The Great and Wonderful Works: What Monarchy Reveals

The Royal Road of Herodotus’ History reveals a myriad of such “beautiful guest houses” as proliferated knowledge, understanding, and morality which each bring the Road’s inquisitive traversers closer to the ultimate goal of virtue (see Herodotus, History 5.54). Though many wrongly judge the task of braving this road a risk not worth its reward, much like Kleomenes judged the Persian Royal Road prior to hearing of its bountiful provisions, those who boldly march on find themselves welcomed into the mind of History herself as witnesses to her most vivid recollections of the past (Herodotus, History 5.54). Indeed, travelers on the Road of Herodotus’ Histories find themselves drawn into the story action, running alongside the athletes of Olympus, discussing the battle tactics of Marathon with Miltiades, fighting shoulder to shoulder with Leonidas and his blood-marred men. Through these and other elaborate recollections, Herodotus demonstrates that history is Ino’s sash for that lonely swimmer, Virtue, drowning amid the monstrous and incessant storms of injustice. To focus on a single aspect of Herodotus’ championing of virtuous activity is admittedly to grant little praise where much is due, yet perhaps it is best to do full justice to the one portion of his work than to grant lower praise to the whole of it. With this caution in mind and with the knowledge that one portion of the Histories by no means surpasses in excellence every other portion, the writer of this work proceeds to develop his argument: Through a review of the kingship of Cambyses through the lens of the statements on kingship of Otanes and Darius,  the Histories’s travelers can see that a system of government with checked power far surpasses that of a monarchy.

The wise Otanes, first to ascertain the clandestine identity of Smerdis the magus, speaks first and rejects the idea of a monarchy. He begins by catechizing the monarchical rule theretofore, asking his co-conspirators how a system of government could be “harmonious and coherent” which “permits the ruler to do whatever he wishes” (Herodotus Histories 3.80.3). Otanes of course speaks rightly in asserting that a monarchical regime allows unmitigated power. When Cambyses longs to marry his sister, for instance, his royal judges “discovered no law that would sanction marriage between a man and his sister,” yet he is allowed to marry her because another law declares that “the king of the Persians [is] permitted to do whatever he want[s]” (Herodotus Histories 3.31.4). Otanes asserts that the power of monarchical rule causes one to “lose his normal mental balance,” which fact is evident in Cambyses’s having two of his servants killed for their failure to kill Croesus, though Cambyses himself was pleased that Croesus had escaped death (Herodotus Histories 3.80.3, 3.36).

The negative qualities burgeoned by monarchy which Otanes seems to loathe the most are envy and arrogance. Cambyses can easily be said to be arrogant if one simply learns of his attempt to take his army on an expedition against Ethiopia “without ordering and provision for food, nor giving any rational consideration to the fact that he was about to lead his army to the edges of the earth (Herodotus Histories 3.25.1). It is clear, then, that Cambyses somehow thought his army impervious to the requirements of the body–an arrogant supposition indeed. In fact, Otanes claims, as an example to aid in his anti–monarchical speech, that “Cambyses became outrageously arrogant”  (Herodotus Histories 3.80.2). Furthermore, what but envy would drive Cambyses, the king of all of Persia, to embark on such an expedition? The Stoics, in accordance with Cicero, define envy as “distress incurred by reason of a neighbor’s prosperity, though it does no harm to the envious person,” which definition seems both accurate and telling of the circumstance of Cambyses (Cicero Tusculan Disputations IV.VIII). “Though he possesses all good things,” and thus a neighbor’s prosperity does him no harm whatsoever, “he envies the best men...while he derives pleasure from the worst people in town,” says Otanes of a general monarch, which proves an accurate representation of Cambyses’s actions while on the seat of Persia (Herodotus Histories 3.81.4).

Perhaps possessing some foresight of Darius’s monarchy–championing speech to come, Otanes drives home a few more points regarding monarchs. Of a monarch’s acceptance of advice, Otanes says, “if you admire him to a moderate degree, he is vexed that he is not being treated with sufficient deference”  (Herodotus Histories 3.80.5). This statement calls to mind Cambyses’s killing Prexaspes’s son (Herodotus Histories 3.35). Though Prexaspes answered Cambyses’s inquiry about the Persian disposition toward their king truthfully, Cambyses rage is only quelled by the laudatory remarks of Croesus–namely, that Cambyses was not like his father, for Cambyses has not “sired a son such as [himself] to leave behind” (Herodotus Histories 3.34.5). Though some may disagree, Cambyses appears to this writer far too arrogant for the latter portion of Otanes’ above statement to apply to him; however, Cambyses’s vacillating fancies have been duly demonstrated in the above examples of having messengers killed despite their bringing him joy by saving Croesus and of killing Prexaspes’ son despite Prexaspes’ obedience and truthfulness in answering the king’s inquiry.

