`  The entire section is rather porous and sloppy scholarship on the part of whoever contributed it, and NOT (with perhaps one exception) the part of the secondary sources. For example, the part starting ``According to the orator Aeschines...`` is mostly fine with the exception of the insertion of ``ancient lawgivers (and therefore Solon by implication).`` The part in brackets was inserted by whoever contributed this section and is a logical stretch and not supported by Aeschines. This is not careful scholarship and I have chosen to remove it. The Sergent sentence is non-representative. The following paragraph used to refute it doesn't even discuss the issue let alone argue against it (because it is generally not a topic of mainstream discussion, thus making it a fringe view); the secondary sources in the paragraph were merely used to indicate ``our knowledge of Solon's legislation is originally sourced in accounts by 4th Century writers and orators and these often feature anachronisms``. The paragraph is considerably better written from a scholarship perspective and involves no unnecessary stretches being introduced on the part of the contributor.  I have removed these sections for now, but the section as    `