Dear Plutarch,

I never expected that I would write you so many letters, almost as many as I write to Cicero. Your books are always on my bedside shelf and your stories are continuously mixing in my mind.

I am beginning to see how certain ideas were transmitted through time. I have been fascinated by the depth of discussion on Atomic theory, and the whole realm of Natural Philosophy. I would like to ask you, do you know who first recorded the idea of atoms? Lucretius said that he was translating from Greek writers who lived two hundred years before him, (so about 250 BCE). Epicurus has something to say about it, as well as Cicero, Plato too I think. It seems like a pretty hot topic. Does it surprise you to learn that atomic theory as a science that has only increased in importance and is now influencing almost every single facet of human society, through the practical applications of ideas dreamed up in the shadows of archaic Greece. From medicine and power to the most powerful weapons ever developed by man. Who first dreamed the atom and who wrote it down?

Perhaps I will find it among your extensive work. I only just discovered your fifteen volume collection of essays and books on every topic imaginable, your Morales. I'm especially looking forward to your work criticising Herodotus. I love him so much that I can't imagine what you could possibly have to say against him.

So, more reading there for me.

I'll tell you what's really been on my mind: The birth pangs of democracy in Greece and Rome. Yup, that's what I've been stewing over for few weeks as more and more stories are revealed to me about the contradictions and convoluted pressures acting within early Mediterranean democracies. In particular, I want to talk about how Solon was voted in as dictator of Attica.

So let's get down to business.

Solon. 640 – 560 BCE approximately:

A law-maker, a dictator by popular vote, a poet and traveler. 

I'm gonna dive right in and talk about some of his laws, please excuse my paraphrasing and piecemeal quotes of your work.

Solon passed a law which forbade slaves from having boy lovers. “His intention was evidently to class this as an honourable and dignified practice, and thus in a sense, to recommend it to reputable men, by the act of forbidding it to the unworthy.” Solon himself is rumoured to have had a long romantic relationship with a distant cousin, a man named Pisistratus, who himself had a boy lover named Charmus, whom Pisistratus was so fond of that he “...dedicated a statue of Love in the Academy, where the runners of the sacred torch race light their torches.”

Now I'm not sure exactly what you mean by boy lover, but I'm assuming you mean boy as in, not yet a man, a teenager. Now, the very suggestion of an adult having a sexual relationship with a young adult or child is today abhorrent, completely and utterly detested as the worst of harmful deviant behaviour, but it was different in your day, wasn't it? Those kinds of relationships were looked at differently and were often public. It's a really touchy subject, even mentioning it might get me branded as some kind of sympathiser with paedophilia, which is absolutely not what I am trying to put forward. My era has placed a huge amount of importance on what it calls the 'age of consent', and violations of that law incur heavy prison sentences. I agree with my society on this. I am proud of any nation's efforts to enshrine the rights of children in law, and to defend the defenceless. Predation of the young is a violation that my society tries hard to stamp out, and I applaud our efforts, even if our successes are limited. However, I am assuming that what you mean by 'boy lover' is not a child, but a teenager.

But the reason I'm even bringing it up is not to criticise you or moralise about the age of consent, it is to talk about laws surrounding homosexuality. I'm mentioning it because of the way that I can discern your values through your writing. First of all, the modern words, gay or homosexual never come up, as if such definitions of sexual preferences were not necessary in your time (or Solon's). This might be a matter of the translators choices of words, or of your own intentions as a writer, I cannot say. People in my time are mightily concerned with definitions of sexual gender identity and preferences and it can make one's head spin. Every year a new gender gets added to the list, as well as a new set of acceptable terms for describing them. That's not a complaint, people are allowed to call themselves whatever they want, and to insist upon appropriate names and divisions. I only mention it for comparison.

I find it fascinating in your writing Plutarch, the total lack of moralising on your part concerning sexual preference, as if it were not worthy of mention. If a man loved a woman, fine, if he loved a man, also fine. If he married a woman and loved men on the side, it was complicated. Same as today. It actually seems odd that gay marriage was not legalised back then, excepting of course for one detail.

