EXAMINATION OF THE CHARACTER OF THE KING AS A
REPRESENTATION OF POWER AND AUTHORITY IN “TOO DEAR”
Introduction
Leo Tolstoy’s short story “Too Dear” is a
satirical examination of governance, power, and the practical dilemmas that
arise when authority encounters the limitations of human systems. Set in a
fictional small kingdom, the narrative follows the king and his government as
they struggle with a unique problem—a condemned criminal who they find too
expensive to execute or imprison for life. The king, as the central figure of
authority, is both the literal ruler of the kingdom and a symbolic
representation of power and leadership. His actions, decisions, and the way he
navigates challenges in the story offer a commentary on how power and authority
are exercised within institutional and moral constraints.
www.educsector.com
In this essay, the king's character will be
analyzed in depth as a representation of power and authority. By examining his
decisions, moral reasoning, and interactions with his subordinates, the story’s
broader themes of governance, justice, and the cost of maintaining power are
explored. The king’s leadership offers a nuanced critique of political systems,
and through his character, Tolstoy presents a parable on the absurdity of
bureaucracy and the limits of sovereign authority.
The King's Role as the Head of a Small but Absolute
Monarchy
In “Too Dear”, the king presides over a
small, seemingly inconsequential kingdom. Despite its size, his authority is
absolute, and he has the final say in all governmental matters. The story
begins with the description of this small kingdom that is well-governed, has
modest resources, and enjoys relative peace. However, its small size presents
challenges for the king when faced with extraordinary situations.
The character of the king is established as
one who is used to exercising authority with efficiency and pragmatism. He
commands respect from his subjects and his council, and there is little
evidence of rebellion or discontent. However, Tolstoy introduces the king as a
figure whose authority is not only dependent on his position but also
constrained by the resources and practical limitations of his small domain.
Unlike monarchs of larger, wealthier nations, the king must govern with an
acute awareness of the financial constraints of his kingdom.
www.educsector.com
From the outset, the king’s authority seems
well-grounded in the principles of practicality. He does not indulge in
displays of excess power but instead focuses on maintaining stability and
ensuring the efficient functioning of the kingdom. This image of a rational and
practical ruler is essential to the story’s development, as it underscores the
contrast between the king’s intentions and the absurdity of the situation he
later faces.
The King's Decision-Making Process: Power versus
Pragmatism
The primary challenge that the king faces in
the story revolves around the problem of a condemned criminal. The criminal has
committed murder and is sentenced to death. However, when the kingdom's
government calculates the cost of carrying out the execution, they find that it
is prohibitively expensive. The king is informed that constructing a guillotine
and hiring an executioner from a neighboring country would exceed the kingdom’s
budget.
This dilemma is central to the story's
exploration of power. In a traditional monarchy, the king’s authority would
grant him the power to enforce the law without consideration for financial
constraints. However, the small size and limited resources of the kingdom force
the king to grapple with the practical consequences of his power. His authority
is undermined by the reality that enforcing justice, in this case, is simply
too expensive.
www.educsector.com
Tolstoy uses this scenario to illustrate the
tension between the idealized concept of sovereign power and the actual
limitations imposed by material conditions. The king’s decision-making process
is no longer solely about justice or the enforcement of the law; it becomes a
question of cost-efficiency. This shift in focus from moral or legal principles
to financial considerations highlights the absurdity of bureaucracy and
governance when they are reduced to calculations of cost.
The king’s initial solution to the
problem—postponing the execution in favor of imprisonment—seems pragmatic.
However, this decision only leads to further complications. The kingdom does
not have a suitable prison, and maintaining the prisoner at the expense of the
state becomes a long-term financial burden. Once again, the king’s authority is
challenged by the practical realities of governing a small state.
The King's Representation of Bureaucratic Power
As the story progresses, the king becomes a
representation of bureaucratic power, caught in a web of procedures, rules, and
financial limitations. His inability to find a straightforward solution to the
problem of the condemned criminal illustrates the inefficiencies inherent in
bureaucratic systems. Tolstoy’s portrayal of the king highlights how even the
most absolute power can be rendered ineffective by the machinery of governance.
