<p>William Shakespeare’s Richard III is now often regarded as a history, but actually, it was named The Tragedy of King Richard the Third by the author as seen in the quarto edition. If the social chaos Richard developed in the text is focused on, it can be a history. On the other hand, if the protagonist’s talents, extraordinary charisma and miserable disability are emphasized, it will be a tragedy. In this paper, it is shown that these two characteristics of the text work complementarily by examining the dialectic relationship between the society and Richard. In fact, not only Richard but also other ruling class people around him are responsible for the social dislocations, including even Richard’s dark deeds. It is because they actually depended on or took advantage of his political power for survival, though they also seemed to feel fear. It is just like Thomas Hobbes’ “bellum omnium contra omnes” (“the war of all against all”) in Leviathan, concerning the social contract theory. According to his theory, everyone wants to make an attack for survival before the others do. It leads to “the war of all against all”. Hobbes concluded that social disturbances like civil war can be avoided only by an absolute political power. His theory may be resulted from his hard experience during the English Civil War (1642-51) just like the Wars of the Roses (1455-85) where everyone around Richard was responsible for the social disorder. In conclusion, Shakespeare’s Richard III can be regarded as one of the precedents of Hobbes’ theory of social contract.<br> </p>