Persian nomos and paranomia in Herodotus.

Abstract

Scholars have heretofore noted only in passing selected instances in which the Persians of Herodotus' Histories do not act in accordance with the Persian nomoi, or customs, which Herodotus reports. In this dissertation, I argue that the discrepancy between Persian action and nomos is a constant, basic theme that indicates Herodotus' fundamental purpose: to illustrate the suicidal nature of imperial policy by using Persia as a paradigmatic example for his Greek audience. For Herodotus', nomoi define a nation's identity; consequently, violating one's nomoi--i.e. paranomia--threatens the survival of one's nation. This is especially true for a nation's leader, who is always at risk of succumbing to obsessive greed for personal aggrandizement and foreign conquest; such greed inevitably causes its victim to commit paranomia to obtain these ends. Herodotus' work centers on Persian expansionism, which dramatically increases Persia's domain and wealth under the early Achaemenids; however, the paranomia invariably committed by Persia's kings in the process actually undermines Persia's own existence as it eliminates other nations. This gradual collapse from within culminates with what Herodotus sees as Persia's permanent failure as an expansionist power: Xerxes' military defeats at the end of the Histories, where the heroes who saved Greece by scrupulously preserving Greek nomos are themselves starting to commit paranomia. Contact with the defeated invader has tempted them, just as the once-virtuous Persians were upon defeating Croesus of Lydia. Herodotus well deserves the title, Father of History: he hopes that his Greek audience will avoid Persia's mistakes by heeding the advice which he puts into the mouth of Solon. Ideally, the audience will search its own memory to look to the ends of the heroes who started Greek imperialism by emulating Persia.