Shakespeare’s Conspiracy Theorist: Richard III in the Context of Thomas Hobbes’ State of Nature
Keywords:Literature, Shakespeare, Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, State of Nature, Power.
Thomas Hobbes disagreed with the ideas of previous thinkers about the existence of the state in the history of political philosophy, which made progress in the 17th century and made its way to the Age of Reason. He argues that humanity exists in a 'state of nature' when it is not a state and explains it in his work Leviathan. Most of the characters in Shakespeare's play Richard III have traces of Hobbes' concept of the natural state. As with many other characters created by Shakespeare for his plays prior to and following the publication of Richard III, the characters in this play seem to be either goal-oriented, with certain motives to carry out, or rather ignorant of the actions happening around them only to learn about them too late. The goals of the former characters and what they accomplish for these purposes are similar to those of Hobbes in terms of state and power. In particular, the conspiracies and theories that Richard's character has established reveal the state of nature and the impasse for a society that experiences an absence of power. In this study, Richard III, one of the earliest plays and the most controversial works of Shakespeare at the beginning of the Renaissance period, is analysed in the light of Hobbes' ideas. Within this context, a thorough examination of the play with regards to the actions and the statements made by the characters was conducted to prove the existence of Hobbes’ ideas as integrated into the play. The conclusion drawn is that the study indicated strong inclusion of Hobbes’ state of nature idea in the play as the tenets of the said idea is abundant throughout the work. Being a political playwright as well as a philosophy-driven writer, Shakespeare can be said to have employed Hobbes’ ideas and moulded them into living and breathing characters to show the possible calamities an absence of power may entail.
Aristotle (1955). Politics. The Great Books Foundation, Vol 3, 1-122.
Bull, H. (1981). Hobbes and the international anarchy. Maryland: JHUP, 48(4), 717-738,
Gauthier, D., P. (2000). The Logic of Leviathan, Oxford: OUP.
Hampton, J., E. (1987). Hobbes And the Social Contract Tradition. Cambridge: CUP.
Hobbes, T. (1998). Leviathan (Ed. C. A. Gaskin). Oxford: OUP.
Kavka, G. (1983). Hobbes's War of All Against All. Ethics, 93(2), 291-310. Retrieved March 21, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/2380421
King, P. (1974). The Ideology of Order A Comparative Analysis of Jean Bodin and Thomas Hobbes. Barnes & Noble Books, 1-351
Kulak, Ö. (2014). “Thomas Hobbes” (Ed. Ahu Tunçel & Kurtul Gülenç). Siyaset Felsefesi Tarihi Platon’dan Žižek’e, İstanbul: Doğu Batı Yayınları.
Lessnoff, M. (1986). Social Contract. UK: Macmillan Education.
Martinich, A., P. (1992). The Two Gods of Leviathan, Cambridge: CUP.
Merriam, C. (1906). Hobbes's Doctrine of the State of Nature. Proceedings of the American Political Science Association, 3, 151-157. doi:10.2307/3038543
Michael, L. (1986). Social Contract Issues in Political Theory (Ed. Peter Jones & Albert Weale). MACMILLAN EDUCATION LTD.
Moloney, P. (2011). Hobbes, savagery, and international anarchy. Wellington: VUP, 105(1), 189-204, doi:10.1017/S0003055410000511.
Norberto. B. (1993). Thomas Hobbes and The Natural Law Tradition (translated by Daniela Gobetti). Chicago: UCP. First Edition.
Özmen, S. (2016). Ortaçağ ve Yeniçağdan Bazı Örnekler Bağlamında Avrupa’daki Yahudi Algısının Edebiyata Etkisi. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5 (8), 3054-3068. DOI: 10.15869/itobiad.266079
Pudney, E. (2015). Mendacity and kingship in Shakespeare’s Henry V and Richard III. European Journal of English Studies, 19(2), 163-175, DOI: 10.1080/13825577.2015.1039279
Read, J., H. (1991). Thomas Hobbes: Power in the state of nature, power in civil society. Chicago: UCP. 23(4), 505-525.
Ryan, A. (2018). Escaping the war of all against all: Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes. Social Research: An International Quarterly, Maryland: JHUP, 85(3), 639-649.
Sadler, Gregory B. (2010). The States of Nature in Hobbes’ Leviathan. Government and History Faculty Working Papers. Paper 9
Schmitt, C. (1996). The Leviathan in the State Theory of Thomas Hobbes: Meaning and Failure of a Political Symbol (trans. G. Schwab & E. Hilfstein), Greenwood Press,
Schulman, A. (2014). Rethinking Shakespeare’s Political Philosophy. Edinburgh: EUP.
Shakespeare (1998). The Arden Shakespeare: Complete Works (eds. Proudfoot, R. & Thompson, A. & Kastan, D., S.), Bloomsbury Publishing.
Sommerville, J., P. (1992). Thomas Hobbes: Political Ideas in Historical Context. THE MACMILLAN PRESS LTD.
Steppat. (n. d.). Tragedy: variations of a genre. Retrieved April 13, 2020, from http://www.english-literature.uni-bayreuth.de/en/teaching/documents/courses/Cosmology-2.pdf
The Norton Anthology of English Literature, The Sixteenth Century / The Early Seventeenth Century (Ed. Stephen Greenblatt). (2012).
Thivet, D. (2008). Thomas Hobbes: A philosopher of war or peace? British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 16(4),701-721. DOI:10.1080/09608780802407407
Warburton. N. (1999). Of the natural condition of mankind, Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Philosophy: Basic Readings, Routledge, 155-158.
Ward, I. (1993). Thomas Hobbes and the Nature of Contract. Studia Leibnitiana, 25(1), 90-110.
How to Cite
LicenseAll papers licensed under Creative Commons 4.0 CC-BY.
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Under the following terms:
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.