The Importance Of Kingship In The Cid And Cinna

1465 Words 6 Pages
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