DOCSLIB.ORG

Author: Mariam Hanna Title: Darius I As the Victor: a Question of Legitimacy Or Legacy? Source: Prandium - the Journal of Historical Studies, Vol

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Author: Mariam Hanna Title: Darius I As the Victor: a Question of Legitimacy Or Legacy? Source: Prandium - the Journal of Historical Studies, Vol Author: Mariam Hanna Title: Darius I as the Victor: A Question of Legitimacy or Legacy? Source: Prandium - The Journal of Historical Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Spring, 2017). Published by: The Department of Historical Studies, University of Toronto Mississauga Stable URL: http://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/prandium/article/view/28570 The facts involving the transfer of power from Cambyses to Darius I are ambiguous across ancient sources, most prominent among which is Darius’ own account in the Bisitun inscription and Herodotus’ account in Herodotus III, but even within a single source there are inconsistencies and contradictions that detract from the accounts’ plausibility as a whole.1 Darius’ deference to royal lineage and divine favour as reasons for his success are significant because they garnered him support and allowed him to craft a royal image of able kingship. Darius and Herodotus, although both problematic sources, create contrasts that make Darius seem like a legitimate king by placing his traits of competent kingship in juxtaposition with his opponents’ deficiencies. I will argue that contrasts of poor kingship reinforce Darius’ image as the rightful king. By examining the inconsistencies and contradictions of Herodotus’ account and Darius’ account, I will also argue that the details each source chooses to stress or evade reveals more about the source’s political agenda than it does about Darius’ legitimacy or illegitimacy. In the face of problematic sources, the question of legitimacy in Darius I’s ‘right’ to the Persian Empire, is of lesser consideration than the question of able kingship. Darius legitimized his reign not through royal lineage but through strategic (sometimes sly) political maneuvers that strengthened his claim to the throne—whether or not that claim was true—by demonstrating his capabilities as a ruler. While no single ancient account is entirely reliable, when we consider the political narrative and social motivations of the writers, certain patterns begin to emerge. Darius’ account is invested in legitimizing his seizure of power. To prove his legitimacy, he stresses divine favour and his supposed royal lineage, effectively advancing his assertion that he was the only person able to remove the imposters and restore order. He is vague on the genealogy of his royal lineage and the exact dates (though they are provided elsewhere in the account) of Cambyses’ death, and he shrouds in secrecy the identity of the imposter and how he uncovered his supposed deception while all others failed. Although neither account is entirely free from external agendas, both Herodotus and Darius, to different extents, are deliberately engaged in writing a victor’s tale and many features of their narrative revolve around establishing this. Three main arguments about Darius’ suitability for kingship run throughout his account: he is from a royal line, those who oppose him are rebels, and he has the favour of Auramazda (the high god). That Darius makes repeated references to his royal lineage and divine favour suggests these were considered important, perhaps even necessary, elements of Persian kingship. Darius unlike his predecessor Cambyses was favoured by the Greek sources and his own account is also clearly invested in painting an image of him as the legitimate king. In both these accounts, Darius emerges as a ‘good’ king and his ascension to the Persian throne a restoration of a supposed natural line. Whether or not Darius’ claim to the Persian throne was legitimate, the sources suggest that he nevertheless fulfilled many of the elements of ‘good’ Achaemenid kingship: he became king, he maintained kingship, he had divine favour, was militarily successful, he overcame revolts and ultimately maintained stability in his empire. 1 Mariam Hanna is currently a fourth-year student at UTM completing a specialist in History with a double minor in English and Ethics. Following graduation, Mariam hopes to apply the research and analytical skills she honed in her undergraduate studies to pursue a degree in law. A version of this essay was originally submitted for Professor Chrubasik’s CLA390 Fall 2016. Herodotus, meanwhile, is interested in crafting a “moralizing” narrative and it is repeatedly evident that his account is invested in the narrative pattern of fall of the bad king (Cambyses) and rise of good king (Darius).2 The narrative structure of ‘good’ king Darius rising to power after ‘bad’ king Cambyses is archetypical in that it follows similar Greek patterns and shares “common