Abstract:
This thesis is an analysis of Shakespeare’s use of rhetoric in the kings’ speeches in King Henry IV Part II and Henry V. The main aim of the study was to analyse Shakespeare’s use of rhetorical devices and their purpose in selected kings’ speeches appearing in King Henry IV Part II and Henry V. This study is based on selected extracts of speeches from the two plays. The speeches were analysed using the rhetorical analysis theory to unravel the use of rhetorical techniques and to explain the purpose of these techniques, as used by King Henry IV and Henry V with the intention to effectively communicate to their audience. The rhetorical analysis theory was used to interpret speeches; hence, it deals with the analysis of the structure of narrative texts to show how the linguistic mediation of a story determines its meaning and effect on the audience.The study revealed that the two speakers, King Henry IV and his son Henry V also known as Prince Hal, effectively employed two of Aristotle’s mode of persuasion; namely ethos and pathos, to appeal to the audience and achieve approval of their arguments. King Henry IV used God’s reference and credibility (ethos) and emotive language (pathos) to firstly convince his son, Prince Hal, to reform and secondly his subjects to support his efforts to quell the rebellion and maintain his troubled throne. On one hand, Henry V also used religious devotion (ethos) in his speeches to target his audience’s hearts (pathos) to enable him to control them. The study also revealed the use of rhetorical techniques and other tools such as metaphors, rhetorical questions, puns/humour, alliteration, hyperbole, metonymy, simile, anaphora, personification, paradox, imagery and so on. It was also found by this study that King Henry IV and Henry V employed the mentioned techniques for different purposes; namely, to impress, warn, intimidate, inspire, manipulate, invoke submission, order and command, praiseworthy, deliver ultimatums, and above all appeal to the audience. This study deduced that the kings’ speeches were not just mere ordinary expressions but utterances that qualified an intention of the speaker.
