Public Speaking Part 7

6. Describe the effects of the questions in the next. How is sentence variety secured? What effects have the simple, declarative sentences?

"And from what have these consequences sprung? We have been involved in no war. We have been at peace with all the world.

We have been visited with no national calamity. Our people have been advancing in general intelligence, and, I will add, as great and alarming as has been the advance of political corruption among the mercenary corps who look to government for support, the morals and virtue of the community at large have been advancing in improvement. What, I again repeat, is the cause?"

JOHN C. CALHOUN: _Speech on the Force Bill_, 1833

7. What quality predominates in the following? Does it lower the tone of the pa.s.sage too much? Is the interrogative form of the last sentence better than the declarative? Why? Has the last observation any close connection with the preceding portion? Can it be justified?

"Modesty is a lovely trait, which sets the last seal to a truly great character, as the blush of innocence adds the last charm to youthful beauty. When, on his return from one of his arduous campaigns in the Seven Years' War, the Speaker of the Virginia a.s.sembly, by order of the House, addressed Colonel Washington in acknowledgment of his services, the youthful hero rose to reply; but humility checked his utterance, diffidence sealed his lips. 'Sit down, Colonel Washington,' said the Speaker; 'the House sees that your modesty is equal to your merit, and that exceeds my power of language to describe.' But who ever heard of a modest Alexander or a modest Caesar, or a modest hero or statesman of the present day?--much as some of them would be improved by a measure of that quality."

EDWARD EVERETT: _Character of Washington_, 1858

8. Look up the meaning of every unfamiliar expression in this extract.

Is the quotation at the end in good taste? Give reasons for your answer. For what kinds of audiences would this speech be fitting?

"The remedy for the constant excess of party spirit lies, and lies alone, in the courageous independence of the individual citizen. The only way, for instance, to procure the party nomination of good men, is for every self-respecting voter to refuse to vote for bad men. In the medieval theology the devils feared nothing so much as the drop of holy water and the sign of the cross, by which they were exorcised. The evil spirits of party fear nothing so much as bolting and scratching. _In hoc signo vinces_. If a farmer would reap a good crop, he scratches the weeds out of his field. If we would have good men upon the ticket, we must scratch bad men off. If the scratching breaks down the party, let it break: for the success of the party, by such means would break down the country. The evil spirits must be taught by means that they can understand. 'Them fellers,' said the captain of a ca.n.a.l-boat of his men, 'Them fellers never think you mean a thing until you kick 'em. They feel that, and understand.'"

GEORGE WILLIAM CURTIS: _The Public Duty of Educated Men_, 1877

9. Describe the quality of the next extract. What is its style? Are repet.i.tions allowable? What then of variety? Point out contrasts of words and phrases.

"What, then it is said, would you legislate in haste? Would you legislate in times of great excitement concerning matters of such deep concern? Yes, Sir, I would; and if any bad consequences should follow from the haste and excitement, let those be answerable who, when there was no need to haste, when there existed no excitement, refused to listen to any project of reform; nay, made it an argument against reform that the public mind was not excited.... I allow that hasty legislation is an evil. But reformers are compelled to legislate fast, just because bigots will not legislate early.

Reformers are compelled to legislate in times of excitement, because bigots will not legislate in times of tranquillity."

THOMAS BABINGTON MACAULAY: _On the Reform Bill_, 1832

10. Describe the diction of the next extract. Describe the prevailing kind of sentences. Do you approve of these in such an instance?

Explain your answer. Does it remind you--in tone--of any other pa.s.sage already quoted in this book? What is your opinion of the style?

"There has been a change of government. It began two years ago, when the House of Representatives became Democratic by a decisive majority. It has now been completed. The Senate about to a.s.semble will also be Democratic. The offices of President and Vice-President have been put into the hands of Democrats. What does the change mean? That is the question that is uppermost in our minds today. That is the question I am going to try to answer in order, if I may, to interpret the occasion.

"This is not a day of triumph; it is a day of dedication.

Here muster, not the forces of party, but the forces of humanity. Men's hearts wait upon us; men's lives hang in the balance; men's hopes call upon us to say what we will do. Who shall live up to the great trust? Who dares fail to try? I summon all honest men, all patriotic, all forward-looking men to my side. G.o.d helping me, I will not fail them, if they will but counsel and sustain me."

WOODROW WILSON: _Inaugural_, 1918

11. Consider sentence length in the following: Which words are significant? How is concreteness secured?

"Ours is a government of liberty by, through, and under the law. No man is above it and no man is below it. The crime of cunning, the crime of greed, the crime of violence, are all equally crimes, and against them all alike the law must set its face. This is not and never shall be a government either of plutocracy or of a mob. It is, it has been, and it will be a government of the people; including alike the people of great wealth, of moderate wealth, the people who employ others, the people who are employed, the wage worker, the lawyer, the mechanic, the banker, the farmer; including them all, protecting each and everyone if he acts decently and squarely, and discriminating against any one of them, no matter from what cla.s.s he comes, if he does not act squarely and fairly, if he does not obey the law. While all people are foolish if they violate or rail against the law, wicked as well as foolish, but all foolish--yet the most foolish man in this Republic is the man of wealth who complains because the law is administered with impartial justice against or for him. His folly is greater than the folly of any other man who so complains; for he lives and moves and has his being because the law does in fact protect him and his property."