I feel proud to tell you that it was this year that the government of my nation legalised marriage between two men, or two women, adding these new categories to the established marriage laws. A lot of the beliefs about marriage that were present in Solon's and your time seem present today. Assertions on the laws of nature, and marriage being, as you write, “...that a man and wife should live together for love, affection, and the procreation of children.” This definition was also Solon's argument against the young and old being allowed to marry one another, as it does “...not fulfil the function of marriage, and indeed defeated its object.”

It is the object of marriage, which the people of my nation, and a few others, have dismantled. Marriage is now for adult partnership. The procreation of children is voluntary and wedlock is no longer a strong social prerequisite for pregnancy. Of course, people marry for all sorts of reasons, and in a nation like mine, populated as it is with cultures from over the globe, the weddings are diverse and come with a variety of vows. The divorce rate seems about the same now as in your time though.

The objection to the objects of marriage aside, it surprised me to read of the value placed on love and affection in marriage. Solon's abolishment of dowries seems to me thoroughly modern and forward thinking, claiming as he did that “...marriage should not be a mercenary or profit-making institution.”

But Solon does not seem to be equally forward thinking regarding women in general. You write that Solon “...made a law which regulated women's appearances in public, as well as their mourning and their festivals, and put an end to to wild and disorderly behaviour. When women went out of doors they were not permitted to wear more than three garments, or to carry more than an obol's worth of food or drink, or a basket more than eighteen inches high, or to travel at night except in a wagon with a lamp in front of it.”

He also abolished the practice of lacerating one's own flesh at funerals, so, y'know, maybe he wasn't all bad. Actually the laws about women seem a bit strange. It's hard to understand what might have motivated Solon to restrict women in this particular way. What do you mean by 'wild and disorderly behaviour'? It stirs my imagination, just how wild and disorderly did these women have to be, that they were forbidden from wearing too many clothes and carrying too much food and drink? Were funerals and festivals apt to fall into debauchery and public disobedience? I have another book on my shelf that I have yet to read, 'The history of orgies', by Burgo Partidge. Perhaps I'll find my answers there.

Jokes aside, you gave me dark a glimpse into the quality of lives led by women when you mentioned Solon's laws regarding rape. “...the offence of rape against a free woman was punished by a fine of no more than 100 drachmae. If the man seduced her, he would be fined 20 drachmae, except in the case of courtesans who openly sell their bodies.”

Further on you clarify that - “...a sheep and a bushel of grain were reckoned at one drachma; a prize of 100 drachmae was awarded to a victor of the Isthmian games, and one of 500 to a victor at Olympia.”

The offence of rape against a FREE woman. Which I assume means that there was no charge for raping a slave. If there is one thing I know about the ancient world, it is that slaves were everywhere, they were big money, a massive economic driving force. Slaves formed a huge, invisible portion of the population, and their rights before the law are famously non-existent.

So in a society where the punishment for rape was a fine, and where slaves held no rights before the law at all, the women became so 'wild and disorderly' that the men restricted women's gatherings, behaviour and appearance by law. Hmm...

Perhaps I'm jumping to conclusions and that if I actually read Solon's original laws, I would find more details that would alter my perspective. I shouldn't be surprised at the situation though, since there are countries even now who do not punish the rapist, but rather punish the victim for dishonouring herself and her family. Even in my rather progressive society, female rape victims are often blamed on the ground they have provoked their rape because of the 'alluring' way they have dressed. It seems that inhumane peculiarities are not the providence of one nation or culture, but that we are all compromised by our collective history.

I feel that I should tell you about Eurydice Dixon, a young woman who was raped and murdered only a few days ago, and whose public shrine of flowers was vandalised in the night by persons unknown. It has caused an uproar and thousands of people recently gathered in vigil to celebrate the young woman's life and to declaim the evil of the crime for which no suspect has yet been arrested.

