Plutarch's Lives: Volume I

Comparison of Solon and Poplicola

I. It is a point peculiar to this comparison, and which does not occur in any of the other Lives which I have written, that in turn one imitates and the other bears witness to his fellow's deeds. Observe, for instance, Solon's definition of happiness before Croesus, how much better it suits Poplicola than Tellus. He says that Tellus was fortunate because of his good luck, his virtue, and his noble children; but yet he makes no mention of him or of his children in his poetry, and he never was a man of any renown, or held any high office.

Now Poplicola's virtues made him the most powerful and glorious of the Romans during his life, and six hundred years after his death the very noblest families of Rome, those named Publicola and Messala and Valerius, are proud to trace their descent from him, even at the present day. Tellus, it is true, died like a brave man fighting in the ranks, but Poplicola slew his enemies, which is much better than being killed oneself, and made his country victorious by skill as a general and a statesman, and, after triumphing and enjoying honours of every kind, died the death which Solon thought so enviable. Besides, Solon, in his answer to Mimnermus about the time of life, has written the verses:

in which he bears witness to the good fortune of Poplicola; for he, when he died, was mourned not only by all his friends and relations but by the whole city, in which thousands wept for him, while all the women wore mourning for him as if he were a son or father of them all that they had lost.

Solon says in his poems,

Now Poplicola not only possessed wealth honourably acquired, but also was able to spend it, much to his credit, in relieving the needy. Thus if Solon was the wisest, Poplicola was certainly the most fortunate of men; for what Solon prayed for as the greatest blessing, Poplicola possessed and enjoyed to the end of his days.

II. Thus has Solon done honour to Poplicola; and he again honoured Solon by regarding him as the best model a man could follow in establishing a free constitution: for he took away the excessive power and dignity of the consuls and made them inoffensive to the people, and indeed made use of many of Solon's own laws; as he empowered the people to elect their own consuls, and gave defendants a right of appeal to the people from other courts, just as Solon had done. He did not, like Solon, make two senates, but he increased the existing one to nearly double its number. His grounds for the appointment of quaestors was to give the consul leisure for more important matters, if he was an honest man; and if he was a bad man, to remove the opportunity of fraud which he would have had if he were supreme over the state and the treasury at once. In hatred of tyrants Poplicola exceeded Solon, for he fixed the penalty for a man who might be proved to be attempting to make himself king, whereas the Roman allowed any one to kill him without trial. And while Solon justly prided himself upon his having been offered the opportunity to make himself despot, with the full consent of his fellow–countrymen, and yet having refused it, Poplicola deserves even greater credit for having been placed in an office of almost despotic power, and having made it more popular, not using the privileges with which he was entrusted. Indeed Solon seems to have been the first to perceive that a people

III. The relief of debtors was a device peculiar to Solon, which, more than anything else confirmed the liberty of the citizens. For laws to establish equality are of no use if poor men are prevented from enjoying it because of their debts; and in the states which appear to be the most free, men become mere slaves to the rich, and conduct the whole business of the state at their dictation. It should be especially noted that although an abolition of debt would naturally produce a civil war, yet this measure of Solon's, like an unusual but powerful dose of medicine, actually put an end to the existing condition of internal strife; for the well–known probity of Solon's character outweighed the discredit of the means to which he resorted. In fact Solon began his public life with greater glory than Poplicola, for he was the leading spirit, and followed no man, but entirely single handed effected the most important reforms; while Poplicola was more enviable and fortunate at the close of his career.

Solon himself saw his own constitution overthrown, while that of Poplicola preserved order in the city down to the time of the civil wars; and the reason was that Solon, as soon as he had enacted his laws, went on his travels, leaving them written on wooden tablets, defenceless against all assailants; whereas Poplicola remained at home, acted as consul, and by his statesmanship ensured the success and permanence of the new constitution. Moreover, Solon could not stop Peisistratus, although he perceived his designs, but was forced to see a despotism established; while Poplicola destroyed a monarchy which had existed for many years, showing equal virtue with Solon, but greater good fortune and power to enable him to carry out his intentions.

IV. With regard to warlike achievements, Daimachus of Plataea will not even admit that Solon made the campaign against the Megarians, which we have related; but Poplicola both by strategy and personal valour won many great battles. As a statesman, Solon seems to have acted somewhat childishly in pretending that he was mad, in order to make his speech about Salamis, while Poplicola ran the very greatest risks in driving out the tyrant and crushing the conspiracy. He was especially responsible for the chief criminals being put to death, and thus not only drove the Tarquins out of the city, but cut off and destroyed their hopes of return. And while he showed such vigour in enterprises that required spirit and courage, he was equally admirable in peaceful negotiations and the arts of persuasion; for he skilfully won over the formidable Porsena to be the friend instead of the enemy of Rome.

Still we may be reminded that Solon stirred up the Athenians to capture Salamis, which they had given up to the Megarians, while Poplicola withdrew the Romans from a country which they had conquered. We must, however, consider the circumstances under which these events took place. A subtle politician deals with every thing so as to turn it to the greatest advantage, and will often lose a part in order to save the whole, and by sacrificing some small advantage gain another more important one, as did Poplicola on that occasion; for he, by withdrawing from a foreign country, preserved his own, gained the enemy's camp for the Romans, who before were only too glad to save their city from ruin, and at last, by converting his enemy into an arbitrator and winning his cause, obtained all the fruits of victory: for Porsena put an end to the war, and left behind him all his war material to show his respect for the noble character of the consul.