The Cid And Cinna Analysis

Great Essays
Kingship is present throughout both The Cid and Cinna, reflecting French absolutism very well in both of the plays. While this idea of absolutism in France could be considered tyrannical, the King usually had good intentions with his rulings and ideas, which those ideas were what became laws. Absolutism, defined as “a type of national monarchy in which the monarch has great power and tends to be looked up to with awe and reverence. In spite of the name, the power of the monarch is limited by the need to have some measure of support by the landed aristocracy.” However, there are limits that kingship must have in order to avoid a tyranny. Since whatever the king says goes, it may be a little unclear in France as to when the king has too …show more content…
The good king owes nothing to the people because he does it for the good of his country, not to boost his ego or for his own publicity. The good citizen serves the king because that is their job, whether they may agree with the decisions being made or not. This is much different from today, where everyone is critical of our president, no matter who is in office. This criticism begins with the president, and spirals all the way down to city mayors and public office persons. Several lines later, Arias again states, “You should redoubt the power of a king…Remember, kings wish to be absolute.” This, as Corneille writes constitutes a bad king. This not only exemplifies a bad king, but also portrays a tyrant. If one is afraid of the actions of the king, as well as how much power the king has, then the king simply has too much power and jurisdiction. If the king has too much power, but does not take advantage of his power and uses that power for good, then he would not be a tyrant. However, like many of the kings during this time period, they do not and simply take advantage of the amount of power that he has. This is definitely a tyrant, although not recognized as one in France during this time period. Continuing to discuss what, according to Corneille, makes a good king, King Ferdinand himself defines what he believes is best from …show more content…
Yes, there were certain little parts from that part that seemed tyrannical, however they were not this vivid or extreme. Cinna continues to discuss their problems with tyranny when he states, “The outcome of our fight with tyranny Will bring us ignominy or renown.” He is arguing here that their attempt to stop tyranny will either humiliate them in doing so, or it will bring popularity to them and give a positive reputation for doing what they could to stop this. Again, much different from The Cid, because there was no attempt at stopping a tyrannical king. The king from The Cid did not have anyone accusing him of tyranny, much unlike Caesar. This was made pretty clear several times, as the main idea on each page was an argument being set forth to “wish to see Rome free…I wish to see Rome freed and take revenge.” and rid of the tyranny. Overall, both The Cid and Cinna had discussions of how Corneille perceived a bad king, whether the examples were controlling or seeing his people as his soldiers. However, Corneille’s visions of a good king were only visible in The Cid. Kingship has no rules to it, and it simply describes the period of a king’s rule. This being said, it is very interesting to compare two plays and the two different kinds of kingship in

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Machiavelli, in The Prince, claims that “it is much safer to be feared than loved, if one has to lack one of the two.” Trump chose fear, but he disregarded being loved as a component. The fear was accompanied with hate, leading to an unsuccessful attempt of Machiavelli’s thought within his current presidency. Machiavelli believed that “since men love at their convenience and fear at the convenience of the prince, a wise prince should found himself on what is his.” The people will not rise up against the prince if they fear him; he can control them in fear, not necessarily in love. Within Dr. Innes’s lecture on September 19, 2017, he discussed his interpretations of Machiavelli’s work. Two topics remain relevant to the discussion of Trump:…

    • 942 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    James I Tyranny Analysis

    • 771 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Charles I ruling was very controlling in sense that he believed that whatever he did was justified because he had the divine right to rule. In Kishlansky article, he questions Charles I intelligence, many other critiques have gone far to call him stupid because of his lack of knowledge with the avoidable situations he has gotten himself in. Kishlansky also mentions that Charles has a lack of empathy for his subjects. (43) by Charles being disconnected with everyone, it proves the idea of him being a tyrant, since he cannot sympathies with people he does not have a connection with, whatever happens to them he would not feel the least bit of empathy. He sees everyone who crosses him or disagrees with him as an enemy and that just continues the separation he has with his subjects.…

