In the First Folio (1623), the plays of William Shakespeare were in three categories: (i) comedies, (ii) histories, and (iii) tragedies. Alongside the history plays of his Renaissance playwright contemporaries, the histories of Shakespeare define the theatrical genre of history plays. The historical plays also are biographies of the English kings of the previous four centuries, and include the plays King John, Edward III, and Henry VIII, and a continual sequence of eight plays known as the Henriad, for the protagonist Prince Hal, the future King Henry V of England.
The chronology of Shakespeare's plays indicates that the first tetralogy was written in the early 1590s, and discusses the politics of the Wars of the Roses; the four plays are Henry VI, parts I, II, and III, and The Tragedy of Richard the Third. The second tetralogy was completed in 1599, and comprises the history plays Richard II, Henry IV, parts I and II, and Henry V.
Moreover, the First Folio includes the classifications of the late romances and of the problem plays that feature historical characters among the dramatis personæ; thus, in English literature, the term "Shakespearean history play" includes the Roman plays Julius Caesar, Antony and Cleopatra, and Coriolanus; and the tragedies King Lear and Macbeth.
Historical sources The book of British history, Holinshed's Chronicles of England, Scotlande, and Irelande (1577, 1587), by Raphael Holinshed, is the principal documentary source for the historical backgrounds and political drama in Shakespeare's English history plays and in the tragedies of Macbeth and of King Lear. The history source for the Roman history plays is the Thomas North English translation (1579) of Parallel Lives (Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans Compared Together), by Plutarch.
Politics in the English history plays The playwright William Shakespeare lived during the régime of Queen Elizabeth I (r. 1558–1603), who was the last dynastic monarch of the House of Tudor (r. 1485–1603); thus, the history plays of Shakespeare can be considered political propaganda that warns against the wrack-and-ruin of civil war and celebrates the founders of the House of Tudor. In particular, The Tragedy of Richard the Third (1594) derogates the last man of the rival House of York, King Richard III (r. 1483–1485), as "that bottled spider, that foul bunchback'd toad", while praising Richard's successor, Henry VII (r. 1485–1509) as the better man to be King of England.
The playwright's political bias for the House of Tudor also is evident in The Famous History of the Life of King Henry the Eighth, which concludes in celebration of the birth of his daughter Elizabeth. Thematically important to Shakespeare's representation of societal decline in the Late Middle Ages (1300–1500) is the politicking that propels the action in Richard III, which indicates that the Medieval collapse originated from the opportunistic practises of Machiavellianism in all politics. By way of nostalgia for the less treacherous way of life of the Late Middle Ages, in the history plays, Shakespeare shows the evolution of politics and social class that armed the House of Tudor to claim and take the throne of England.
Family myths of right and law
To accurately portray the people and personages who were the House of Lancaster, the House of York, and the House of Tudor, Shakespeare used the family myths of right and law (bloodline and political legitimacy) reported in Holinshed's Chronicles. In dynastic claims to the Throne of England, the Lancaster Myth claimed that the deposition of Richard II and the reign of Henry IV were actions divinely sanctioned, and that the military victories and the geopolitical achievements of Henry V were divine favours. The York Myth claimed that Edward IV's deposition of Henry VI was the divine restoration of the usurped Throne of England to the rightful and lawful heirs of Richard II. Moreover, the claims of the Tudor Myth condemned the York brothers for murdering King Henry VI and Prince Edward; stressed divine sanction in the fall of the House of York and the consequent ascent of Henry Tudor—whose union of the houses of Lancaster and York was prophesied by Henry VI.
The family and political myths of the House of Tudor claim that Henry Tudor's praying before the start of the Battle of Bosworth Field (1485) indicated he was divinely favoured for martial victory,Tillyard, E. M. W., Shakespeare's History Plays (London 1944), pp. 89–90, 212 and that Henry's battlefield defeat of Richard III "was justified on the principles of contemporary political theory, for Henry was not merely rebelling against a tyrant, but putting down a tyrannous usurper, which The Mirror for Magistrates allowed".Kelly, 1970, p. 293
In their histories of England, the chroniclers Polydore Vergil, Edward Hall, and Raphael Holinshed stressed the lessons learned from past divine interventions to British history. In Union of the Two Noble and Illustre Families of Lancastre and Yorke (1548), Edward Hall said that divine Providence had cursed England for the deposition and murder of Richard II, but then laid peace upon the realm in the person of Henry Tudor and his dynasty. Holinshed's judgement was that Richard, Duke of York, and his line were divinely punished for Richard violating his oath to allow the full reign of Henry VI. As political propagandists, the chroniclers incorporated elements of all three myths in their narrative histories' treatments of the period from Richard II to Henry VII.Kelly, Henry Ansgar, Divine Providence in the England of Shakespeare's Histories (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1970), dust-jacket summary For Shakespeare's use of the three myths, see .
