The Discourse of Kingship in Classical Greece

Carol Atack

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN:
  9780367205300
• eBook ISBN:
  9780429557125
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Ancient History
• Index: History

This book examines how ancient authors explored ideas of kingship as a political role fundamental to the construction of civic unity, the use of kingship stories to explain the past and present unity of the polis and the distinctive function or status attributed to kings in such accounts.

It explores the notion of kingship offered by historians such as Herodotus, as well as dramatists writing for the Athenian stage, paying particular attention to dramatic depictions of the unique capabilities of Theseus in uniting the city in the figure of the 'democratic king'. It also discusses kingship in Greek philosophy: the Socratics' identification of an 'art of kingship', and Xenophon and Isocrates' model of 'virtue monarchy'. In turn, these allow a rereading of explorations of kingship and excellence in Plato's later political thought, seen as a critique of these models, and also in Aristotle's account of total kingship or pambasileia, treated here as a counterfactual device developed to explore the epistemic benefits of democracy.

This book offers a fascinating insight into the institution of monarchy in classical Greek thought and society, both for those working on Greek philosophy and politics, and also for students of the history of political thought.

1
King and cosmos in Herodotus

‘It would seem that nothing is better than one man, the best’, claims Darius, leader of a conspiracy of Persian nobles against the government of a usurper, as he and his fellow conspirators debate the way in which Persia should be governed after they have seized power (Hdt. 3.82.3). His point is a counter to the claims for democracy, the rule of the many, advanced by Otanes, and for aristocracy, the rule of the few, advanced by Megabyzus. The advantages of monarchy, as Darius sees it, are the advantages of unity and unification; it is also the inevitable outcome of all civil strife, as a strong leader emerges from the contenders. Past experience has been that such a leader delivered freedom (3.82.5); monarchy is a necessary stage in the political cycle.

The presence of this debate in Herodotus’ account of the history of Persia has been deemed an anachronism, an interpolation of sophistic ideas and debate more appropriate to the government of the classical Greek polis than the contested rule over the Persians from a century earlier.¹ It offers an important summary of early Greek political thinking, but much scholarship has focused on Otanes’ positive account of isonomia (as he terms democracy) and his critique of single-person rule, described by Carolyn Dewald as a ‘despotic template’, and expanded by Nino Luraghi into a ‘discourse of tyranny’.² But Darius’ presentation of monarchy distils a detailed model of one-man rule, developed by Herodotus from sources including the stories of culture heroes and founders, the ideas of Presocratic philosophers, and the histories and ideas of non-Greek cultures, precariously transmitted but recognisable in a series of exemplary accounts of the strengths and weaknesses of monarchy. It may also echo Persian thought on kingship, expressed by Darius himself in a range of inscriptions attached to monuments, from the cliff face at Bisitun to his royal tomb at Naqsh-i Rustam.³ The picture of kingship Herodotus derives from both Greek and Persian sources offers an ideal that his diverse rulers largely fail to meet. But this model is more than the reverse of the image of the tyrant. Rather, it summarises the Persian ideology of kingship presented in their inscribed proclamations.⁴

The investigation of forms of political rule and governance dominates Herodotus’ complex literary enterprise: this includes the forms it takes in different types of society, Greek and non-Greek, the impact of different individuals within the role of ruler, and which form is the best choice for a particular society. His evaluative criteria include how forms of rule instantiate good cosmic order within societies, and whether rulers increase or decrease their empire. Yet Darius’ closing speech also summarises important ancient thought, Greek and non-Greek, on the benefits of monarchy. It restates the central point of ideas of ancient kingship, that certain individuals are capable of transforming their society from disordered plurality to ordered unity, and that such action is a necessary stage within the cycle of human affairs. Yet in Darius’ version, this heroic figure’s actions result in a better alignment of society with the ordering of the cosmos, confounding the distinction between cosmic kings (who mediate with or represent divinity) and heroic kings (legitimised by their personal excellence) drawn by Alan Strathern in his development of the Axial Age model.⁵

This chapter first examines the disparate sources of Herodotus’ models of monarchy – the ideas of Herodotus’ philosophical contemporaries, the stories of rulers from the range of countries in contact with Persia, traditional stories about rulers – and identifies some of its features – the concern with knowledge, the exploration of the ambiguous border between good and bad monarchical rule, the peculiar status of women. It then uses the model to read three key stories from the non-Greek societies Herodotus studies, and closes by examining the way in which the kingship model works within the Greek world itself. It shows how Herodotus’ histories contain many accounts of the roles of kings as ‘metahuman’ figures (in Marshall Sahlin’s terminology) transforming the structure of their societies and the relations of their societies with the cosmos.⁶

Herodotus’ exemplary narratives of kings and tyrants further his project of exploring the different power structures generated by the practices of the Greeks and barbarians, raised first in the opening ‘Logos of Croesus’ (1.6–94) and subsequently in the story of the empire constructed by Cyrus and his heirs, until Xerxes’ climactic encounter with the cities of mainland Greece and defeat by their forces.⁷ Within this overall structure, his stories of Deioces, Psammetichus and Amasis should be read as political myths that explore the conditions under which political unity and stability can come into being and be maintained.⁸ Herodotus also examines monarchy in the Greek world, from the traditional dual kingship of Sparta to the tyrannies of cities. Throughout his work, Herodotus brings in a range of ideas from Presocratic philosophers such as Heraclitus and Empedocles, as well as ideas and modes of argumentation from sophistic sources, but in analysing non-Greek models of cosmic kingship he also engages with the ideas and presentation of monarchical power that he finds beyond the Greek world, especially those in Egypt and Persia.

