Isabella Reinhardt, Vanderbilt University
This paper is an investigation of the connection between Ares and Xerxes in Aeschylus’ Persians. Ares, as god and metonym for war, appears several times during the play, and his presence is attributed to both sides of the conflict. Nevertheless, there are signs within the text that Ares is associated particularly closely with Xerxes. This paper investigates what the proposed connection means for our understanding of the Persians. Although it may seem counterintuitive to associate a defeated monarch with the god of war, the link is mutually illuminating, explaining often under-appreciated aspects of Xerxes’ power and coloring the presentation of war in the play. Xerxes’ close connection with Ares emphasizes the destructive character of his power, and draws the audience’s attention to the imbalance between individual action and collective suffering in war.
I begin by placing the references to Ares in the Persians within their broader Aeschylean context to show that a connection between Ares and individual figures is not unprecedented (Konstantinou). I then show that contrary to common interpretations (Broadhead), Aeschylus presents Xerxes as more powerful at the end of the play than at the beginning. At first, the chorus suggests that Xerxes’ power is conditional (157) while the queen speaks of Persians mocking Xerxes before his expedition to Greece (755). After news of defeat, however, the chorus increasingly attribute direct agency to Xerxes (550) and simultaneously welcome him back while blaming him for the deaths of his men.
It is in the chorus’ language of agency and personal responsibility that we find the link between Xerxes and Ares. Xerxes’ power, like that of Ares, manifests in destruction. Not, critically, in destruction of the enemy, but of his own people. Xerxes emblematizes Ares’ treachery; he is a god who brings destruction and suffering to both sides, not a god of aid or victory (Millington, Daneš). Likewise Xerxes is a ruler with the power to unleash terrible war, but the terror redounds against his own people. The magnitude of his destruction and its indiscriminate application reveal Xerxes’ Ares-like power.
I argue (drawing on the theoretical frameworks of Anderson and Scott) that Xerxes’ destructive power reveals the asymmetry between individual action and collective suffering in war. Xerxes’ destruction, like that of Ares elsewhere in Aeschylus, does not discriminate among individuals, although it is enacted by one. Many die and many are left bereft through the actions of one man. The tension between chorus and Xerxes at the end of the play is the culmination of the play’s treatment of individual and collective. I conclude that Aeschylus does not present a resolution for this imbalance: the infliction of suffering by one upon many is a feature of war that we are brought to recognize, but which is not explicitly condemned by the characters nor anticipated to end. Perhaps the facelessness of the Athenians can be read as an optimistic commentary on democratic decision making in times of conflict. If so, I suggest, that optimism turned out to be misplaced.