THE disparity of fortune between the rich and the poor had reached its height, so that the city seemed to be in a truly dangerous condition." This was Athens during the seventh and sixth centuries B.C., as reflected by Plutarch in his commentaries on the lives of renowned Romans and Greeks. During this period of turbulence Athens quivered on the threshold of a violent disruption. Such intensity of feeling between rich and poor is always a signal for revolution, and strong ameliorating action was a necessity if open warfare was to be avoided.

The city-state was undergoing an important transition, especially regarding land tenure. Before the seventh century land was held in private tenure, although titles were vested in a clan or family rather than with an individual. Social pressures were being intensified because of larger families and an increasing population through colonization. The coinage of money succeeding the use of barter brought economic changes which resulted in many estates being divided and subdivided into small lots. Peasants who were trying to move with this forward thrust had a sudden hope of land ownership and they were willing to pay any price.

There was no rigid class system but it was recognized that the Eupatrids formed the upper level of the pyramid. At the base were the Georgoi or land workers, and somewhere in between were the professionals, traders and free workers. The lower class was entirely dependent on the use of the land, so they borrowed heavily at high interest rates in order to buy a plot and survive independently. As collateral narrowed down sharply to land or the person, the right of use (usufrucht) without impairment, was offered as security -- the terms allowed to creditors were "sale with the option of redemption."

Tragedy stalked the debtors who in most cases were unable to repay the loans, and their small lots were absorbed into the estates of the money lenders while, as debtors, they continued to work the land somewhat in the manner of present-day sharecroppers. The cost of using such land was set at five-sixths of the produce, with only one-sixth going to the herktemor or sharecropper. As conditions worsened the situation was ripe for the ascendancy of Solon as chief magistrate.

"A few proprietors owned all the soil, and the cultivators, with their wives and children, were liable to be sold as slaves on failure to pay their rent." In these words Aristotle represents the demoralizing social state that Solon faced in 594 B.C. when, as the new political leader, he was able to forestall class warfare temporarily.

All outstanding debts of the herk-temors were cancelled and thus many who had been compelled to work the land were freed from it -- nor could any person any longer be held in mortgage. Solon appears to have recognized the underlying injustice, but the situation became even more desperate for the land workers who were deprived of the meager sixth percent of produce previously allowed them as debtors. Social freedom was achieved at the fearful cost of depriving many of their only means of livelihood.