Xerxes was a powerful (in the power over sense) king. He held a big party to display his power and wealth. If your struggling to get how big and powerful he was you could listen to this .
Xerxes was not the eldest son of his father Darius I. He was the first son Darius had as king, rather than as subject and was the son, not of a 'commoner' as his eldest brother was, but of the daughter of Cyrus the great. His eldest brother did try to claim the throne but to no avail.
The problem of inherited power is not its arbetariness, because actually its not arbitary, the problem is with the very idea of the kind of power over that exists in a patriarchal system. Even if Xerxes had been elected to this sort of power it would be no better. It is easy to look back (or arround) at non democratic forms of governance and see the only problem as lack of democracy and not see the corruption and empire within our own system.
Sorry that was a bit of a detour.
Even in the politics of Xerxes becoming king women are defined in terms of their relationship with men. Xerxes gets the thrown not because of who his mother was but because of who her father was and the political marriage of her and her husband. Needless to say if she had had only daughters there would have been no queen of Persia.
Xerxes I would not describe as a man with power (I wish English had two separate words) as Jesus was. Xerxes was a man who had power over many people, which is a transitory oppressive power which ultimately is overcome in Jesus.
Xerxes as king also serves as a pattern of power and how he uses it will dictate the dominant understandings of power and relationships. He is the one who can maintain or alter the status quo. So that when Vashti refuses to come it has implications not just for the king but all his subjects. Though the text only says 'For the queen’s conduct will [g]become known to all the women causing them [h]to look with contempt on their husbands by saying, ‘King Ahasuerus commanded Queen Vashti to be brought in to his presence, but she did not come.' I think it is safe to assume that the king would have felt, not only his position as king, but also his very maleness where being brought into question. Through the rest of the story we know there are those looking for opportunity to assassinate Xerxes if all the women of the kingdom rebeled it wouldn't be long before Xerxes was off his thrown.
Xerxes knows this, he can't afford for anyone - let alone a woman challenge his authority. Women are not his equal's, they are not even his possessions, they are his slaves.
Xerxes was not the eldest son of his father Darius I. He was the first son Darius had as king, rather than as subject and was the son, not of a 'commoner' as his eldest brother was, but of the daughter of Cyrus the great. His eldest brother did try to claim the throne but to no avail.
The problem of inherited power is not its arbetariness, because actually its not arbitary, the problem is with the very idea of the kind of power over that exists in a patriarchal system. Even if Xerxes had been elected to this sort of power it would be no better. It is easy to look back (or arround) at non democratic forms of governance and see the only problem as lack of democracy and not see the corruption and empire within our own system.
Sorry that was a bit of a detour.
Even in the politics of Xerxes becoming king women are defined in terms of their relationship with men. Xerxes gets the thrown not because of who his mother was but because of who her father was and the political marriage of her and her husband. Needless to say if she had had only daughters there would have been no queen of Persia.
Xerxes I would not describe as a man with power (I wish English had two separate words) as Jesus was. Xerxes was a man who had power over many people, which is a transitory oppressive power which ultimately is overcome in Jesus.
Xerxes as king also serves as a pattern of power and how he uses it will dictate the dominant understandings of power and relationships. He is the one who can maintain or alter the status quo. So that when Vashti refuses to come it has implications not just for the king but all his subjects. Though the text only says 'For the queen’s conduct will [g]become known to all the women causing them [h]to look with contempt on their husbands by saying, ‘King Ahasuerus commanded Queen Vashti to be brought in to his presence, but she did not come.' I think it is safe to assume that the king would have felt, not only his position as king, but also his very maleness where being brought into question. Through the rest of the story we know there are those looking for opportunity to assassinate Xerxes if all the women of the kingdom rebeled it wouldn't be long before Xerxes was off his thrown.
Xerxes knows this, he can't afford for anyone - let alone a woman challenge his authority. Women are not his equal's, they are not even his possessions, they are his slaves.
No comments:
Post a Comment