motifs” with Greek historical (or pseudo-historical) narratives.3 For example, Cambyses is presented as a “mad” king and his madness is consistent with his account of the madness of Croesus.4 The moralizing narrative of Cambyses’ corruption before Darius is important because it makes Darius appear all the better in contrast with the evil of his predecessor. Furthermore, Herodotus’ account of Cambyses’ death draws parallels between his killings of the Apis bull and completes the narrative that he was an immoral king who (rightly) came to a bad end. Herodotus recounts Cambyses sacrilege of the Egyptian temples, sacrifices and festivals as well as his blatant scorn for the Egyptian gods: “When the priests brought the Apis, Cambyses, now half insane, drew his dagger intending to stab the Apis in the belly, but struck his thigh…”5 Similar motifs are present elsewhere in Herodotus’ account. For example, the role of Prexaspes as a double-agent is “not unique in Herodotus's Histories,” and it is therefore, “necessary” to contextualize him amongst other “Herodotean double-agents in order to filter out what is peculiar to him.”6 Furthermore, Herodotus’ Greek political influence is also evident in his narrative. While the Bisitun inscription maintains that Darius ascended the throne because of his royal lineage, Herodotus asserts that “after the Pseudo-Smerdis [Gaumata] had been deposed…the seven conspirators, Otanes, Aspathines, Gobyras, Intaphrenes, Megabyzus, and Darius, met to discuss and decide the government of the state.”7 Patrick Brannan argues that this conference or “constitutional debate” in Herodotus seems more plausible than Darius’ account of natural lineal ascension to the throne.8 However, this reading is problematic. A constitutional debate to decide on a form of government seems more in-line with Greek expectations of government than Persian notions of kingship. It seems much more like a Greek attempt to make palatable the Persian styles of kingship. Therefore, while it would be unwise to dismiss Herodotus’ account entirely, recognizing his political, social and literary agendas and expectations is necessary when making claims about Darius’ ‘right’ to the Persian Empire. Darius’ account is a conscious effort to legitimize his kingship and his emphasis on divine favour along with his royal lineage are center around creating a strong image of kingship. Darius’ repeated assertions in his account suggest that he was aware of the precariousness of his position and recognized the necessity of writing himself into divine favour and royal lineage. Like Herodotus, he presents contrasts that further enforce his image as the legitimate king. 2 Briant, Pierre. From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Translated by Peter T. Daniels. (Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 97. 3 Khurt, Amelie. The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period. (New York: Routledge, 2007), 98-99. 4 Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander, 97. 5 Citations from Herodotus come from: Amelie Khurt. The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period. (New York: Routledge, 2007). 27-9. 6 Mabel L. Lang. “Prexaspes and Usurper Smerdis.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 51, no. 3 (Jul., 1992): 202. 7 Patrick T. Brannan, “Herodotus And History: The Constitutional Debate Preceding Darius' Accession.” Traditio 19, (1963): 429. 8 Brannan, “Herodotus and History,” 438. However, he also “stresses that no one, neither Persian nor Mede nor anyone else, dared to rise up against the false Bardiya” but in contrast, Darius was able to.9 Darius is invested in creating a “the royal image” that “presented [him] as the only person who could eliminate the usurper.”10 The figure of Darius who stood up to an imposter when no other person dared and succeeded in overthrowing him further reinforces his image as true king. The logic being that he was successful because of divine favour and royal lineage. This creates a clear contrast between Darius and all the other nobles and adds another element to his legitimacy—not only is he backed by divine power and royal lineage he is also (perhaps because of the first two elements) the strongest among strong men. Darius’ position in his first year was precarious and the emphasis on his kingly traits in contrast to the vices of his opposition serve to make him appear more legitimate and kingly.11 Even before detailing how he came to power, Darius asserts his royal lineage, his favour from Auramazda and the fact that many peoples/countries already obey him.12 He is clearly invested in presenting the story of someone who has already won, and rightfully so. The Bisitun inscription begins by asserting Darius’ connection with the royal line, “...we are called Achaemenids. From long ago we are noble; from long ago we are royal...Eight of our family were kings before; I am the ninth; nine kings were in succession.”13 He then goes on to assert (and continues to do so throughout) that he is king “by favour of Auramazda.”14 After recounting how he seized the throne Darius again returns to the notion that his kingship is a matter of natural progression: “the kingdom which had been taken away from our family, I re-established it, I put it back in its place…I strove until I restored our house to its legitimate place.”15 In this way, Darius’ ascension to the throne was successful because it was a divinely sanctioned restoration of the royal lineage.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Satrap of Western Anatolia and the Greeks