In many ways, the king is a figurehead, a
ruler whose authority is more symbolic than practical. Despite his power, he is
bound by the same institutional constraints as his ministers and advisors. His
initial decisions—whether to execute the criminal or imprison him—are subject
to the approval and implementation of others, and each course of action is
complicated by layers of bureaucracy. The king’s role becomes one of mediation
rather than decisive action, and his authority is diluted by the system in which
he operates.
www.educsector.com
This depiction of the king resonates with
Tolstoy’s broader critique of government and institutional power. In “Too Dear”,
Tolstoy satirizes the inefficiency and absurdity of modern governance,
particularly when it comes to dealing with matters of justice. The king,
despite his position of ultimate authority, is powerless to resolve the
situation in a way that aligns with traditional notions of justice. Instead, he
must navigate a series of compromises, each one more absurd than the last.
Tolstoy’s portrayal of the king as a
bureaucratic figure reflects the broader theme of power as something that is
contingent on systems and structures. The king’s authority is not absolute in
the way it might appear; it is circumscribed by the practical limitations of
governance. Through the king, Tolstoy critiques the idea that sovereign power
can operate independently of the structures that support it. In reality, the
king’s power is entangled in the bureaucratic processes that both sustain and
undermine his authority.
www.educsector.com
The King’s Moral Dilemma: Justice versus Compassion
The story also explores the king’s moral
authority. As the head of the kingdom, the king is responsible not only for
maintaining law and order but also for upholding moral and ethical principles.
When the cost of the execution becomes too high, and the cost of imprisonment
becomes an ongoing burden, the king faces a moral dilemma: how to deliver
justice without bankrupting the state.
The king’s eventual decision to release the
prisoner on a pension paid by the state is both a practical and moral
compromise. On one hand, it solves the financial problem; on the other hand, it
raises questions about justice. The criminal, who committed a serious crime, is
essentially rewarded with a lifetime pension, which undermines the very concept
of justice that the king is supposed to uphold.
This decision reflects the limits of the
king’s moral authority. In an ideal world, the king would be able to carry out
justice in accordance with the law, but in reality, he must balance justice
with practicality. The story suggests that in the realm of governance, moral
principles are often sacrificed in favor of pragmatism. The king, despite his
best intentions, cannot deliver justice in the way he would like, and his
authority is further diminished by the need to find a solution that is
financially viable.
Tolstoy uses the king’s moral dilemma to
explore the tension between justice and compassion in governance. The king’s
decision to release the criminal can be seen as an act of compassion, as it
spares the criminal from execution or indefinite imprisonment. However, this
act of compassion comes at the expense of justice, as the criminal is not truly
punished for his crime. This tension reflects the broader theme of the
limitations of power and authority when they are constrained by practical
realities.
www.educsector.com
Satirical Representation of Power: The King as a Symbol
of Absurdity
Ultimately, the king in “Too Dear” becomes a
symbol of the absurdity of power. His inability to resolve the situation in a
way that is both just and financially feasible exposes the limitations of his
authority. Tolstoy uses the king to satirize the inefficiencies of government
and the contradictions inherent in the exercise of power.
The absurdity of the king’s situation is
highlighted by the story’s conclusion, where the criminal is released on a
state pension. This outcome, which seems farcical, underscores the theme of
power as something that is often divorced from practical reality. The king’s
authority, which should allow him to enforce the law and deliver justice, is
instead rendered impotent by the bureaucratic and financial constraints of his
kingdom.
Tolstoy’s satire of the king reflects a
broader critique of authority in modern society. The king, despite his position
of ultimate power, is reduced to a figurehead, unable to act decisively or
deliver justice in a meaningful way. His authority is undermined by the very
system that he is supposed to control, and his decisions are dictated not by
moral or legal principles but by practical considerations.
www.educsector.com
Conclusion
In “Too Dear”, the character of the king
serves as a representation of power and authority, but his authority is
consistently challenged by the limitations of the practical world. Through the
king, Tolstoy explores themes of governance, justice, and the absurdity of
bureaucratic systems. The king’s inability to resolve the issue of the
condemned criminal in a way that aligns with both justice and practicality
reflects the broader limitations of power when it is constrained by
institutional and material realities.
Tolstoy’s portrayal of the king as a figure
caught between moral principles and practical considerations offers a critique
of the nature of authority in modern governance. The story suggests that power,
far from being absolute, is often subject to the inefficiencies and
contradictions of the systems in which it operates. The king, despite his
