In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Chapter 3 Persia and Regimes in Theory 65 Introduction Herodotus’ Persians are both “rationalists” and imperialists; as such they combine rest and motion, the two principles that govern nature. The character of Persian rationalism, first revealed by the Persian chroniclers, is to grasp at the universal and that which is at rest while ignoring the particular and that which is in motion. The Persian intellect seeks to understand a nature that transcends the varying and changing customs of particular peoples. Persian kings, in their drive for empire, also grasp at a universal that denies the particular . This becomes especially apparent with Xerxes. In his desire to unify the world under a single Persian king, Xerxes seeks to destroy the different customs of the different peoples that exist in the world; he seeks a whole without parts. Persian imperialism is thus the political analogue of Persian rationalism, which forces the regime to be in constant motion. Continued imperial expansion toward universal empire means that if the Persian mind seeks rest, Persian politics requires motion. The religious beliefs of the Persians as well as their manner of speaking also manifests the Persian emphasis on the universal and contempt for the particular. For instance, the Persians, Herodotus tells us, worship the universal objects of physical nature, such as the sky, sun, moon, stars, earth, air, fire, and water. Also, the Persians, unlike the Egyptians, insist on telling the truth, and lying is condemned as the worst thing a man can do. They therefore seek to make the internal intentions or mind of the speaker perfectly known to the listener. Persians desire that the soul be perfectly known and thus that the invisible become visible. Truthful speech is an attempt to universalize the soul, or to share it with others, which requires the abstraction from the body, that which is irreducibly private and particular to the individual. Yet, the attempt to “see” the soul by making it external is an attempt to make the soul act like the body and thus, paradoxically, everything becomes body in Persia; their attempt to get beneath the surface of things, as it were, turns everything into surface in Persia. Their view of the world becomes simple rather than complex. Herodotus further reveals the problem of this very important Persian custom in his discussion of Persian king Cambyses. There he shows that complete abstraction from the body and focus on the soul can lead to madness. The Persian attempt to grasp at the universal in abstraction from the particular, reflected in their custom of truth telling, is also what allows Herodotus to place a debate about the best regime in theory in the mouths of three prominent Persians: Otanes, Megabyzus, and Darius. The theoretical regime that each man argues for is that which he believes to be best “in speech” rather than in practice or that which he considers the permanent nature of human beings without regard to local and changing conditions, such as religion, customs, or culture in general. Herodotus believes each of these theoretical regimes—democracy, oligarchy, and monarchy—are insufficient because they abstract from the complex nature of speech by using words to universalize particular aspects of human nature. This is related to the Persian belief that the meanings of the words they use are as unchanging and motionless as the human beings they describe. If speech is always going to reveal the truth, words must have one unchanging meaning between speaker and listener. In contrast to the Egyptians, the Persian view of speech is as simple as the world that they look at; interpretation is not necessary because the truth is immediately apparent. Herodotus, by turning to a study of regimes in history rather than simply in theory as the Persians do, shows that thought can grasp, and speech can express, the particular as the particular—thereby providing the condition for the discovery of what is truly universal or natural to human beings. Moreover, in Herodotus’ analysis words are shown to be complex; they reveal and conceal, lie and tell the truth, at the same time. Persian regimes in theory, therefore, must be corrected by Herodotus’ study of actual regimes in history in order to lay the groundwork, as it were, for the discovery of what is truly the best regime. Herodotus also shows, especially in the case of Persian king Darius, that the Persian insistence on always telling the truth can actually cause the col66 Herodotus and the Philosophy of Empire [3.145.191...

Share