Intro

       Shortly after (ca.520 B.C.) Darius, Otanes, Megabyzus and other conspirators had taken Persia through revolt, they met to discuss what sort of government to put into place. Otanes spoke first, and in favor of democracy in Persia. This argument did not go over well, nor did it win the day since Darius became Emperor. Herodotos provides this account of the meeting in Bk 3:80-2:

       What does this dialogue tell you about Eastern views of government, at least as Herodotos charaterized them (He seems to have been fair, and fairly accurate.).

The Text

         When the fighting and chaos had settled down, the conspirators met together to consult about the future.... Otanes recommended that the management of public affairs should be entrusted to the whole nation. "To me," he said, "it seems advisable that we should no longer have a single man to rule over us---the rule of one is neither good nor pleasant. You cannot have forgotten to what lengths the Autocrat Cambyses went in his haughty tyranny, and the arrogance of the priestly Magi you have yourselves experienced. How is it possible that monarchy should be a well-adjusted thing, when it allows a man to do as he likes without consequences? Such power is enough to stir criminal thoughts in the best of men. Give a person this power, and straightway his manifold good things puff him up with over-weening pride, while envy is so natural to human kind that it cannot but arise in him. But pride and envy together lead to deeds of savage violence."

        Otanes continued: "True it is that kings, possessing as they do all that heart can desire, ought to be void of envy; but the contrary is seen in their conduct towards the citizens. They are jealous of the most virtuous among their subjects, and plot their death. On the other hand, kings take delight in the lowest fools, being ever ready to listen to their tales of slanderers and fall into their influence. Besides, a king is just the most inconsistent of men: Pay him court in moderation, and he is angry because you do not show him more profound respect--- show him profound respect, and he is offended again, because (as he says) you are a toady. Worst of all is that he sets aside the laws of the land, puts men to death without trial, and subjects women to unspeakable violence. However, the rule of the many has, in the first place, the fairest of names -- equality. It is free from all those outrages which a king is likely to commit. In a democracy, rulers are chosen fairly and then they act fairly, because each is answerable for what he does. The people gave power and can take power away. I advise, therefore, that we do away with monarchy, and raise the people to power. For the people are all in all." Such were the sentiments of Otanes.

         Megabyzus spoke next, and advised the setting up an oligarchy: "In all that Otanes has said to persuade you to put down monarchy," he observed, "I fully concur; but his recommendation that we should call the people to power seems to me not the best advice. For there is nothing so void of understanding, nothing so full of wantonness, as the unwieldy rabble of the people. It is folly for men, while seeking to escape the arbitrary rule of a tyrant, to give themselves up to the arbitarary rule of a rude unbridled mob. The tyrant, in all his doings, at least knows what is he about, but a mob is altogether devoid of knowledge; for how should there be any knowledge in a rabble, unlearned and untaught, with no natural sense of what is right, unable to see what is appropriate? It rushes wildly into state affairs with all the fury of a wild river swollen in the winter, and confuses everything. Let the enemies of the Persians be ruled by democracies! Let us choose out from the citizens a certain number of the worthiest, and put the government into their hands. For thus both we ourselves shall be among the governors, and power being entrusted to the best men, it is likely that the best counsels will prevail in the state." This was the advice which Megabyzus gave.

        After him Darius came forward, and spoke as follows: "All that Megabyzus said against democracy was well said, I think; but about oligarchy he did not speak advisedly; for take these three forms of government---democracy, oligarchy, and monarchy---and let them each be at their best, I maintain that monarchy far surpasses the other two. What government can possibly be better than that of the very best man in the whole state? The counsels of such a man are like himself, the best, and so he governs the mass of the people to their heart's content; while at the same time his measures against evil-doers are kept more secret than in other states. On the other hand, in oligarchies, where men compete with each other in the service of the commonwealth, fierce hatreds often rise between man and man, each wishing to be leader, and to carry his own measures; from which violent quarrels come, which lead to open strife, often ending in bloodshed. Then monarchy is sure to follow; and this too shows how far that rule surpasses all others.

        Again, in a democracy, there will always be abuses and crimes: these abuses, however, do not lead to hatreds but to close friendships, which are formed among those criminals engaged in them, who must hold well together to carry on their villainies. And so things go on until a man stands forth as champion of the people, and puts down the evil-doers. Straightway the author of so great a service is admired by all, and from being admired soon comes to be appointed king; so that here too it is plain that monarchy is the best government.

        Lastly, to sum up all in a word, whence, I ask, was it that we got the freedom which we enjoy? Did democracy give it us, or oligarchy, or a monarch? As a single man recovered our freedom for us, my sentence is that we keep to the rule of one. Even apart from this, we ought not to change the laws of our forefathers when they work fairly; for to do so is not well."

     What was the position of each of the three speakers? How, exactly, did each support his position (Reasons? Evidence? Historical details? Common sense? Etc.) Be as specific as you can for each. Herodotos evidently wanted us to think (rightly) that Darius would win the day with his argument. How did Herodotos achieve this 'sub-text'? How does the argument work for us today, who actually live in a democracy?