place. This idea is thoroughly supported throughout the play, but what does it mean? What is Shakespeare trying to say about absolute monarchy? Because of Shakespeares persistent interest in matters of government (Jordan 13), he was aware of [the] absolutist theory (Jordan 217). Since he knows of the theory, it probably is apparent to him that to divide sovereign power would be to undermine the peace of the commonwealth and to infringe the biblical precept that no one should serve two masters (Bossuet qtd.in) (Sommerville 350). Although, such an act would have been considered illegal at the time, and seventeenth century Parliament has strict rules for such things. For example, Queen Elizabeth asks her advisors if she can give away some of her land (Foakes 17). They tell her that land is not personal property to give away, but is property of the state (Foakes 17). According to them, the only way to dispose of land is by a formal letter sealed with the monarchs patent (Foakes 17). In other words, the monarch is limited and must ask for permission before distributing land. Elizabeth is obviously not an absolute monarch and will never be. However, in King Lear, land and power are divided and given away, without the king having to seek counsel. His word is law. In Shakespeares play, Lear is an absolute king, but the real rulers of England at that time try to make the same claim. This is especially true for James I and the rulers that followed him. Can the rulers of England ever be absolute when they must answer to a Parliament? Perhaps Shakespeare is trying to point that they cannot when he writes about King Lear, a king who is able to do things that James I would never had been allowed to do. Shakespeare tells them that, unlike Lear, the rulers of England can never be absolute. King Lear serves as a warning for James and later followers, telling them that they can not rule over Parliament. This is a lesson they should...
