The "Constitutional Debate" in Herodotus (Book III.80-82)
Background:
After seven men overthrow two brothers who attempted to usurp the
throne, they gather in council to decide what to do for the future.
Note that in the following paraphrase of the debate, much of the
terminology used is not actually present in the Greek.
Note that the gods have no role in the debate.
Note also that it is highly theoretical and abstract: it makes no
reference to the particulars of the situation. There are those who
think that in inserting this debate here, Herodotus is engaging in an
anachronistic fiction. Others insist, as Herodotus himself does, that
the debate must have occurred.
Otanes' Speech:
- disadvantages of monarchy:
- monarchy is not well-adjusted (i.e. not stable)
- one man does what he likes
- is not answerable
- such power is likely to make the worthiest man go bad
- he becomes proud and, paradoxically, envious
- violence/hubris results, because the monarch is human:
- monarchs despise the virtuous and listen to slanderers and
base people
- worst of all, he puts aside the laws of the land (the nomaia patria)
- puts men to death without trial
- rapes women
- advantages of rule of the many:
- men are equal before the law (isonomia)
- offices are distributed by lot
- officers are held to account for their conduct
- the many create the laws
Megabyzus' Speech:
- Ditto what Otanes said about monarchy
- Disadvantages of rule of the many:
- the many have no understanding or knowledge
- they do not know what they are doing
- the many are wanton: they have their own brand of hubris
- the many have no natural sense of what is right and fit
- the many rush into affairs like a swollen river and confuse
everything
- Oligarchy is best:
- choose the best men and they will rule with the best counsel
Darius' Speech:
- Ditto what Megabyzus said on democracy
- When we take the best monarchy, the best oligarchy, and the best
democracy,
Monarchy is best.
- What can be better than rule of the best man?
- He governs the masses so that they are content his measures
against evil are less well-known and so more
effective
-
- Monarchy will result in any case, as the following arguments show:
- Disadvantages of Oligarchies
- enmities/factions arise between men who each want their own
way
- violence results-stasis
- monarchy is the result of the strife that ensues
- therefore, monarchy is better.
- Disadvantages of democracy
- It is impossible to avoid malpractices
- malpracticers create close friendships
- then someone comes forth to champion the masses against the
malpracticers
- monarchy results
- therefore monarchy is best
- one man led the revolt against the Medes that led us to the
situation we are now
in (i.e. the Persians are ruling).
- if something works, we ought not to change it: conservatism.
"Theory of Unchecked Sovereignty"
Is " who will rule?" the fundamental question? or is it "How should we
construct the system so that good rulers do well and are rewarded,
while bad rulers are reigned in and disciplined?"
Issues raised:
What is inevitable?
Stability as a value.