The idea that civil war might break out is a hot topic these days. Elon Musk has gone on record saying that civil war is inevitable in the UK.
In the US, with the upcoming election and the clamor associated with it about saving democracy, many fear that a civil war is likely. Consider this 2022 poll by the Washington Post.
The ancient Greek sage Solon gave some interesting and counter-intuitive advice about how the citizens of the Athenian democracy should act in case a civil war broke out. This advice is as applicable now as in Solon’s era.
Solon was the man who laid the foundations for Athenian democracy, who overturned the laws previously established by Draco (n.b., the word “draconian” comes from “Draco”), and who established constitutional reform and new laws to halt Athens political, economic, and moral decline. Unfortunately, even with these reforms, Athens remained divided and in turmoil.
He is one of the seven sages of ancient Greece, and thus one of the founding fathers of Western civilization. He was known for lamenting stasis and recommending restraint.
In the ancient Greek world, with its fragmentation into a large number of city-states, and the fact that the ancients were far quicker to resort to violence than modern people are, the ancient Greeks had a lot of experience with civil wars.
Solon’s advice was not directed towards those who advocated civil war; instead, it was targeted to the moderates, the conciliators, the fence-sitters, the conflict-avoidant, and the pacifists.
This advice is preserved for us in Aulus Gellius’ Attic Nights 2.12. Aristotle covers the same point in Athenian Constitution 8.5, but in much less detail. It is this Aristotelian text that Aulus Gellius unpacks for us. Plutarch also mentions this advice in his Life of Solon.1
Gellius’ explanation comes from his teacher Favorinus. Favorinus was a renowned Academic Skeptic philosopher. He was the protege of Plutarch, the author of one of the most popular ancient books on Pyrrhonism, and the leading critic of his contemporary, the Stoic philosopher Epictetus.
Here’s the text. In summary it says, if conflict esclates to the point that civil war breaks out, at that point you must take a side and participate, even if you are opposed to the war. It is only if you are perceived to be on their side will people be open to your influence. This advice also applies to other situations where conflict has become intractable, such that the only advice for resolving the conflict that will carry any weight is advice from allies.
A law of Solon, the result of careful thought and consideration, which at first sight seems unfair and unjust, but on close examination is found to be altogether helpful and salutary:
Among those very early laws of Solon which were inscribed upon wooden tablets at Athens, and which, promulgated by him, the Athenians ratified by penalties and oaths, to ensure their permanence, Aristotle says that there was one to this effect: "If because of strife and disagreement civil dissension shall ensue and a division of the people into two parties, and if for that reason each side, led by their angry feelings, shall take up arms and fight, then if anyone at that time, and in such a condition of civil discord, shall not ally himself with one or the other faction, but by himself and apart shall hold aloof from the common calamity of the State, let him be deprived of his home, his country, and all his property, and be an exile and an outlaw."
When I read this law of Solon, who was a man of extraordinary wisdom, I was at first filled with something like great amazement, and I asked myself why it was that those who had held themselves aloof from dissension and civil strife were thought to be deserving of punishment. Then those who had profoundly and thoroughly studied the purpose and meaning of the law declared that it was designed, not to increase, but to terminate, dissension. And that is exactly so. For if all good men, who have been unequal to checking the dissension at the outset, do not abandon the aroused and frenzied people, but divide and ally themselves with one or the other faction, then the result will be, that when they have become members of the two opposing parties, and, being men of more than ordinary influence, have begun to guide and direct those parties, harmony can best be restored and established through the efforts of such men, controlling and soothing as they will the members of their respective factions, and desiring to reconcile rather than destroy their opponents.
The philosopher Favorinus thought that this same course ought to be adopted also with brothers, or with friends, who are at odds; that is, that those who are neutral and kindly disposed towards both parties, if they have had little influence in bringing about a reconciliation because they have not made their friendly feelings evident, should then take sides, some one and some the other, and through this manifestation of devotion pave the way for restoring harmony. "But as it is," said he, "most of the friends of both parties make a merit of abandoning the two disputants, leaving them to the tender mercies of ill-disposed or greedy advisers, who, animated by hatred or by avarice, add fuel to their strife and inflame their passions."
Just as Aulus Gellius was perplexed by this law, others have since been perplexed, some to the point of believing it to have been a myth. The oldest record we have of this law is from Aristotle, and that was 200 years after the fact. Besides, it just seems so surprising from Solon, who so much elsewhere advocated moderation and who was in part responsible for the maxims inscribed on the Temple of Apollo at Delphi:
Know thyself
Nothing to excess
On the other hand, Solon practiced what he preached. In his old age Solon became a staunch opponent of Pisistratus, who sought to end Athenian democracy and place himself in charge. In protest, and as an example to others, Solon stood outside his own home in full armour, urging all who passed to resist the machinations of the would-be tyrant. His efforts were in vain.
Why would Solon want everyone to commit to one side or the other?
One reason is it might encourage political stability. Generally those who wish to overtun the established order are a minority whose feelings are intense. Usually this kind of situation arises from an inter-elite conflict; hence one involving only a small fraction of the population. Forcing everyone to take sides can make the democratic will of the majority apparent, mitigating against the rise of tyrants and thereby stablizing the state.
Another reason might be to encourage participation in Athens’ democracy. Of course, not everybody need be politically active on every issue, nor can they. People have things they must attend to other than politics. But Solon’s law about civil wars prompts everyone that they should involve themselves as the stakes get higher because they will have to commit themselves once the threshold of violence is crossed.
Favorinus’ extrapolation of the utility of Solon’s law to other contexts is interesting. If you have friends who have become horribly divided, instead of throwing up one’s hands at the situation, it’s best to ally with one of them and to look for ways to encourage reconciliation.
Hopefully, no one reading this will ever need Solon’s advice, but here it is, just in case.
Among his other laws there is a very peculiar and surprising one which ordains that he shall be disfranchised who, in time of faction, takes neither side. He wishes, probably, that a man should not be insensible or indifferent to the common weal, arranging his private affairs securely and glorying in the fact that he has no share in the distempers and distresses of his country, but should rather espouse promptly the better and more righteous cause, share its perils and give it his aid, instead of waiting in safety to see which cause prevails.