2 Henry IV—Study Guide

2 Henry IV was published in 1600 (in two states, one of which seemingly accidentally left out 3.1---though some have argued that the omission was the result of censorship), and it was not reprinted until it appeared in the 1623 folio. The play was written probably late in 1597 or early in 1598 as a sequel to 1 Henry IV, once the popularity of the first play was clear. 2H4, like its predecessor, uses Holinshed, Daniel’s Civil Wars, and the anon. play,  The Famous Victories of Henry V for its primary sources.

1. Many critics have seen “a falling-off” in Part Two after the brilliance of 1H4. Does the play in fact seem less good to you? less interesting? How would you describe the different qualities of the two plays?

2. Look at the prologue: what is the effect of having Rumour preside? What role do rumors play in the action? What is the difference between rumor and history? Think about the rhythms and rhetoric of the speech.

3. When does Hal first enter? What is the effect of his belated appearance?

4. How does Falstaff differ in this play from Part One? Does he have the same verve and wit? Has he changed or have the circumstances?

5. Look at the language of disease in the play; make a list of places where sickness  and age are discussed. What might be some of the implications of this cluster?

6. Some critics have said that nothing actually happens in 2H4. What are in fact the characteristic actions of the play? Is there anything parallel to the battle of Shrewsbury  here?

7. What do you make of the actions of John of Lancaster at Gaultree Forest? Are these appropriate, necessary,  dishonorable, etc.?  How do you think an audience in 1599 might view them? (On what might you base an answer to this question?) Why does John speak the last lines of the play (before the epilogue) rather than the King?

8. Think about the structural similarities between 1H4 and 2H4. Does the second play seem more to continue the action of the first part, or to echo it in a new key?

9. How do you respond to the eventual ‘rejection’ of Falstaff? Does the new King lie to him (see 5.5.63-5 and 5.5.91)? How does the action affect our sense of the King?

10. Look at the epilogue: who do you think speaks it? What difference might that make? Is it merely conventional? How might it affect a reading or theatrical experience of the play?