Finally, Otanes says of a monarch that “he overturns ancestral customs[,] he uses brute force on women, and he kills men without trial”  (Herodotus Histories 3.80.5). Cambyses certainly overturns his ancestral customs when he abuses the body of Amasis (Herodotus Histories 3.16) and later “open[s] up ancient graves and inspected the corpses” and subjects the cult statues in the sanctuary of Hephaistos to “mockery and derision,” finally burning them (Herodotus Histories 3.37). It can also be said that he uses brute force on women, taking into consideration the fact that he killed his sister, who was also his wife, for reminding him of the death of Smerdis, son of Cyrus (Herodotus Histories 3.31.6). He also kills men without trial: take the above example of the killing of Prexaspes’s and the burying alive of twelve first-rank Persians “for no good reason of all” (Herodotus Histories 3.35.5). Otanes, then, seems to be of the persuasion that monarchy is the worst of all forms of government to espouse, and virtually all of his assertions are supported through historical example.

After being seated at the table of the co-conspirators against the Magi and taking a glimpse into the sapient mind of Otanes, the traveler of the Herodotean road, freshly armed with arguments against monarchical regimes, receives cautiously the speech of Darius. Darius, in stark opposition to Otanes’s censure of monarchy, asserts that no one can judge better than the one who is the best, who, having “the best judgment...would be a blameless administrator of the majority”  (Herodotus Histories 3.82.2). Though the reigns of other kings might support this claim (see footnote ten), one is at a loss to acquiesce an example of Cambyses’s acting on good judgment, much less the best judgment. Darius further claims that a single ruler “would best be able to maintain silence about his plans to oppose his enemies (Herodotus Histories 3.82.2); however, Cambyses’s life elucidates only evidence to the contrary. When Cambyses’s intends a secret reconnaissance mission of Ethiopia, his spies are discovered (Herodotus Histories 3.21.2). Furthermore, Cambyses tells his subjects of his plans to attack a land or lands before he has fleshed out an appropriate battle plan on multiple occasions, once leading to the refusal of his Phoenician fleet to sail against the Carthaginians (Herodotus Histories 3.19).  The fact that each of his attacks can be attributed chiefly to the fact that Cambyses is discontented with or envious of the land(s) shows that he is driven chiefly by emotion and greed rather than reason and virtue and is therefore virtually incapable of maintaining silence about his plans for war.

Darius finally argues for the preservation of tradition: “since we were freed by one man, we should preserve that form of government” (Herodotus Histories 3.82.5). “Moreover,” he says, “we should not let go of our ancestral traditions, which are fine just as they are” (Herodotus Histories 3.82.5). The reign of Cambyses, however, has already been shown to stand not in unity with, but in opposition to ancestral customs (see footnote seven). Therefore, to keep the tradition of monarchical rule is to usurp other traditions, which makes Darius argument fall in on itself, aiding neither his position nor Otanes’s.

As the covers of the Histories close slowly at the end of a long journey, the traveler disembarks from the vessel of the story alone, yet from the lessons the Histories he shall never remove himself. Nay, that those “great and wonderful works,” for whose memory Herodotus writes and among which are the act of his recording these glorious chapters from the mind of History, may the lessons forever remain (Herodotus Histories Proem). May those lessons, not the least of which being those taught through the story of Cambyses, be imbedded forever in the discussions of classrooms, the verdicts of courtrooms, and the meditation of bedrooms. May those subject to monarchy realize the story that History tells and, in so hearing, set themselves free from that reign which is so easily corrupted and so readily destructive. Yes, may time prove worthwhile the toil of Herodotus and worthy the cry of History that evermore the works of virtue may be done, the labor of evil succumb, and the great and wonderful works of men never go unsung.

Works Cited

J. E. King, trans. Tusculan disputations,. Rev. ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press;, 1945. Print.

Strassler, Robert B. The Landmark Herodotus: the histories. New York: Pantheon Books, 2007. Print.