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations 2017 The aS trap Of Western Anatolia And The Greeks Eyal Meyer University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the Ancient History, Greek and Roman through Late Antiquity Commons Recommended Citation Meyer, Eyal, "The aS trap Of Western Anatolia And The Greeks" (2017). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 2473. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2473 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2473 For more information, please contact [email protected]. The aS trap Of Western Anatolia And The Greeks Abstract This dissertation explores the extent to which Persian policies in the western satrapies originated from the provincial capitals in the Anatolian periphery rather than from the royal centers in the Persian heartland in the fifth ec ntury BC. I begin by establishing that the Persian administrative apparatus was a product of a grand reform initiated by Darius I, which was aimed at producing a more uniform and centralized administrative infrastructure. In the following chapter I show that the provincial administration was embedded with chancellors, scribes, secretaries and military personnel of royal status and that the satrapies were periodically inspected by the Persian King or his loyal agents, which allowed to central authorities to monitory the provinces. In chapter three I delineate the extent of satrapal authority, responsibility and resources, and conclude that the satraps were supplied with considerable resources which enabled to fulfill the duties of their office. After the power dynamic between the Great Persian King and his provincial governors and the nature of the office of satrap has been analyzed, I begin a diachronic scrutiny of Greco-Persian interactions in the fifth century BC.
    [Show full text]
  • Ctesias and His Eunuchs: a Challenge for Modern Historians 
    Histos () – CTESIAS AND HIS EUNUCHS: A CHALLENGE FOR MODERN HISTORIANS Abstract: The prominence of eunuchs in Ctesias’ account of Persia has given rise in the last decades to a paradoxical combination of scepticism about their historicity and realis- tic interpretation questioning whether they were in fact castrated. The present paper brings to light the difficulties of the assessment of them as historical figures. It first takes into account the fact that we know Ctesias’ eunuchs only through fragments, that is, through the filter of later authors who refer to him while possibly having a personal rela- tionship to eunuchs in their own society. It then describes the distinctive features of Cte- sias’ eunuchs within Greek literature on Persia and presents the main interpretative trends on them. It examines possible touchstones and shows how difficult it is to cross- check Ctesias’ account of eunuchs with Near Eastern evidence. It assesses the founda- tions of current prevailing positions, and shows that a hypothesis has become a— questionable—dogma on two sorts of historical referents for Ctesias’ εὐνοῦχοι . Last, it questions the pertinence of ‘orientalism’ as a label for the representation of eunuchs in Ctesias’ account, and even highlights its shortcomings. All in all, this issue is in fact a per- fect illustration of the methodological problems that modern historians often have to face when they try to study ancient Persia through the accounts of Greek historians. t is curious that a phenomenon which was so important in so many major civilizations has been virtually taboo in modern scholarship’: ‘I such were some of the concluding words of A.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Old Persian Prods Oktor Skjærvø