    • 771 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Should a leader always be truthful to his people? Machiavelli states, “a wise ruler, cannot and should not keep his word when such an observance of faith would be at a disadvantage” (230). He believes that if a leader were to lie, there would be no consequences since all truth only gives the person in power a disadvantage. It may sound like an unethical idea because this goes against everything a virtuous person does, but there is some truth of what Machiavelli is saying. Leaders deceive their subjects because all men break their promises according to Machiavelli.…

    • 1505 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Another way that Machiavelli tries to deceive Lorenzo to form an unhealthy vision of what power should look like: “A prince must not worry about the reproach of cruelty when it is a matter of keeping his subjects united and loyal” (339). Such advice is clearly sabotage because any good leader will worry about the well being of their subjects and will worry about the reproach of cruelty. Some readers may see the chapter regarding fear and love as accurate and not a scheme in sabotaging Lorenzo, I believe that if Lorenzo is feared as much…

    • 812 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    In the written work “The Prince” by Niccolo Machiavelli the author elaborates on how a prince can only be a strong leader if he engages in duplicity. Machiavelli focused on a more realistic and immoral strategy to keep the people of his time unified, realpolitik a system based on practical rather than moral considerations. The author, Niccolo Machiavelli, goes through great depths to explain why it takes rulers who are “cruel, dishonest, duplicitous, and manipulative.” There are many great examples to prove his ideology, however, the writing is very subjective and bias as Machiavelli does not give a rebuttal to the different kinds of ruling. He writes “The Prince” after the current leading family of his time falls in order to keep the stability…

    • 1637 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Check And Balances

    • 796 Words
    • 4 Pages

    King James, in “The Trew Laws of Free Monarchies” states, “…it is certain that a King can never be so monstrously vicious, but he will generally favor justice, and maintain some order, except in the particulars, wherein his inordinate lusts and passions carry him away…” King James seems confident that his job is done good enough, but not to the uttermost farthing. Because his responsibilities are strung so wide, he is only able to maintain “some order.” The genius behind our national government, is the specialization of each branch. For example, the executive branch will negotiate a treaty. The senate, part of the legislative branch, will ratify the treaty, after careful review. Finally, the judicial branch will maintain the treaty to be lawful.…

    • 796 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    FInally, they express a sense of anxiety over King’s “willingness to break laws” for the sake of protecting others. King takes the time to admit that his approach does take on the approach of being paradoxical, but clarifies that he fight to protect just laws and destroy the unjust laws. He shows how his supporters are breaking down the unjust laws in order to build just ones is contrary to the works being done by the white…

    • 926 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Patrick Henry's Speech

    • 1657 Words
    • 7 Pages

    "Natural to man to indulge in the illusion of hope", Patrick Henry spoke that the king in charge gave them an illusion that things will get better even though nothing will change. The king had a huge streak of only caring for himself especially known for taxing greatly on his people. The king ruled greatly but his idea of freedom wasn 't actually freedom when he decides for the people, Patrick Henry who has high notably patriotism of the United States which was stated in his speech knew that the king wasn 't unjustly to them by giving them high taxes. "Who,having eyes,see not, and, having ears, hear not the thugs which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?" Patrick Henry concluded that their government which was ruled by the king made them weak and disposable if they did any wrong.…

    • 1657 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Hobbes Views On Rebellion

    • 1557 Words
    • 7 Pages

    this book was used almost to justify the revolution in the late seventeenth century (O’Tool,2011). This is to make sure that the people do not have to experience the mistreatments of a tyrannical sovereign ever again. Locke did believe that people should rebel against the government even if that meant risking civil war if it represented standing up for what they believed in. His work was used to prove to people that challenging the sovereign or head of state could be deemed reasonable. His guideline for revolution is much stronger than that of Hobbes because to Locke, the sovereign didn't mean a great deal, to him it simply meant another man who, like all others, was capable of mistakes.…

    • 1557 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    These two characteristics mixed with him being a leader, powerful and the King of Thebes makes a very foredoomed ending. His divine-like motives, behaviors, and characteristics are what lead to his loss of power in the end because he wanted to do what was right but was overconfident about his ability to prove it had nothing to do with…

    • 977 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays