Kingship in King Lear and King Henry IV, Part I

Though the concept of kingship is rather unfamiliar and even alien to the contemporary democratic society, it was and still is a topic of great importance to English society. And during the Elizabethan era, no collection of renowned works helped to emphasize this notion more than Shakespeare’s plays – plays such as Macbeth, Hamlet, the Tudor history plays, and even King Lear. There are some who have argued that Shakespeare orchestrated these plays as a means of teaching his audience about political power; the responsibilities of a just ruler; the duties of the subject; and the qualities of a true king. However, Paul M. Shupack makes the argument that there are in fact two perspectives by which we can examine the idea of kingship: “In one sense the king embodied a perpetual corporation. The other sense saw the king as a human being, serving as king by the grace of God, but sill a frail human being” (69). In other words, a king is a king simply because God chooses him and bestows upon him divine right, or a king is simply a man – one who is backed by God, but is nonetheless as corruptible and fallible as any other mortal leader. Therefore, the latter view sanctions the idea that a king does not wield absolute power nor is he given absolute protection from his failures and shameful qualities. For a Shakespearean scholar, the question to be entertained then is, by which perspective did Shakespeare construct his plays?

Identifying the particular view that Shakespeare held when he wrote his plays requires delving into the plays themselves and understanding both the characters and challenges that surround the concept of kingship. Furthermore, we may examine two of his plays that are fundamentally different in nature, but are yet inex...

... middle of paper ...

...unish Lear for his qualities as a king because under that perspective, there are no circumstances in which rebellion is justified against a monarch. As a result, the only conclusion to be reached is that Shakespeare did believe in the concept of a system of checks and balances for rulers – a system where a ruler’s power and protection is not absolute; where the legitimacy of his rule may be weighed and measured by his people and by God; and where he may be punished in a manner befitting his crime.

Works Cited

McLaughlin, John. “The Dynamics of Power in King Lear: An Adlerian Interpretation.” Shakespeare Quarterly 29.1 (1978): 37-43.

Meron, Theodor. "Crimes and Accountability in Shakespeare." The American Journal of International Law 92.1 (1998): 1-40.

Shupack, Paul M. “Natural Justice and King Lear.” Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature 9.1 (1997): 67-105.