I ask myself, is the violence of man a sickness which cannot be cured? It seems that nothing has changed in millennia and that women are still the victims of oppressive laws and discriminatory attitudes. I wonder what might happen on the day that a rape victim publicly executed her assailant in defiance of civil law? What would happen to my society if women took violence and justice into their own hands and simply killed every man who violated their sacred bodily rights? If they used the tools of their oppressors against them? Since there is little protection to be found in the shelter of the law, or of the police who often blame the victim, it would be a righteous battle fought for just aims.

Is there any solution for violence, other than better violence?

Is that even a sensible question?

What do I mean by better violence? Is revenge a good enough substitute for justice, when the courts do not protect the innocent?

It makes me think suddenly of Damon Peripoltas. You mention him in passing in your biography of Cimon.

Damon Peripoltas: “...who stood out among all the youths of his age for his proud spirit and exceptional physical beauty.”

“The Roman commander of a cohort which was quartered for the winter in Chaeronea fell in love with this Damon, who was only just past his boyhood. This officer found that he could not win over the youth by importunity or by offering him presents, but before long it became clear that he would not stop at using force.

Angered by the attentions the Roman paid him, Damon gathered sixteen friends in a conspiracy, and one night daubed their faces with soot, drank unmixed wine to nerve themselves, and at daybreak fell upon the Roman officer as he was offering sacrifice in the marketplace. They killed him with a number of his men and then fled the city.

The Senate of Chaeronea met and pronounced sentence of death on the murderers. But that evening, while the chief magistrates were dining together, according to their custom, Damon and his band broke into the city hall, massacred them and once again made their escape.”

Damon and his band, now fugitives, began raiding and marauding the countryside, and even threatened the city. The Chaeroneans lured Damon back into the city by making decrees to conciliate him, claiming to have forgiven him his crimes, but one day not long after, while he was in the public baths, they killed him. For a long time afterwards apparitions were seen in the baths and groans heard throughout the building and so the baths were closed. Even in your day Plutarch, some five hundred years later, those who lived in the nearby neighbourhood claimed to be haunted by terrifying sights and sounds. The descendants of Damon were called the “Asbolomeni” or “Soot Faced”, because of what he had done.

So what do I mean by better violence? What do I mean by revenge as a substitute for justice? What do I expect the outcome to be, and would it be any different in my time than it was for Damon and his comrades in arms?

I must admit to a bias on my part. Vigilante justice is not just theoretical for me. It is a living part of my family's history. I am beneficiary to the successful application of better violence. My family has within its living branches a Brutus of sorts, who when only twelve, slew a Caesar of his own, and freed his family from the unrestrained violence of their tyrant father.

Pity not the land who has no hero, pity the land in need of one.

Theseus slew Procrustes. Tomyris slew Cyrus. Brutus slew Caesar and I am Brutus' son.

...I'm in a deep hole of doubt about the future of my society. Please understand that I do not wish to advocate vigilante justice. The rule of law and the rights of every citizen to a fair trial and representation before the courts are pillars supporting the peaceful co-existence of everyone in my country.

Except these laws don't protect everyone equally.

In modern India, vigilante women's gangs have sprung up in rural areas where justice is corrupt and domestic violence against women is rife. They are the Pink Gangs, founded by the heroic 51 year old mother of four, Sampat Pal Devi, who had seen enough to know that action had to be taken. The Pink Gangs are a success story of the just and restrained use of violence against the violent. The women all wear bright pink sari's and carry large heavy walking sticks which they use to defend themselves against police and against angry men clawing to maintain their power over women.

THE PINK GANG

What would a Pink Gang look like in Australia? How long would it take for them to be come 'soot-faced' and find themselves in the hands of the justice system they sought to circumvent? Trapped in the cycle of their own violent methods, trapped by the laws they had to break in order to pursue a goal of just retribution for crimes unpunished. I'm probably going overboard just imagining such an outcome in Australia. The problem of of false accusations is only the first hurdle in dealing with the morality of vigilantism, and I'm not sure I even want to go down that road in this letter.

