¹ Cf. Sayce, A.H., Ancient Empires of the East 1 (London 1883) 269. Sayce referred to Herodotus as ‘the Father of Lies,’ thus concurring with the estimate of Ctesias and Lucian and thereby encountering some well-aimed stilettos from Glover, T. R. in his Herodotus (Berkeley 1924).Google Scholar

² Cf. George Rawlinson, The History of Herodotus II (London 1858) 473–74; The Seven Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World II (New York 1884) 458–59; How, W. W. and Joseph Wells, A Commentary on Herodotus (Oxford 1928) [henceforth cited as How and Wells] ad loc. and I 392ff.; Joseph Wells, Studies in Herodotus (Oxford 1923) 99ff.; ‘Herodotus and Athens,’ Classical Philology 23 (1928) 317–31. The Persian in question is Zopyrus, the great-grandson of Megabyzus, the conspirator who spoke on behalf of oligarchy. Zopyrus, who enters the Histories in 3.160, is believed to have been a close friend of the historian as well as a philhellene. All these facts would account for Herodotus’ knowledge of the debate and for the rather Greek tone contained therein. As a deserter and a philhellene, Zopyrus would have every motive for coloring the historical data. As a solution to the present problem this conjecture merely introduces a source and hence moves the essential question back one step further: Were the facts given by Zopyrus historical? The Persian source may give further support to the Herodotean account but characteristically the other elements in this conjecture merely serve to complicate the situation. Moreover, the substantial historicity of Zopyrus’ account, if such there was and if he was the source for Herodotus’ narrative, will, in the present stage of our knowledge, have to be judged according to the same norms applied to the Herodotean history, and stand or fall with it.Google Scholar

³ Cf. Ernest Barker, Greek Political Theory: Plato and His Predecessors (London 1951) 288; Festugière, A.J. O.P., Liberté et civilisation chez les Grecs (Paris 1947) 12–13; Ph.E. Legrand, Hérodote ² (Paris 1949) II.3.106; Sinclair, T.A., A History of Greek Political Thought (London 1951) 62. 94, 229 and ch. 3. Stella, Luigia A. (‘Erodoto e Atene,’ Atene e Roma ³, 4 [1936] 73–100) mentions among the influences experienced by Herodotus at Athens the ‘mania dei discorsi’ (78), an obvious characteristic of the Sophists.Google Scholar

⁴ Cf. Hirst, G.M., Classical Papers (Oxford, 1938) 104ff.; Martin, Charles B., ‘Herodotus,’ Martin Classical Lectures ¹ (Cambridge, Mass. 1930) 25; Stella, art. cit. 81; T.B.L. Webster, Political Interpretations in Greek Literature (Manchester 1948) 49ff.Google Scholar

⁵ Enoch, J. Powell, ‘Notes on Herodotus,’ Classical Quarterly 29 (1935) 150–63.Google Scholar

⁶ Cf. Glover, , Herodotus 219; From Pericles to Philip (London 1918) 15. Legrand (op. cit. 107–08) cautiously advances towards this position but fails to assume it definitively. The conjectured Persian is again Zopyrus; cf. note 2 supra. It should also be noted that, although he does not develop the complex problem of the historicity of this passage, Myres, John L. calls attention to the dramatic qualities of Herodotus’ speeches but does not believe Herodotus and History that Herodotus’ literary skill and portraits necessarily prejudice the basic historicity of his account of the ‘Debate of the Conspirators;’ cf. Herodotus Father of History (Oxford 1953) 80, 160–61.Google Scholar

⁷ Par. 13 and 14; trans. Kent, R.G., Old Persian: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon (American Oriental Series 33; New Haven 1950) 120. For ‘ten days,’ ‘X days’ stands in Kent's translation, the ‘X’ used to suggest the cuneiform character that represents the numeral in the inscription.Google Scholar

⁸ In 7.11, however, the genealogy of Xerxes is presented and traced back to Achaemenes. For a discussion of this genealogical problem cf. How and Wells, I 387ff. Google Scholar

⁹ Cf. Gray, G.B. in The Cambridge Ancient History 4 (New York 1926) 174; How and Wells, I 393 note 1; Nyberg, Henrik S., ‘Das Reich der Achämeniden,’ in Historia Mundi 3 (Munich 1954) 72–77; Olmstead, A.T., History of the Persian Empire (Chicago 1948) 107–18; Hans H. von der Osten, Die Welt der Perser (Stuttgart 1956) 66–70.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Nyberg, , art.cit., especially 76–77. It is of further interest to note that Darius’ so-called birthright cannot be an example of primogeniture. Hystaspes, his father, and even, it would seem, his grandfather were still alive: cf. Olmstead, loc. cit. Google Scholar

¹¹ An historical item of note is that Ctesias, who wrote his Persica to correct Herodotus’ errors, presents the same tale of the ruse employed by Darius to obtain the throne (Persica 15). This fact is all the more interesting since Ctesias is supposed to have lived at the Persian court from about 405 to 397 B.C., enjoying a knowledge of the Persian tongue and access to the royal archives (cf. Diodorus 2.32). A sceptic might be tempted either to question the value of all official records, or merely to concur with Lucian in condemning Ctesias along with Herodotus to the same excruciating torments in Hades, the worst torments of all, those reserved for oἱ ψενσάμενοί τɩ παϱὰ τòν ßίov ϰαί oἱ μὴ τὰ ἀληθῆ συγγεγϱαφότες (Verae historiae 2.31). Google Scholar

