ABSTRACT
The theory fits the facts, explains the lack of progression, the repetition apparent in 2 Henry IV, and may be correct. But is it the most likely explanation? Consideration of the relationship of the two parts with each other, with Richard II and with the Chronicles and other literary treatments of history may lead us back to the simpler theory that Shakespeare from the first conceived Henry IV, not indeed as one ten-act drama, since it was not intended to be performed at a sitting, but as two closely linked plays on the usurping King's tribulations and his son's growth to kingly quality.