    An Introduction to Old Persian Prods Oktor Skjærvø Copyright © 2016 by Prods Oktor Skjærvø Please do not cite in print without the author’s permission. This Introduction may be distributed freely as a service to teachers and students of Old Iranian. In my experience, it can be taught as a one-term full course at 4 hrs/w. My thanks to all of my students and colleagues, who have actively noted typos, inconsistencies of presentation, etc. TABLE OF CONTENTS Select bibliography ................................................................................................................................... 9 Sigla and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................... 12 Lesson 1 ..................................................................................................................................................... 13 Old Persian and old Iranian. .................................................................................................................... 13 Script. Origin. .......................................................................................................................................... 14 Script. Writing system. ........................................................................................................................... 14 The syllabary. .......................................................................................................................................... 15 Logograms. ............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Greek Sources Proceedings of the Groningen 1984 Achaemenid History Workshop Edited by Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg and Amélie Kuhrt
    Achaemenid History • II The Greek Sources Proceedings of the Groningen 1984 Achaemenid History Workshop edited by Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg and Amélie Kuhrt Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten Leiden 1987 ACHAEMENID HISTORY 11 THE GREEK SOURCES PROCEEDINGS OF THE GRONINGEN 1984 ACHAEMENID HISTORY WORKSHOP edited by HELEEN SANCISI-WEERDENBURG and AMELIE KUHRT NEDERLANDS INSTITUUT VOOR HET NABIJE OOSTEN LEIDEN 1987 © Copyright 1987 by Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten Witte Singe! 24 Postbus 9515 2300 RA Leiden, Nederland All rights reserved, including the right to translate or to reproduce this book or parts thereof in any form CIP-GEGEVENS KONINKLIJKE BIBLIOTHEEK, DEN HAAG Greek The Greek sources: proceedings of the Groningen 1984 Achaemenid history workshop / ed. by Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg and Amelie Kuhrt. - Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.- (Achaemenid history; II) ISBN90-6258-402-0 SISO 922.6 UDC 935(063) NUHI 641 Trefw.: AchaemenidenjPerzische Rijk/Griekse oudheid; historiografie. ISBN 90 6258 402 0 Printed in Belgium TABLE OF CONTENTS Abbreviations. VII-VIII Amelie Kuhrt and Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg INTRODUCTION. IX-XIII Pierre Briant INSTITUTIONS PERSES ET HISTOIRE COMPARATISTE DANS L'HIS- TORIOGRAPHIE GRECQUE. 1-10 P. Calmeyer GREEK HISTORIOGRAPHY AND ACHAEMENID RELIEFS. 11-26 R.B. Stevenson LIES AND INVENTION IN DEINON'S PERSICA . 27-35 Alan Griffiths DEMOCEDES OF CROTON: A GREEKDOCTORATDARIUS' COURT. 37-51 CL Herrenschmidt NOTES SUR LA PARENTE CHEZ LES PERSES AU DEBUT DE L'EM- PIRE ACHEMENIDE. 53-67 Amelie Kuhrt and Susan Sherwin White XERXES' DESTRUCTION OF BABYLONIAN TEMPLES. 69-78 D.M. Lewis THE KING'S DINNER (Polyaenus IV 3.32).
    [Show full text]
  • Mercenaries, Poleis, and Empires in the Fourth Century Bce
    The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of the Liberal Arts ALL THE KING’S GREEKS: MERCENARIES, POLEIS, AND EMPIRES IN THE FOURTH CENTURY BCE A Dissertation in History and Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies by Jeffrey Rop © 2013 Jeffrey Rop Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 2013 ii The dissertation of Jeffrey Rop was reviewed and approved* by the following: Mark Munn Professor of Ancient Greek History and Greek Archaeology, Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies Dissertation Advisor Chair of Committee Gary N. Knoppers Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies, Religious Studies, and Jewish Studies Garrett G. Fagan Professor of Ancient History and Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies Kenneth Hirth Professor of Anthropology Carol Reardon George Winfree Professor of American History David Atwill Associate Professor of History and Asian Studies Graduate Program Director for the Department of History *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School iii ABSTRACT This dissertation examines Greek mercenary service in the Near East from 401- 330 BCE. Traditionally, the employment of Greek soldiers by the Persian Achaemenid Empire and the Kingdom of Egypt during this period has been understood to indicate the military weakness of these polities and the superiority of Greek hoplites over their Near Eastern counterparts. I demonstrate that the purported superiority of Greek heavy infantry has been exaggerated by Greco-Roman authors. Furthermore, close examination of Greek mercenary service reveals that the recruitment of Greek soldiers was not the purpose of Achaemenid foreign policy in Greece and the Aegean, but was instead an indication of the political subordination of prominent Greek citizens and poleis, conducted through the social institution of xenia, to Persian satraps and kings.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Succeeded Xerxes on the Throne of Persia?
    Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 12/1 (Spring 2001): 83Ð88. Article copyright © 2001 by William H. Shea. Who Succeeded Xerxes on the Throne of Persia? William H. Shea A standard interpretation of ancient Persian history in the mid-5th century B.C. is that Artaxerxes I followed his father on the throne after Xerxes was murdered. This interpretation has been developed from the classical writers, the king lists, and the datelines on contract tables from Babylonia which follow this order. Since there is a late Hellenistic astronomical text which dates the murder of Xerxes in the fifth Persian-Babylonian month, or August, the transition be- tween these two kings has been dated in the summer of 465 B.C., about forty days before the Jewish New Year of 1 Tishri. If the Jews, like Ezra, used a fall- to-fall calendar and accession year reckoning, those forty days would have served as ArtaxerxesÕ accession period or Year 0, and his first full year of reign would have begun on 1 Tishri in 465 B.C. That would also make his seventh year extend from the fall of 459 to the fall of 458, not from the fall of 458 to the fall of 457, as Adventist interpreters have held. But this problem is complicated by two factors. First, there was the politi- cal turmoil after the murder of Xerxes. Second, there is the lack of any sources dated to Artaxerxes in the last half of 465 B.C. The Artaxerxes sources can be reviewed as follows: 1. Persian sources.
    [Show full text]
  • Hystaspes, Gobryas, and Elite Marriage Politics in Teispid Persia John Hyland Christ Opher Newport University
    Samuel Jordan Center for Persian Studies and Culture www.dabirjournal.org Digital Archive of Brief notes & Iran Review ISSN: 2470-4040 No.5.2018 1 xšnaoθrahe ahurahe mazdå Detail from above the entrance of Tehran’s fire temple, 1286š/1917–18. Photo by © Shervin Farridnejad The Digital Archive of Brief Notes & Iran Review (DABIR) ISSN: 2470-4040 www.dabirjournal.org Samuel Jordan Center for Persian Studies and Culture University of California, Irvine 1st Floor Humanities Gateway Irvine, CA 92697-3370 Editor-in-Chief Touraj Daryaee (University of California, Irvine) Editors Parsa Daneshmand (Oxford University) Arash Zeini (Freie Universität Berlin) Shervin Farridnejad (Freie Universität Berlin) Judith A. Lerner (ISAW NYU) Book Review Editor Shervin Farridnejad (Freie Universität Berlin) Advisory Board Samra Azarnouche (École pratique des hautes études); Dominic P. Brookshaw (Oxford University); Matthew Canepa (University of Minnesota); Ashk Dahlén (Uppsala University); Peyvand Firouzeh (Cambridge University); Leonardo Gregoratti (Durham University); Frantz Grenet (Collège de France); Wouter F.M. Henkelman (École Pratique des Hautes Études); Rasoul Jafarian (Tehran University); Nasir al-Ka‘abi (University of Kufa); Andromache Karanika (UC Irvine); Agnes Korn (CNRS, UMR Mondes Iranien et Indien); Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones (University of Edinburgh); Jason Mokhtarain (University of Indiana); Ali Mousavi (UC Irvine); Mahmoud Omidsalar (CSU Los Angeles); Antonio Panaino (University of Bologna); Alka Patel (UC Irvine); Richard Payne (University of Chicago); Khodadad Rezakhani (History, UCLA); Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis (British Museum); M. Rahim Shayegan (UCLA); Rolf Strootman (Utrecht University); Giusto Traina (University of Paris-Sorbonne); Mohsen Zakeri (University of Göttingen) Logo design by Charles Li Layout and typesetting by Kourosh Beighpour Contents Notes 1- Hamid Bikas Shourkaei: La satrapie de Phrygie hellespontique (Daskyleion): des origines 1 à la chute de l’Empire perse achéménide 2- Stanley M.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Was the Fourth King in Dan 11:2? Frank W
