propose that the laws of Solon were issued on his own authority and did not require passing in the senate or any sort of vote by any group of people to become law. It would seem more likely though that they would not give complete law making power to one man, he could do anything and they couldn't stop him. Any evidence to prove this one way or another though has long since been lost and nobody at this point can know for sure. It would seem from examining the evidence both for and against argument that Solon completed his work after his archonship, that it would be more likely that it was indeed the later date that is the more plausible theory. First of all there is the fact that writing something as long and complex as a law code would be quite difficult to accomplish all in one year unless he was given special powers to write the laws and then institute them on his own power, bypassing any governing body in Athens. The second would seem less likely though. It would be extremely dangerous for the people of Athens to have given just one man the power to create and institute laws on his own authority. It would also seem from reading Herodotus that Solon wrote his laws after his travels since one of his laws, according to Herodotus, comes from Egypt. This would certainly support Solon having written his laws after his travels. The final argument presented here for Solon writing at a leter date is that there is much trouble recorded in Athens after 594/3 and if Solon write in this year then it would seem that much of his work was a failure and in which case why would his laws have lasted so long. There are several arguments supporting the other side as well though. Herodotus also records that Solon went on his journey after he wrote his nomothesia to escape the pressure of citizens who wanted him to retract some laws and add others. Herodotus records two different versions of when Solon travelled and it is hard ot know whi...
