Part five can be found here.

Apart from the ancient political philosophers, however, the ancient poets, historians, and playwrights also presented significant insights into the idea of democracy. The earliest examinations of democracy are given to us from Homer, Herodotus, and Euripides. These contributions are important because they shape the entire Western debate about consensual government.

The first impulse of shared rule is found in the Iliad, one of two surviving works of the blind poet Homer. The Iliad is one of the earliest writings of Western literature and tells the story of a coalition of Greek forces that attacked Troy in Asian Minor around 1184 – 1174 B.C. The Trojan Paris ran off with the beautiful Greek queen, Helen. Helen’s husband Menelaus and brother-in-law Agamemnon (also a king) gathered a great military expedition to retrieve Helen and punish Troy. Throughout Homer’s narrative, Agamemnon would meet with his generals and soldiers in a kind of tribal war council for military advice and guidance in conducting the siege. All soldiers participated in these councils. We learn this from Odysseus’ comment to a deserter “you count for nothing, neither in war nor in council.”1 At one point, after a defeat by the Trojans, Agamemnon considers leaving Troy and going home. Odysseus convinces Agamemnon to continue prosecuting the war because the soldiers would rather stay, fight, and die with honor, rather than leave in shame. Agamemnon is forced to seek a better way and he democratically seeks advice from anyone who would give it. Homer tells us,

At that the king of men Agamemnon backed down;

“A painful charge, Odysseus, straight to the heart.

I am hardly the man to order men, against their will,

to haul the oar-swept vessels out to the sea. So now

whoever can find a better plan, let him speak up,

young soldier or old. I would be pleased to hear him”.²

In this single passage Homer gives us an early glimpse of the necessary elements of consensual government including mutual debate, discussion, and consensus building. Agamemnon was not willing to force his troops to do something against their will but rather, was willing to listen to any soldier young or old for a better plan. Essentially, Agamemnon gave up his authority and placed it in the people, (in this case, his soldiers) and sought to hear them and listen to them, also another quality of democratic leaders. Democracy also has a pragmatic emphasis and the Greeks understood this too. Achilles’ great friend, Patroclus, tells us, “the proof of battle is action, the proof of words, debate.” The Greeks loved to debate but also understood the necessity of action. Democracy itself survives by debate, consensus building, and putting ideas into action.

Sometimes authors will criticize Homer as undemocratic.³ In one passage in book two, Odysseus punishes Thersites for insolence and yelling obscenities at Agamenmon. The fact that Thersites is punished is taken as proof that Homer does not support free dissent and is therefore undemocratic. It is difficult, however, to make this charge because Odysseus and Agamemnon are sensitive to the needs of their soldiers, offers them a voice in decision making, and will listen to them (even deserters are allowed to attend the council) . Odysseus does punish Thersites but it was for breaking military protocol, insubordination, and arguing over plunder. Odysseus may have been wrong for punishing Thersites, but that is a separate question from whether or not he was a democrat.

One can find both elements of democracy and elements of aristocracy in the Iliad. A democratic influence can be seen when his main characters are open to the advice of common soldiers and not just the aristocracy or landed nobles. However, the Iliad is not a treatise on political theory. Homer never gives the kind of systematic analysis of government or the state in the way a Plato or Aristotle would. The Iliad is a great work of imaginative poetry exploring the existential human predicament of living life in the face of death, war, and the mortal struggle for immortality. It is also worth remembering that Homer was telling his story at the same time as the rise of the Greek city-states (around 700 B.C.). Homer was speaking of events that occurred almost 500 years prior to his telling of the story, and having familiarity with the changing political structures of his time, could have inserted democratic ideas into the oral tradition. Homer was telling his story when different conceptions of government were being explored. No longer was aristocracy, oligarchy or monarchy the only options for the citizens of emerging city-states. Like the poet Hesiod, it is possible that Homer understood the changing political climate of his times (although Hesiod was no friend of rule by the people) and realized the significant shift from aristocracy to popular or democratic rule. Nonetheless, it is Homer who gives us the first minute glimpse of consensual government in the history of Western civilization. However, it is Herodotus that gives us the first historical debate on the values and dream of democracy.

The Greek historian Herodotus provides the first political discussion in Western thought about the benefits of democracy against the strengths of oligarchy, and monarchy.⁴ This debate sets up the entire conversation in Western thought regarding many of the challenges and advantages of democracy as a form of government. Ironically, this early debate over consensual rule did not occur in Greece but in Persia. Herodotus sets the scene after Darius I rises to power through a conspiracy of seven men from the aristocratic class of Persia. These men resented the fact that Persia was ruled by a Mede and decided to kill their king, Smerdis the Magian. After their successful coup, the men debated about how to set up the new government and how to best rule the Persian kingdom. Otanes, one of the conspirators, suggests democracy (the rule of the many), Megabyzus submits oligarchy (the rule of the few) as the best form of government, and Darius argues for monarchy (the rule of one).