    Modified 09/14/15 Who Was the Fourth King in Dan 11:2? Frank W. Hardy And now I will show you the truth. Behold, three more kings shall arise in Persia, and a fourth shall be far richer than all of them. And when he has become strong through his riches, he shall stir up all against the kingdom of Greece. (Dan 11:2) Ezra 4 1. Cyrus II (559-530) vs. 5 2. Darius I (522-486) vs. 5 3. Xerxes I (486-465) vs. 6 4. Artaxerxes I (465-424) vs. 23 5. Darius I (522-486) vs. 24 Dan 11 (proposed) 1. Cambyses II (530-522) 2. Bardiya (522) 3. Darius I (522-486) 4. Xerxes (486-465) The fourth king listed In Ezra 4 is Artaxerxes I (465-424). In Dan 11:2 we are told that three others would arise in Persia and that the next king the angel wanted to talk about was the fourth. Can we reason from Ezra to Daniel in this regard and argue that because Artaxerxes is fourth in Ezra he should also be fourth in Daniel? That possibility is attractive, but doesn’t work. The lists in Ezra 4 and Dan 11 are quite different from each other. Daniel requires us to start counting after Cyrus II The Great (559-53) and to include his next three successors. Since the text does not tell us who these are, we must go to history to learn their names. History tells us that the next three men to occupy the throne of Persia after Cyrus were Cambyses II (530- 522), Bardiya (522), and Darius I (522-486).
    [Show full text]
  • CROSSJNG the STRAITS: the PERSIANS in THRACE' Jan P. Stronk Tn Or Shortly Before 5131, King Darius Collected a Large Fleet From
    TALANTA XXX-XXXJ (1998-1999) CROSSJNG THE STRAITS: THE PERSIANS IN THRACE' Jan P. Stronk Tn or shortly before 5131, King Darius collected a large fleet from among the Greek cities in Asia Minor and sent it to the Pontic coast. A Greek engineer, Mandrocles, constructed a boat-bridge across the Bosporus. As Herodotus states (Hdt. IV.87), two marble memorial ste­ lae commemorated this feat in Greek and "Assyrian characters", by which he can have meant Old Persian, Elamite, or Akkadian. The Persian army crossed the bridge and entered Thrace, following the fleet. People from the West Pontic coast until the Ister, including Greek colonies and Thracian tribes, submitted to the Persians without resist­ ance. Without problems the army continued its march to the Ister. Meanwhile a pontoon bridge had been constructed across the river. Darius crossed the Danube and started a campaign against the Scythians of the South Russian steppes. As Bury puts it: "Cyrus had conquered the eastern coasts of the Mediterranean; Cambyses had completed and secured that conquest on the south side by the subjec­ tion of Egypt; it remained for Darius to complete and secure his empire on the north side by the reduction of Thrace" (Bury 1970, 238). A key function in this policy was preserved for "The Straits", the Bosporus and the Dardanelles. Control of the Straits was in more than one respect important for Persia. First because the Straits connected rather than divided the Thracians living on either sides of the Straits (cf. Stronk 1995, 59-60), second because mastery of the Straits facili­ tated the hegemony of the Ionian states in the Euxine region,2 third * In 1994, I submitted a paper with this title to the Thracia Pontica VI conference at Soz.opol (Bulgaria).
