Deliberative Stasis According to the Ancients, As Illustrated from Shakespeare's Henry IV

Abstract

Stasis (Latin status) has proven such a fruitful inventional technique for forensic rhetoric that several modern scholars have attempted to form a parallel concept to be used in deliberative circumstances. Their results have not gotten much traction, though, probably because they have not looked to see what classical rhetoric has already provided along these lines. No concept of “deliberative stasis” was explicitly pronounced among the ancient rhetoricians. However, a reading of key rhetorical works of Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian along with a couple of early modern authors indicates a general consensus upon three key issues that, taken together, would form the deliberative equivalent of forensic stasis. Following the example of Aristotle who, in his Rhetoric, made frequent reference to Greek drama for illustration, this article draws on three episodes from Shakespeare's Henry IV to show the usefulness of what I call “forestasis,” a term denominating stasis looking forward, if you will. They include the deliberation of Prince Hal about whether he should participate in the robbery at Gadshill (from early in Part I); an inferred deliberation on the part of the Chief Justice as to whether he should send the young prince to prison for striking him “in my very seat of judgment” (spoken of in Part II as happening in the past); and Hal's likely weighing of alternatives as to what to do with Falstaff once he becomes king (the banishment, of course, taking place late in Part II).