A chief – perhaps the chief – fascination of the Henry IV plays is the rejection of Falstaff and the succession of Hal: this puzzle, as one observer has written, ‘divides the critics into Ephesians and Precise Brethren’. The sympathetic views of Morgann and Bradley have in this century been opposed by sterner stuff, so that those who cannot forgive Hal are now answered by those who find it hard to forgive Falstaff. Another area of lively discussion is the relationship of the two plays (or, perhaps, two parts of one play): here also the house divides without consensus. Generally, those who see 2 Henry IV as an inferior pot-boiler are those who regard it as a sequel, and vice versa. (There is some evidence that the Elizabethans were less enamoured of it than Part 1). On the other hand, some who argue that Henry IV is a ten-act play are attempting to link the three plays dealing with Hal, the whole tetralogy, or even both tetralogies: continuing lines of development, and continuing thematic interests like ‘kingship’ are stressed. But whichever view is espoused, the similarities between the plays tend to receive attention at the expense of their differences, as Professor G. K. Hunter points out: he suggests that we need to accept ‘the self-sufficiency of the separate play’. Whatever may be their formal relationship in the development of Shakespeare’s art, the two Henry IV plays are quite distinct in tone, imagery, and structure.