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    Akropolis 3 (2019) 5-28 Otto Linderborg* The Place of Herodotus’ Constitutional Debate in the History of Political Ideas and the Emergence of Classical Social Theory Abstract: This paper investigates the question of which place in the history of political ideas may be assigned to the Constitutional Debate in Herodotus’ Histories, 3.80-82. It is shown that the Herodotean debate represents the earliest extant example of a social theory, in which a variety of distinctly social ordering principles are weighed against each other with normative arguments and in isolation from all sorts of divine authorisations. The article divides into three parts. The first part gives an account of the theoretical predecessors to the classical social theory first evidenced in the Constitutional Debate. The second part consists of an exposition of the socio-intellectual progressions clustered in the Herodotean debate, focussing on developments in constitutional thinking and argumentative evolvement. The third part consists of a close reading of the argumen- tative and politico-social content of the Constitutional Debate. The Constitutional Debate of Book III in Herodotus’ Histories is a dispute set at Susa in and around 522 B.C.E. The debate involves three noble Persians, who, after having lead a successful coup against the ‘false Smerdis’ – i.e., against the ὅμοιος εἶδος Σμέρδι (“the one looking like Smerdis”), posing as the brother of the deceased king Cambyses – consider whether to change the constitution in one of two ways, or to leave the political order unaltered.1 The three Persian aris- tocrats involved in the debate are Otanes pleading the case for democracy, Meg- abyzus for oligarchy and the future king Darius for the prevailing form of rule – namely, monarchy.2 In the Herodotean narrative, the debate has been placed strikingly at the centre of the account of the history of Persia in its phase of tran- sition from the reign of Cambyses to that of Darius and the ensuing Persian Wars.
    [Show full text]
  • Herodotus' Constitutional Debate and the Spread of Isonomia
    Herodotus’ Constitutional Debate and the Spread of Isonomia Herodotus’ depiction of the Constitutional Debate in Persia prior to the ascension of Darius in Book 3 (3.80-83) has been questioned by scholars both for its location of apparent fifth-century Greek political language in sixth-century Persia and for its seeming lack of connection to the surrounding narrative, as radical political concepts such as isonomia are strikingly introduced only to be immediately obscured by the resumption of the Persian monarchy (e.g. Connor 1971; Pelling 2002). By examining subsequent passages in which Herodotus discusses isonomia, my paper shows that the introduction of this concept in the Constitutional Debate forms an integral part of Herodotus’ narrative, as isonomia spreads from the Persian court to Greek Ionia. The term isonomia occurs four times in the text of Herodotus. While the first two (3.80.2 and 3.83.1) occur during the Constitutional Debate, Herodotus next uses the term during the insurrection on Samos when Maeandrius proposes to relinquish his power, absolve the tyranny, and establish isonomia (3.142.2-3). As previous scholars have noted (Immerwahr 1957; Raaflaub 2004), the language attributed to Maeandrius during this episode recalls the speech of Otanes in the Constitutional Debate. But the significance of this apparent allusion to Otanes’ speech and the role of isonomia here has not been fully explored. Herodotus’ inclusion of Darius’ decision to send the same Otanes to Samos to deal with the insurrection further emphasizes the connection between the two passages. The surprising appearance of Otanes creates the impression that isonomia has spread from Persia to Samos along with him.
    [Show full text]
  • Views on the Nature of Human Relations And, Ultimately, the Historical Process
    INFORMATION TO USERS While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this manuscript, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. For example: • Manuscript pages may have indistinct print. In such cases, the best available copy has been filmed. • Manuscripts may not always be complete. In such cases, a note will indicate that it is not possible to obtain missing pages. • Copyrighted material may have been removed from the manuscript. In such cases, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, and charts) are photographed by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each oversize page is also filmed as one exposure and is available, for an additional charge, as a standard 35mm slide or as a 17”x 23” black and white photographic print. Most photographs reproduce acceptably on positive microfilm or microfiche but lack the clarity on xerographic copies made from the microfilm. For an additional charge, 35mm slides of 6”x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography. Order Number 8726642 Fathers and sons in the Histories of Herodotus Greenberger, Jeff Steven, Ph.D. The Ohio State University, 1987 UMI 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106 PLEASE NOTE: In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark .
    [Show full text]