Abstract
Within the humanities and social sciences, researchers have explored the ways in which literary texts assess the morality of political authority. This study interprets Shakespeare’s Richard III not only as a summary of Tudor historiography, but as an extended theatrical exploration of the ethical imperatives of legitimate rule. Using the framework of Ethical Literary Criticism, this study argues that Shakespeare employs the debated figure Richard as a dramatic device to explore the philosophies of governance. Richard’s use of force, manipulation, and theatrical self-construction is an example of instrumentalist political practice. But these tactics generate distrust, moral conscience, and social cohesion, which ultimately undermine his authority. Within the drama as a whole, language of monstrosity and animalistic imagery renders Richard as an ethical aberration, not merely a rival for power. This rhetorical strategy renders horrific acts intelligible by recasting political brutality as a specific kind of “deviance from nature”, and thus predisposes audiences to make moral, rather than merely tactical judgments. By satirizing Richard, the play dispels any moral ambiguity and makes the theatrical story a true study of the ethics of governance. Shakespeare’s drama therefore acts as a moral parable, in which political ethics are both articulated and evaluated. This essay makes a contribution to scholarship in Shakespearean studies, Ethical Literary Criticism, and political philosophy by demonstrating how literary texts inform collective cultural understandings of legitimacy, accountability, and the ethical boundaries of governmental power.
References
Allen, D. (1987). Richard III: Trial by jury; a new novel brings the controversy back to life and launches a new sub-genre. Armchair Detective, 20, 403-411.
Barber, C. (1981). York notes on Richard III. Addison Wesley Longman.
Buck, G. (1982). The history of King Richard III (A. N. Kincaid, Ed.). Sutton Publishing.
Deng, J., & Termizi, A. A. (2023). The ethical choice of the father-daughter conflict in Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Forum for World Literature Studies, 15(4), 579-595.
Dockray, K. (1988). Richard III: A reader in history. Alan Sutton.
Dockray, K. (1997). Richard III: A source book. Sutton Publishing.
Friesner, D. N. (1969). William Shakespeare, conservative. Shakespeare Quarterly, 20(2), 165-178.
Hammond, A. (1981). King Richard III. Methuen.
Li, Z., & Guan, N. (2021). A study of the female images in Shakespeare’s four tragedies from the perspective of ethical literary criticism. Interdisciplinary Studies of Literature, 5(1), 89-98.
Ma, D. (2025). Machiavelli on dictatorial authority in civil conflicts. The European Legacy, 30(7), 791-811.
Marriott, J. A. R. (1940). English history in English fiction. Blackie & Son.
Muir, K. (1977). The sources of Shakespeare’s plays. Methuen.
Nicoll, A., & Nicoll, J. (Eds.). (1959). Holinshed’s chronicle as used in Shakespeare’s plays. J. M. Dent.
Nie, Z. (2021). Ethical literary criticism: A basic theory. Forum for World Literature Studies, 13(2), 189-207.
Oxford English Dictionary. (1989). Machiavellianism. In J. A. Simpson & E. S. C. Weiner (Eds.), The Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed.). Clarendon Press.
Shakespeare, W. (1988). Richard III (D. Bevington & D. S. Kastan, Eds.). Bantam Books.
Thompson, D. F. (2018). Political ethics. In H. LaFollette (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of ethics. Wiley-Blackwell.
Yang, G. (2021). From literary trends to the theory of literary criticism: The theoretical construction of ethical literary criticism. Interdisciplinary Studies of Literature, 5(1), 1-6.