Herodotus’ ‘monarchical model’ and the ‘despotic template’

That Herodotus’ focus on the deeds of kings and tyrants displays an interest in the workings of power under monarchy has long been acknowledged.⁹ Henry Immerwahr showed that stories of the rise and fall of kings, especially those of Cyrus and his successors, provide an important structuring element in the work, and more recent readings have emphasised the role of political analysis in the work.¹⁰

In the ‘despotic template’ model, Herodotus’ exploration of monarchy as a dissection of oriental despotism is based on a template located within Otanes’ criticism of monarchy (3.80.2–5).¹¹ While Otanes starts by criticising ‘monarchy’ and the idea of ‘a single monarch’ (3.80.2–3), he moves on to identify this monarch as ‘a tyrant’ (3.80.4), as his detailed picture of the abuses of tyranny builds up, and in line with the debate’s focus on the worst aspects of each form of rule. Lateiner presents a Herodotus who focuses on the negatives of single-person rule, particularly the loss of individual freedom, closely aligning him with the views he gives to Otanes.¹² Rosaria Munson, drawing on this model, regards monarchy as holding ‘powerful negative connotations’ for Herodotus.¹³ Other scholars have developed nuanced versions of the model which acknowledge both that Herodotean tyrants can rule well, and that Herodotean kings are not all failures. Tom Harrison observes the variety and interest of Herodotus’ exploration of Egyptian kingship, suggesting that Egypt provides ‘an archive of the “dos and don’ts” of kingship’.¹⁴ John Gammie, although his analysis largely corresponds to the ‘despotic template’ model, shows that Herodotus transcends it in his positive depiction of select monarchs.¹⁵ Katherine Clarke shows how the manipulation of the natural and built environment by Herodotus’ kings and tyrants materialises their power.¹⁶

Luraghi argues that Herodotus distinguishes between one-man rule in the context of the Greek polis and in non-Greek ‘ethnos states’, as Greek writers identified non-Greek peoples whose societies were not structured as poleis, such as the kingdom of Egypt.¹⁷ While Luraghi is right to see commonalities in the ‘misery of ruling alone’, and to emphasise the role of the mythical imaginary in shaping accounts of tyranny, his reduction of the ‘ideology of monarchy’ to ‘the personality of the ruler’ fails to account for the metaphysical underpinnings of ancient models of kingship, which can explain the potency of mythical elements in these stories.

The ‘despotic template’ or ‘discourse of tyranny’ model, or a simple reversal of the attributes it lists, cannot account for the positive attributes of the cosmic king and their relationship to positive phases of the political cycle, and likewise the connection of the despotic elements to its negative phases. While Herodotus’ writing largely precedes the development of the sixfold constitutional model, in which rule by one, few or many can come in good or bad forms, his exploration of monarchy presupposes both good and bad forms, as well as the possibility of transition between them, or liminal cases of uncertain status.¹⁸ Although the actions of a good king, at least in Darius’ version, are crucial for the establishment of a secure community, Herodotus elsewhere suggests that monarchy is not the only form of rule that can do this, with his positive evaluation of the impact of the advent of democracy on the fortunes of Athens (5.78).¹⁹

Herodotus’ use of his monarchical exemplars is much more nuanced than the ‘despotic template’ model permits, through his analysis of non-Greek models of cosmic and divine monarchy.²⁰ By distinguishing between kingship and tyranny, and using his cyclical model, he shows that founder monarchs bring political unity and stability to regions, enabling their inhabitants to take care of their own business rather than struggle for survival (1.97.3).²¹ Monarchs endowed (by themselves or others) with divine status, or whose authority is provided by divine support, and accepted by their subjects as such, might be different from the secular tyrant whose rule is maintained by force alone. By building this model through telling political myths about the careers and personal lives of kings and tyrants, Herodotus provides a framework within which his central non-Greek characters, Cyrus, Darius, and Xerxes, can be evaluated, and against which Xerxes’ failures in the Persian War narrative can be assessed. Herodotus’ sources for these stories are for the most part unknown, but the narrative shapes and patterns suggest to Chris Pelling that his narrative contains ‘less of the real Persian court or even of real stories’ but rather a ‘Greek construct’.²²

Differentiating kings and tyrants

Herodotus’ interest in cosmic patterns and the metaphysics of monarchy leads him to assess his positive-phase monarchs using different criteria from those that apply to the negative part of the cycle, where Otanes’ ‘despotic template’ operates (3.80.2–5). Instead, he uses ideas briefly summarised in Darius’ template for good kingship (3.82.2–4), although expressed more fully in the kingship narratives explored next. These characteristics permit the differentiation of the good king from the bad tyrant in term...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Abbreviations
• Introduction
• 1 King and cosmos in Herodotus
• 2 Monarchy on the democratic stage
• 3 The discourse of kingship in classical Athenian thought
• 4 Kingship and Socratic thought
• 5 Virtue and monarchy
• 6 Kingship in Plato’s later political thought
• 7 ‘Total kingship’ and the rule of law
• Conclusion: the imaginary king and the metaphysics of political unity
• Bibliography
• Index of passages cited
• General index