Henry V - en ärans man : En dramatistisk analys av Sankt Crispiani dag-talet i Shakespeares Henry V

The purpose of this essay is to understand the rhetoric presented by Henry V in Shakespeare’s St. Crispin’s day speech. More specifically, it examines the speech from a "dramatistic" point of view, i.e. the way Henry V is labeling agent, scene, act, agency and purpose in the narrative that...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Dilber, Anton
Format: Others
Language:Swedish
Published: Södertörns högskola, Institutionen för kommunikation, medier och it 2011
Subjects:
Online Access:http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:sh:diva-10971
Description
Summary:The purpose of this essay is to understand the rhetoric presented by Henry V in Shakespeare’s St. Crispin’s day speech. More specifically, it examines the speech from a "dramatistic" point of view, i.e. the way Henry V is labeling agent, scene, act, agency and purpose in the narrative that his rhetoric constitutes. These labels are in themselves strategic spots, allowing the rhetorician to stage a reality that seeks to promote certain ways of thinking, feeling and acting that are beneficial to him. By examining these labels closely, we gain knowledge of their workings and – perhaps more importantly – their interchangeability. The analysis is based on Kenneth Burke’s dramatistic pentad and his ideas on how dialectical transformation can deepen our understanding of certain representations of reality. The methodology used is mostly that of Kenneth Burke when dealing with the elements of the pentad and its transformations, found in his work A grammar of motives. But it is also inspired by Hahn & Morlando’s (1979) Burkean analysis of Abraham Lincoln’s second inaugural address. The main conclusion is that Henry V overcomes his rhetorical obstacles (his men’s lack of motivation and questioning of the war) by reducing his narrative to the purpose. This purpose (and key term) is "honor", treated by Henry V as a term primarily rooted in the act, which is beneficial to his cause, since it allows men of all ranks to view themselves capable of gaining honor by performing the act of fighting. Furthermore, his focus on honor (and its dreaded counterpart – mediocrity and unmanliness) has the added side effect of drawing attention from some of his men’s critique of the war.