History plays of William Shakespeare English histories As in the First Folio (1623), the plays about English history are listed by historical chronology, not by the chronologies of composition, publication, and performance.
King John Edward III Richard II Henry IV, Part 1 Henry IV, Part 2 Henry V Henry VI, Part 1 Henry VI, Part 2 Henry VI, Part 3 Richard III Henry VIII
Roman histories As noted, the First Folio collects the tragedies thus:
Coriolanus Julius Caesar Antony and Cleopatra
Other histories As with the Roman history plays, the First Folio classifies the following plays as tragedies. Although thematically related by way of historical background, royal biography, and based upon the Holingshed and the Plutarch sources, these plays are not part of Shakespeare's English histories.
King Lear Macbeth Hamlet Titus Andronicus; although set in Ancient Rome, the fictional tragedy of the Roman general Titus Andronicus is not a Roman history play.
Interpretations
Tetralogies and the Henriad In Divine Providence in the England of Shakespeare’s Histories (1970), the academic H. A. Kelly examines Shakespeare's political bias and analyses his historical assertions about the earthly influence of divine Providence in: (a) the contemporary historical chronicles, (b) the Tudor historians, and (c) the Elizabethan poets—notably the two tetralogies: (i) Henry VI to Richard III and (ii) Richard II to Henry V.Kelly, Henry Ansgar, Divine Providence in the England of Shakespeare's Histories (Cambridge, Mass., 1970) As an historiographer and as a dramaturgist, Shakespeare displaced divine Providence from the historical sources and presented divine influence as the opinions of spokesmen-characters; thus Lancastrians speak the sentimental myth of the House Lancaster, Yorkists speak the sentimental myth of the House of York, while Henry Tudor personifies the sentimental myth of the House of Tudor. That literary recasting of divine dialogues to mortal men and women allows each play to create, develop, and establish a unique ethos and mythos from which spring the actions of protagonists and antagonists.Kelly, 1970, dust-jacket summary
Whereas the chroniclers explained that historical events were influenced and decided by the divine justice of Providence, the playwright Shakespeare placed the earthly influence of Providence in the dramatic background. In defending his claim to the Throne of England, Richard, Duke of York, stressed the justification of providential justice to Parliament. To reject Richard's claim to the English throne, Shakespeare did not develop that theme in the scene at Parliament (3 Henry VI).Kelly, 1970, p. 262 In the first tetralogy, Henry VI does not perceive his troubles as divine retribution; in the second tetralogy, there is no thematic leitmotif of Providential punishment for Henry IV.Kelly, 1970, p. 216 The allusions to hereditary punishment by Providence are Richard II's prediction of a civil war at his abdication;Richard II 3.3.72–120 Henry IV's fear of punishment through his wayward son;1 Henry IV 3.2.4–17 Henry V's fear of Providence punishing him for the sins of his father;Henry V 4.1.306–322 and Clarence's fear of providential retribution against him through his children.Richard III 1.4.1–75
Whereas the chroniclers of history explained that divine Providence was twice displeased—first, by the marriage between the English King Henry VI and the French duchess Margaret of Anjou, and second, because of Henry's broken vow to the Armagnac girl—the playwright Shakespeare has Duke Humphrey object to Margaret as queen consort because the marriage would lose England possession and control of the Duchy of Anjou and the territory of the Maine.Kelly, 1970, p. 252 Dismissing the chroniclers' historical opinions that Talbot's victories were divinely ordained,1 Henry VI 3.2.117; 3.4.12 Shakespeare shows that the defeat and death of Talbot were consequences of dissention among the ranks of the English.Kelly, 1970, p. 248 Shakespeare further presents the outcomes of political and military events and of personal drama as the results of poetic justice, as established in Senecan dramaturgy;Kelly, 1970, p. 282 thus dreams, prophecies, and curses are of narrative importance in the early tetralogy, which shows poetic justice take effect — especially Henry VI's prophecy about the future Henry VII.3 Henry VI 4.6.65–76
Accordingly, Shakespeare's moral characterisation and political bias, Kelly argues, change from play to play, "which indicates that he is not concerned with the absolute fixing of praise or blame", though he does achieve general consistency within each play:
Shakespeare meant each play primarily to be self-contained. Thus in Richard II the murder of Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester, inaugurates the action — John of Gaunt places the guilt on Richard II — but Woodstock is forgotten in the later plays. Again, Henry IV, at the end of Richard II, speaks of a crusade as reparation for Richard's death: but in the next two plays he does not show remorse for his treatment of Richard. As for the Henry VI plays, the Yorkist view of history in 1 Henry VI differs from that in 2 Henry VI: in Part 1 the conspiracy of the Yorkist Richard Earl of Cambridge against Henry V is admitted; in Part 2 it is passed silently over.Kelly, 1970, p. 259 Henry VI's attitude to his own claim undergoes changes. Richard III does not refer to any events prior to Henry VI's reign.