So...

I am aware that when we are talking about events in the 500's BCE, we tread territory blending myth, fable, propaganda, and historical fact. All I can do is to find fascination with the mystery of history, and to keep reading. Keep asking questions.

Even though it seems that there are no answers to be found.

* * *

… A few days have passed, I've been reading, thinking. I know I promised to get to the Solon dictatorship question, but I just can't leave the gender issue alone. I've been reading Partridge's History of Orgies, and I found a reference to self flagellation that made me think of the ban Solon put on the practice at funerals. I found a further reference to Aphrodite Anosia, (Aphrodite the Unholy) and how in Thessaly, just north of Attica, an all female festival to this Goddess was held. Partridge says that details are lacking, but that it is known that erotic flagellation played an essential part. I think this was going on around 500 – 600 BCE, so around the same time as Solon, but information is pretty sketchy. It might seem peculiar to pick up on this detail, but it centres around the theme of laws and gender, so I'm going to run with it. Solon banned the practice of self flagellation at funerals in Attica, while in Thessaly to the north, religious festivals were held celebrating the practice of erotic flagellation.

A lot can be learned about a society, by observing the ways they legislate sex. The manner in which governments regulate prostitution, they way they police (and classify) sex offenders, they way they prohibit certain kinds of marriages. It is in the activities a society bans that the shadow of their ideals can be found, for every ban is a response to a perceived threat, and seeks to suppress a practice that is already in play.

Gay marriage remained illegal in my country for so long because it was a perceived threat to the predominately Christian ideology, which enforced a set of beliefs not all that different from Solon's day. Solon banned self inflicted injury at funerals. Why did he do that? Had the practice gotten out of hand? Was Solon just opposed personally to the practice?

So what was going on in Thessaly that provided the kind of society that celebrated erotic flagellation as a custom of religion? It might be better to call the worship of Aphrodite Anosia a mystery cult. There were a lot of different religious groups, a lot of different gods, each with their own regional variations, and orgiastic practice was not uncommon. The list of different names attached to Aphrodite alone, and the differing personalities that accompanied such tiles, is a long list. Some sources linked her title, 'unholy' with another related title meaning 'dancer on the graves'.

But getting back to the laws about women, and the wild, disorderly behaviour that Solon apparently put an end to.

Pausanius makes mention of Attica in his writing, and of the Thyiads, women who go every year with the women of Delphi to Parnassus, and there hold orgies on mountain tops, in honour of Dionysus. It was the custom of these women to dance at various places on the road during the nine day journey from Athens.

Was Solon trying to interfere with women's religious rites, by limiting their ability to travel and stay abroad for extended periods? Is the 'wild and disorderly' behaviour actually Aphrodite's sacred rites? This sort of thing happens in the modern world. In America, Cannabis and Hemp plants were prevented from being grown, not by an outright ban, (at least not at first) but by prohibitive taxes. Solon didn't outlaw the women's festivals, he just made it illegal for those who couldn't afford a carriage, to travel to them.

Of course, there is no way of knowing. It's also possible that I am simply asking the wrong questions. I might be looking at the past through a lens too modern to do anything but distort my vision. Maybe Solon restricted women's ability to travel on foot at night, as a way to reduce their becoming victims of banditry and theft. Some of Solon's other laws concerning violence and its punishment certainly open the door to debate about his intentions and about the practical societal problems he was trying to combat, violence being only one of many on a long list.

I could be looking at this the wrong way entirely. I am a student, mistakes are my trade.

I try to tread carefully through the territory of your histories Plutarch, blended as they are between myth and fact. I find myself fascinated with the mystery and I keep reading. Keep asking questions.

Which brings me back to how Solon was voted in as dictator.

But it is late, so that will have to wait for next time.

Thank you Plutarch, for your contradictions and your facts, your pathos and your scepticism and your belief. They are all lessons for me to learn from.

Morgan.