Pesky Classifications

I've always wondered why Julius Caesar isn't counted among Shakespeare's 'history plays.' I finally discovered the reason, thanks to an on-line discussion group: only Shakespeare's English history plays are reckoned as such.

Huh? Then why not categorize them specifically as Shakespeare's 'English history plays'?

And, of course, the plays aren't strict history. Look at Richard III: the real Richard might not have murdered his nephews. And look at Henry IV, Part One: the real Hotspur was the same age as Prince Hal's father--not a teenager with Hal. And Hal himself might not have had the wild youth that Shakespeare describes.

Oh well. Shakespeare wasn't after literal history--history was just a jumping off point for his dramatic genius.

That said, his histories are accurate enough to give you an idea of the events they describe. I was always baffled by the War of the Roses before I read Shakespeare--now I have a rough idea of the different players in the House of York and the House of Lancaster.

For the record, here's a list of the history plays: King John; Richard II; Henry IV, Part One; Henry IV, Part II; Henry V; Henry VI, Part One; Henry VI, Part Two; Henry VI, Part Three; Richard III; and Henry VIII.

No Julius Caesar...sigh. But I've promised myself not to get hung up on these pesky classifications. Besides, it seems silly to try to pin Shakespeare down. He'll always defy our efforts to categorize him.