Was 1603 the end of histories? There is an approach to the relationship between early modern drama and its representation of warfare that understands that, by the early years of the seventeenth century, the comparative tranquillity of England's foreign policy under James Stuart reduced popular interest in warfare as a conspicuous subject for the stage. The argument is based partly on the fact that, with the exceptions of The Tragedy of Macbeth and All is True (Henry VIII), Shakespeare stopped writing history plays at the accession of James to the English throne. Macbeth is thus regarded as an exceptional return to the history genre because it celebrates James's lineage, flatters his abiding interest in witchcraft and simultaneously offers a convenient vehicle for tragedy, a form that continued to absorb the playwright for a number of years. Henry VIII, opening as it does with a description of the diplomacy of the Field of the Cloth of Gold in 1520 and ending with the christening of Elizabeth in 1533, avoids depicting the wars that characterised Henry's reign. It concentrates instead on domestic political and religious intrigue, and foregrounds Henry's troubled relationship with Rome. Whatever the nature of the international conflict that underpins this late play, all is smoothed over by the vision of peace promised in Cranmer's prophecy concerning the life of the infant princess. The idea that the drama of the period forsakes history is a neat formulation that almost holds true for Shakespeare's commitment to the history play as a form.