¹² Thorkild Jacobsen, ‘Primitive Democracy in Ancient Mesopotamia,’ JNES 2 (1943) 159–72.Google Scholar

¹³ Ibid. 159.Google Scholar

¹⁴ The meaning of this word further evolved so that Philo may be found employing it of the peaceful running of a government under its king. Cf. Sinclair, op. cit. 37 and note 1, 298, and 302. Google Scholar

¹⁵ Burnet, John, Greek Philosophy, Thales to Plato (London 1932) 106–07.Google Scholar

¹⁶ A good, compendious treatment of the Sophistic mentality may be found in Xavier Zubiri's ‘Socrates and Greek Wisdom’ (trans. Willis, R. S. ), The Thomist 7 (1944) 1–64.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Webster, , op.cit. 51.Google Scholar

¹⁸ A careful reading of Otanes’ speech, especially in the light of our knowledge of Periclean democracy and Athenian history, reveals it to be an ironic indictment of democratic Athens. The most serious objection brought against a monarch is that he is ἀνεύθυνος whereas the greatest blessing of democracy is that it is supposed to make an official ὑπεύθυνος. Yet, were the popular favorites in Athens always ‘responsible’? The capital sin among the Greeks, ὓβϱις, is sure to follow in the wake of being ἀνεύθυνος and bring along its companion φθόνος. Again, consider the history of the Athenian favorites. But the essence of the rule of the people is in the word ἰσονομίη, that equality that Periclean Athens cherished ideally for herself but would not grant to others. Darius, while categorically denying the benefits attributed to democracy and identifying them all with monarchy, concurs with Megabyzus in calling democracy ἀξυνετώτεϱον and ὑβϱιστότεϱον. On this disparity between the Herodotean and Athenian democracies cf. Legrand, Hérodote ² I (Paris 1955) 105; Wells, Studies 153. This discussion would involve the entire question of Herodotus’ impartiality; cf. How and Wells, I 37–42. Antiquity presents us with a very partial discussion of this impartiality or, to employ Plutarch's pejorative word, ‘philobarbarism,’ in the De malignitate Herodoti. Google Scholar

¹⁹ The general tendency has been to challenge the historicity of Herodotus on practically the slightest provocation. Some of his strangest statements have, however, been dramatically verified by archaeology. Kendrick, Hence W. Pritchett (‘Herodotos and the Themistokles Decree,’ American Journal of Archeology 66 [1962] 43–47) can write: ‘Herodotos has in fact been proved to be correct in so many cases where he had earlier been doubted, that when a late document is found which flatly contradicts him, this document has to be considered a priori suspect.’ Immediate condemnation of all unlikely incidents found in the historian would entail the extreme views of Sayce. Herodotus does not merit such prejudice. A genial scepticism may be in order but, unless confronted with substantial contradictory evidence, we are safe, as a result of the many past acquittals of Herodotean historicity, in giving our credence to his narrative. This statement is especially true in the present case since Herodotus staunchly maintained the veracity of his account against the doubters of his own day.Google Scholar

²⁰ The question of Herodotus’ historiography or philosophy of history is clearly a subject for another paper. Although this question is intimately connected with the purely historical problem here pursued, the two can be validly investigated separately provided that one is never sacrificed to the other in drawing conclusions. As has been frequently indicated, the final solution to our present problem will doubtlessly be found in a combination of fact and the Herodotean handling of that fact. We have been primarily concerned with the fact. On aspects of Herodotus’ historiography, however, cf. Myres, op. cit. and Gomme, A. W. The Greek Attitude to Poetry and History (Berkely 1954) ch. 4. Gomme believes that Herodotus is somewhat of a poet, thus showing that Aristotle's selection of him as an example in his distinction between the historian and the poet was unfortunate. See also Immerwahr, Henry R. 's studies on the historical structure, motivation, and conception of Herodotus in ‘Historical Action in Herodotus,’ Transactions of the American Philological Association 85 (1954) 16–45. ‘Aspects of Historical Causation in Herodotus,’ ibid. 87 (1956) 241–80, and ‘Ergon: History as a Monument in Herodotus and Thucydides,’ American Journal of Philology 81 (1960) 261–90, where full bibliographies will be found on this subject. Immerwahr mentions the ‘Accession Logos’ in the ‘Causation’ article (p. 261) but does not explicitly confront our problem of historicity.Google Scholar

²¹ Struve, V.V. ‘Hérodote et les tendances politiques en Perse sous le règne de Darius I^er (in Russian), V(estnik) D(revneῐ) I(storii) 25 (1948) 12–35. I depend upon the notice in Marouzeau for its content.Google Scholar

²² Since completion of this paper two further studies have come to my attention. Margules, B.B. in ‘Hérodote III, 80–82 et la littérature sophistique’ (in Russian), VDI 71 (1960) 21–34. denies the sophistic origin of these speeches and considers them important sources for the political history of Persia under Darius. (Here again I am indebted to Marouzeau.) Apffel, H., in a privately printed dissertation, Die Verfassungsdebatte bei Herodot (Erlangen 1957), upon a resumé of which I am depending (Anzeiger für die Altertumswissenschaft 14 [1961] 48), also seems to conclude that the debate is partly historical. He appears to maintain that the Gaumata / Smerdis established some sort of ἰσονομίη in Persia.Google Scholar