Otanes, arguably the first promoter of consensual government in Western history, gives a profound speech explaining the merits of rule by the people. He remembers the tyranny of one of their former kings, Cambyses, and argues for democracy because their kings have been unaccountable. He asks the question,

“How indeed is it possible that monarchy should be a well adjusted thing, when it allows a man to do as he likes without being answerable? Such license is enough to stir strange and unwonted thoughts in the heart of the worthiest of men. Give a person this power, and straightway his manifold good things puff him up with pride, while envy is so natural to human kind that it cannot but arise in him.”⁵

Otanes understands that unrestrained power will easily corrupt the best of men. Centuries before Lord Acton, Otanes was aware that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Otanes also hints at one of the greatest concepts and values in the history of Western thought – the necessity of public audit and accountability for political leaders. Human nature is too easily corrupted and needs to be held responsible for its actions. But the worst of all, according to Otanes, is that the king, “sets aside the laws of the land, puts men to death without trial, and subjects women to violence.”⁶ Otanes is also pointing us to the necessity of the rule of law. But Otanes goes further; he envisions a government where everyone is equal before the law. He explains,

The rule of the many, on the other hand, has, in the first place, the fairest of names, to wit, isonomy; and further it is free from all those outrages which a king is wont to commit. Their places are given by lot, the magistrate is answerable for what he does, and measures rest with commonality. I vote, therefore, that we do away with the monarchy, and raise the people to power. For the people are all in all.⁷

Otanes understands that democracy can succeed if everyone falls under the same rule of law, if official leaders are held accountable, and procedures and decisions ultimately rest with the “commonality”.

Megabyzus, another conspirator, suggests setting up an oligarchy (or rule of the few). Long before Plato, Megabyzus was concerned that democracy was nothing more than mob rule. He called it a “rude unbridled mob” and explains,

The tyrant in all his doings, at least knows what he is about, but a mob is altogether devoid of knowledge; for how should there be any knowledge in a rabble, untaught and with no natural sense of what is right and fit? It rushes wildly into state affairs with all the fury of a stream swollen in the winter, and confuses everything.⁸

Megabyzus is the first to articulate that the idea of shared consensual rule will be a disaster if the uneducated are allowed to participate in government. He believes a few of the worthiest citizens should rule the many. According to Megabyzus, the best of the aristocratic class should rule Persia and the collective wisdom and advice from these men will prevail and provide the finest form of government. In other words, Megabyzus believes that the ignorant and common people are incapable of governing themselves and he believes the wisdom of the best men (in Megabyzus’ understanding the aristocracy) acting in concert will ensure the best type of rule.

Darius then speaks about the strengths and benefits of monarchy. He agrees with Megabyzus about weaknesses of democracy. He believes democracy will ultimately become a form of mob rule, or tyranny by the majority. He also thinks, however, that oligarchy will break down among competing aristocrats. He thinks the oligarchs will end up fighting among themselves, civil war will break out, and the safety of the kingdom will be at risk. The oligarchs will be too busy fighting among themselves to address real issues of crime, foreign policy, or administering justice wisely. Darius claims that ultimately one oligarch will win and become the monarch which supports his view that the best form of government is monarchy. On the other hand, he believes a benevolent monarch will have the best interests of his people in mind and will rule in a magnanimous and prudent way. Darius explains,

What government can possibly be better than that of the very best man in the whole state? The counsels of such a man are like himself, and so he governs the mass of people to their heart’s content; while at the same time his measures against evil-doers are kept more secret than in other states.⁹

Interestingly, one of Darius critiques of democracy has to do with crime. He believes democracy will foster crime (“malpractices” and “villainies”) to such an extent that someone will come to the defense of the commonality and be so admired that this person will become a king. Darius’ other argument for monarchy is an appeal to tradition. He appeals to the ancient hereditary laws that support monarchy (never asking if these laws are right or wrong). Darius, became Darius I, expanded the Persian Empire but was defeated by an alliance of Greek forces at the Battle of Marathon in 490 B.C. when he tried to invade Greece.

In the next post, we will discover what ultimately happened to Otanes’ vision of democracy and an Athenian poet who found himself defending the idea of democracy.

1 Homer. Iliad. Trans. by Robert Fagles. (New York: Penguin Books, 1991), 106.

2 Ibid. 433.

3 For example, Paul Woodruff in his book, First Democracy simply states, “Homer is no democrat,” on page 129. Professor Woodruff is wrong.

4 Herodotus lived between 484 – 425 B.C., he probably wrote his History around 440 B.C.

5 Herodotus, 107.

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid., 108.

9 Ibid., 108.