What is the difference between how legitimate authorities are theoretically constructed and how they actually play out within Philaster? The king's final advice, for example, is for princes to "rule the passions of their blood," and within the play characters speak about legitimate authority as ideally held by calm, rational men in control of themselves and their surroundings. Yet, the actual character representations of royalty within the play are all prone to passionate effusion -- not to mention disturbingly quick to turn that passion towards extreme violence, especially towards the objects/subjects of their affection. What is the significance of this difference?

How, besides in terms of lineage, is Arbaces revealed to be both a king and no king -- and does the issue of incest (whether it be real or presumed) inform that dual position? What does it mean, for example, when the political and symbolic head of a social group is no longer capable of embodying coherent social order? What happens within the world of the play when the king no longer wants to follow the rules?