Herodotus’ “Constitutional Debate” From the Inside Out

The so-called “Constitutional Debate” (3.80-82) has long been the subject of intense interest among Herodotean scholars. Some hold that the debate is authentic, grounded in Persian sources traceable to the occasion (cf. Brannan, Traditio 19 [1963] 427-38). Others aver that the passage is fictitious, whether Herodotos or another invented it (e.g., Maass, Hermes 22 [1887] 581-95; cf. Lateiner in Munson, ed. Herodotus: Volume 1: Herodotus and the Narrative of the Past [Oxford, 2013] 197).

One prominent organizing element in Herodotus's narrative analysis of political power is his portrait of powerful and ambitious Eastern kings: Croesus and Cyrus at the outset, Xerxes at the end. Darius, in significant ways the most powerful and successful of them all, occupies and thematically ties together the narrative of Books 3 to 6 of the Histories. He emerges as one of the seven co-conspirators against the Magi in Book 3, and as the proponent of monarchy in the constitutional debate shortly thereafter.

In an important book, Margaret Miller argues that fifth-century Athenians, even while engaging in anti-Persian rhetoric, nevertheless 'appropriated and reshaped aspects of Achaemenid culture to their own social and imperial needs'. As evidence for this receptivity, Miller cites the Athenians' adoption of Persian art and other items of material culture (1997:1). I would like to explore a different side of Athenian receptivity towards Persia.

Although post-Cleisthenic Athens is the only actual democracy featured at length in the Histories, Herodotus provides numerous accounts of groups – both Greek and non-Greek – engaged in deliberation and voting. These examples of group political activity provide Herodotus’ readers with the opportunity to assess (1) the validity of the claims about popular rule that the Persian conspirators make in the “Constitutional Debate” and (2) Herodotus’ reputation as a fan of popular rule.