Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl


2015 | 24/1 | 83-96

Article title

The Progress of Evil and the Return of Justice in Shakespeare’s Richard III



Title variants

Languages of publication



Shakespeare’s Richard III is a warning about the danger of tyrannical political leaders. Richard has no legitimate claim to the throne, but he devises his own way to achieve that goal. All along the path he follows, he leaves a trail of dead bodies. Richard becomes a fratricidal, child-murdering, Machiavellian usurper, who takes delight in breaking nearly every one of God’s commandments. This essay traces the progress of evil in Richard III under the following rubrics: (1) Ambition and The Tactics of Deception, (2) The Erosion of Conscience, (3) The Deeds of a Tyrant, (4) The Return of Justice, and (5) Implications for an Education in Political Theory.



  • Erskine College


  • Armstrong, W. A. 1948. “The Influence of Seneca and Machiavelli on the Elizabethan Tyrant.” Review of English Studies 24: 19–35.
  • Arnold, Aerol. 1955. “The Recapitulation Dream in Richard III and Macbeth.” Shakespeare Quarterly 6.1: 51–62.
  • Bonetto, Sandra. 2006. “Coward Conscience and Bad Conscience in Shakespeare and Nietzsche.” Philosophy and Literature 30.2: 512–527.
  • Bossy, Michel-André. 1990. “Woman’s Plain Talk in Le Débat de l’omme et de la femme by Guillaume Alexis.” Fifteenth-Century Studies 16: 23–41.
  • Campbell, Lily. 1980. “The Tragical Doings of King Richard III .” Shakespeare’s“Histories”: Mirrors of Elizabethan Policy. San Marino, CA: The Huntington Library. 306–334.
  • Clemen, W. H. 2013. A Commentary on Shakespeare’s Richard III. London: Routledge.
  • Connell, Martin. 2011 “Clothing the Body of Christ: An Inquiry about the Letters of Paul.” Worship 85.2: 128–146.
  • Cummings, Brian. 2012. “Dead March: Liturgy and Mimesis in Shakespeare’s Funerals.” Shakespeare 8.4: 370–387.
  • Desmond, William.1998. “Serviceable Disposability and the Blandness of the Good.” Ethical Perspectives-Katholieke Universiteit Leuven 5.2: 136–143.
  • Doty, Jeffrey S. 2010. “Shakespeare’s Richard II , ‘Popularity,’ and the Early Modern Public Sphere.” Shakespeare Quarterly 61.2: 183–205.
  • Fabj, Valeria. 1993. “Motherhood as Political Voice: The Rhetoric of the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo.” Communication Studies 44.1: 1–18.
  • Fontana, Benedetto. 1999. “Love of Country and Love of God: The Political Uses of Religion in Machiavelli.” Journal of the History of Ideas 60.4. 639–658.
  • Galston, William A. 2000. “Civil Society and the Art of Association.” Journal of Democracy 11.1: 64–70.
  • Glad, Betty. 2002. “Why Tyrants Go Too Far: Malignant Narcissism and Absolute Power.” Political Psychology 23.1: 1–37.
  • Goodland, Katharine. 2005. Female Mourning in Medieval and Renaissance English Drama: From the Raising of Lazarus to King Lear. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
  • Goossen, Jonathan. 2012. “‘Tis set down so in heaven, but not in earth’: Reconsidering Political Theology in Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure.” Christianity and Literature 6.2: 217–239.
  • Greenblatt, Stephen. 2001. Hamlet in Purgatory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Gürle, F. Meltem. 2011. “Reasoning with the Murderer: The Killing of Clarence in Richard III.” Journal of The Wooden O Symposiu 11: 51–66.
  • Healey, Robert M. 1994. “Waiting for Deborah: John Knox and Four Ruling Queens.” Sixteenth Century Journal 25.2: 371–386.
  • Holmes, Stephen. 1995. “Precommitment and the Paradox of Democracy.” Passions and Constraint. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 134–177.
  • Kott, Jan. 1964. Shakespeare Our Contemporary. New York: Doubleday. 3–55.
  • Krause, Sharon. 2000. “The Spirit of Separate Powers in Montesquieu.” Review of Politics 62.2: 231–265.
  • McCullen, Joseph T. 1952. “Brother Hate and Fratricide in Shakespeare.” Shakespeare Quarterly 3.4: 335–340.
  • McSheffrey, Shannon. 2009. “Sanctuary and the Legal Topography of Pre-Reformation London.” Law and History Review 27.3: 483–514.
  • Meilaender, Peter C. 2003. “The Problem of Having Only One City: An Augustinian Response to Rawls.” Faith and Philosophy 20.2: 170–188.
  • Miner, Madonne. 1980. “‘Neither Mother, Wife, nor England’s Queen’: The Roles of Women in Richard III.” The Woman’s Part: Feminist Criticism of Shakespeare. Ed. Carolyn Ruth and Swift Lenz. Chicago: University of Illinois Press. 17–35.
  • Monette, Sarah. 2004. “It Harrows Me with Fear and Wonder”: Horror and Haunting in Early Modern Revenge Tragedy. Dissertation, UW-Madison. http://www.sarahmonette.com/dis-introd.html
  • Nye, Joseph .2008. “Public Diplomacy and Soft Power.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616.1:94–109.
  • Oestreich-Hart, Donna. 2000. “Therefore, Since I Cannot Prove a Lover.” Studies in English Literature, 1500–1900 40.2: 241–260.
  • Olk, Claudia. 2012. “Performing Conscience in Richard III.” Anglia: Zeitschrift Für Englische Philologie 130.1. 1–18.
  • Reynolds, Paige Martin. 2008. “Mourning and Memory in Richard III.” ANQ: A Quarterly Journal of Short Articles, Notes, and Reviews 21.2: 19–25.
  • Robson, Mark. 2005. “Shakespeare’s Words of the Future: Promising Richard III.” Textual Practice 19.1: 13–30.
  • Spivack, Bernard. 1958. Shakespeare and the Allegory of Evil. New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Stanton, Timothy. 2006. “Locke and The Politics And Theology of Toleration.” Political Studies 54.1: 84–102.
  • Stortz, Martha.1994. “Beyond Justice: Friendship in the City.” Word & World 14.4: 409–418.
  • Tillyard, E. M. W. 1946. “Richard III .” Shakespeare’s History Plays. New York: The MacMillian Company. 198–214.
  • Vice, Samantha. 2005. “On the Tedium of the Good.” Ethical Theory & Moral Practice 8.4: 459–476.
  • Wilks, John S. 1990. The Idea of Conscience in Renaissance Tragedy. New York: Routledge.

Document Type

Publication order reference


YADDA identifier

JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.