My difference with Professor Morrison can, I think, be best expressed as follows. (1) In Herodotos' debate there is no compromise between democracy and monarchy (any more than between either of these and oligarchy), no comfortable Polybian mixture of good elements. Otanes especially is quite uncompromising: ἐμοὶ δοκέει ἔνα μὲν ήμέων μούναρχον μηκέτι γενέσθαι οὔτε γάρ ἡδύ οὔτε ἀγαθόν . . . πλῆθος δὲ ἄρχον . . . τούτων τῶν ὁ μούναρχος ποιέει ούδέν, and so throughout. The μούναρχος is autocrat or nothing. And the remarks of Megabyxos and Dareios on democracy remind one of the Old Oligarch, no friend to Perikles. (2) Although I agree of course that it is Greek thought and not Persian that informs the debate, it is not for nothing that it is Dareios, the best of μούναρχοι, who defends μουναρχίη; that is, at this stage Herodotos has the Persian monarchy in mind. And (3), in as much as it is Greek experience, not Persian, that is behind Dareios' description of the failures of oligarchy and democracy that lead inevitably to μουναρχίη, it is Greek experience of the rise of tyranny—ἐ ςἔχθε αμεγάλ αἀλλήλοισ ιἀπικνέοται, ἐξ ὧν στάσιες ἐγγίγνονται, ἐκ δὲ τῶν στασίων φόνος, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ φόνου ἀπέβη ἐς μουναρχίην; and from democracy, τοῦτο ςὲ τοιοῦτο γίνεται ἐς ὃ ἂν προστάς τις τοῦ δήμου τοὺς τοιούτους παύσῃ ἐκ δὲ αὐτῶν θωμάзεται οὗτος δὴ ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου, θωμαзόμεος δὲ ἀν' ὧν ἐφάνη μούναρχος ἐών. The enemies of Perikles likened him to Peisistratos and his power, to a tyranny; but was Herodotos among these enemies ? (Alkibiades might have read the last sentence quoted above as his justification for ‘aiming at a tyranny’). And not Peisistratos, but other Herodotean tyrants are in some measure like the oriental μούναρχος, Kleisthenes of Sikyon (compare him with Croesus) and Polykrates: does Herodotos wish to suggest that Perikles was like either of these? More particularly since he was a wise man and knew that Xerxes-was as much a μούναρχος-type as Dareios.