) is the possibility that Solon’s rraiSeg ... <j)iXoL='TTaîÔ€g KaXoL, am asii{ci. at least Anac. P M G 378.2 ou yap epol <7ra ig é>0éXei

auvqpdy (w ith Porson's integrations) and Thgn. /E G 1369 TraiSog eptog KaXog pèv excLv (where rraig alone^Traig KaXog), and above all Solon's verb Trai8o(|)iXeLi/ o f fr.

16.1. Besides, Hermias ad PI. Phdr. 2 3 le seems to have understood the fragment in an erotic sense (k q X o u to O epdv puqpoueuet Xéywv (ZoXwu) and the variant véoi o f Theognis' text point to this direction as w ell.

4>lXol can be taken (w ith e.g. Hudson-W illiam s) as an attribute to TraîSeg ("happy

is who has beloved boys...), as Lucian's quotation certainly im plies, or as a predicative to it ("happy is who likes boys...), as Plato's quotation most probably im plies (c})lXol

would be=4>LXoL e ta l, to be connected not only w ith iraibeg, but also w ith the other

subjects LTTTToi and Kuveg: cf. Landfester 1966, 41 n.4, and Skiadas 1966). I favour the form er interpretation, though the latter seems to be supported by "Thgn." /E G 1255-6 boTLg pq iraLÔdg re <})iX €l k qI pwuuxag lttttous kq l Kuvag, o utto tc ol 0up6g èv

eu4)poauvq , but the Theognidean distich more probably operated a stretching inside the peTaiTOLqoLg o f Solon's poem which the Theognidean author made after having quoted it (1253-4): Theognis' 11. 1255-6 would therefore be a good instance o f the symposiastic repartee technique, and the Theognidean author o f this distich may be 'answering' the

makarismos o f Solon ("happy is who ...") w ith a more emphatic exclusive statement ("the only happy man is who ..."): cf. Vetta 1980, 58f.

17 G .-P .: (23 W . j

liw v u x e s L T T T T o i: a common epic form ula, see e.g. Hom. IL 5.236, 9.127, 11.708, Od. 15.46, Hes. fr. 30.4 p[w y]uxaç ltttto u [ç (always at the end o f the hexameter).

2. d y p e u T a i: the word is used fo r the first time fo r dogs, but cf. Gripeuxal Kuveg in Hom. I I 11.325 and 12.41.

Çévoç dXXoôaiTÔç: Cf. Hom. Od. 17.485 JeivoioLv ... dXXoSaiToiai. Beyond the sense o f 'fo re ig n ', (ei/og already in Homer had acquired the second meaning 'friend o f a foreign land/city' (Hsch. ^ 29 L . fe iy o s " 6 drro (|)lXoç), to define the ties o f

hospitality which made friends o f strangers (e.g. //. 17.582ff., Od. 1 9 .191 ff., 24.262ff.), or celebrated an existing form al bond inherited through one's father (e.g. //. 6.215ff., Od. 1.175ff.), in a society where strangers were not always welcomed (e.g. the episode w ith the Cyclops, Od. 9.175f., or Od. 21.27 where Heracles k ills his host). See further K akridis 1963, 86-105, Donlan 1981/82, 148-51. Solon's emphasis on the foreign status o f the ^évoç is probably a hint at the m o b ility o f A ttic aristocracy, and the aristocratic 'networks' between individuals beyond a city's boundaries, created by marriage alliances, guest-friendship: cf. Lew is 1996, 27-9.

1 8 G .-R : (24 W.:)