THEODORE ROOSEVELT at Spokane, 1903

CHAPTER IV

BEGINNING THE SPEECH

Speech-making a Formal Matter. Every speech is more or less a formal affair. The speaker standing is separated from the other persons present by his prominence. He is removed from them by standing while they sit, by being further away from them than in ordinary conversation. The greater the distance between him and his listeners the more formal the proceeding becomes. When a person speaks "from the floor" as it is called, that is, by simply rising at his seat and speaking, there is a marked difference in the manner of his delivery and also in the effect upon the audience. In many gatherings, speeches and discussions "from the floor" are not allowed at all, in others this practice is the regular method of conducting business. Even in the schoolroom when the student speaks from his place he feels less responsibility than when he stands at the front of the room before his cla.s.smates. As all formal exercises have their regular rules of procedure it will be well to list the more usual formulas for beginnings of speeches.

The Salutation. In all cases where speeches are made there is some person who presides. This person may be the Vice-President of the United States presiding over the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, the president of a city board of aldermen, the judge of a court, the president of a corporation, of a lodge, of a church society, of a club, the pastor of a church, the chancellor or provost or dean of a college, the princ.i.p.al of a school, the chairman of a committee, the toastmaster of a banquet, the teacher of a cla.s.s. The first remark of a speaker must always be the recognition of this presiding officer.

Then there are frequently present other persons who are distinct from the ordinary members of the audience, to whom some courtesy should be shown in this salutation. Their right to recognition depends upon their rank, their importance at the time, some special peculiar reason for separating them from the rest of the audience. The speaker will have to decide for himself in most cases as to how far he will cla.s.sify his hearers. In some instances there is no difficulty.

Debaters must recognize the presiding officer, the judges if they be distinct from the regular audience, the members of the audience itself. Lawyers in court must recognize only the judge and the "gentlemen of the jury." In a debate on the first draft for the League of Nations presided over by the Governor of Ma.s.sachusetts, Senator Lodge's salutation was "Your Excellency, Ladies and Gentlemen, My Fellow Americans." The last was added unquestionably because patriotic feeling was so strong at the time that reference to our nationality was a decidedly fitting compliment, and also perhaps, because the speaker realized that his audience might be slightly prejudiced against the view he was going to advance in criticizing the League Covenant. At times a formal salutation becomes quite long to include all to whom recognition is due. At a university commencement a speaker might begin: "Mr. Chancellor, Members of the Board of Trustees, Gentlemen of the Faculty, Candidates for Degrees, Ladies and Gentlemen."

Other salutations are Your Honor, Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, Madame President, Madame Chairman, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Stevenson, Sir, Mr.

Toastmaster, Mr. Moderator, Honorable Judges, Ladies, Gentlemen, Fellow Citizens, Cla.s.smates, Fellow Workers, Gentlemen of the Senate, Gentlemen of the Congress, Plenipotentiaries of the German Empire, My Lord Mayor and Citizens of London; Mr. Mayor, Mr. Secretary, Admiral Fletcher and Gentlemen of the Fleet; Mr. Grand Master, Governor McMillan, Mr. Mayor, My Brothers, Men and Women of Tennessee.

The most important thing about the salutation is that it should never be omitted. To begin to speak without having first recognized some presiding officer and the audience stamps one immediately as thoughtless, unpractised, or worse still--discourteous.

Having observed the propriety of the salutation the speaker should make a short pause before he proceeds to the introduction of his speech proper.

Length of the Introduction. There was a time when long elaborate introductions were the rule, and textbooks explained in detail how to develop them. The main a.s.sumption seems to have been that the farther away from his topic the speaker began, the longer and more indirect the route by which he approached it, the more sudden and surprising the start with which it was disclosed to the audience, the better the speech. Such views are no longer held. One of the criticisms of the speeches of the English statesman, Burke, is that instead of coming at once to the important matter under consideration--and all his speeches were upon paramount issues--he displayed his rhetorical skill and literary ability before men impatient to finish discussion and provide for action by casting their votes. If a student will read the beginning of Burke's famous _Speech on Conciliation_ he will readily understand the force of this remark, for instead of bringing forward the all-important topic of arranging for colonial adjustment Burke uses hundreds of words upon the "flight of a bill for ever," his own pretended superst.i.tiousness and belief in omens. So strong is the recognition of the opposite practice today that it is at times a.s.serted that speeches should dispense with introductions longer than a single sentence.

Purpose of the Introduction. So far as the material of the speech is concerned the introduction has but one purpose--to bring the topic of the succeeding remarks clearly and arrestingly before the audience. It should be clearly done, so that there shall be no misunderstanding from the beginning. It should be arrestingly done, so that the attention shall be aroused and held from this announcement even until the end. A man should not declare that he is going to explain the manufacture of paper-cutters, and then later proceed to describe the making of those frames into which rolls of wrapping paper are fitted underneath a long cutting blade, because to most people the expression "paper-cutters" means dull-edged, ornamental knives for desks and library tables. His introduction would not be clear. On the other hand if a minister were to state plainly that he was going to speak on the truth that "it is more blessed to give than to receive"

his congregation might turn its attention to its own affairs at once because the topic promises no novelty. But if he declares that he is going to make a defense of selfishness he would surely startle his hearers into attention, so that he could go on to describe the personal satisfaction and peace of mind which comes to the doers of good deeds. A speaker could arrest attention by stating that he intended to prove the immorality of the principle that "honesty is the best policy," if he proceeded to plead for that virtue not as a repaying _policy_ but as an innate guiding principle of right, no matter what the consequences. In humorous, half-jesting, ironical material, of course, clearness may be justifiably sacrificed to preserving interest. The introduction may state the exact opposite of the real topic.

When nothing else except the material of the introduction need be considered, it should be short. Even in momentous matters this is true. Notice the brevity of the subjoined introduction of a speech upon a deeply moving subject.

Gentlemen of the Congress:

The Imperial German Government on the 31st day of January announced to this Government and to the Governments of the other neutral nations that on and after the 1st day of February, the present month, it would adopt a policy with regard to the use of submarines against all shipping seeking to pa.s.s through certain designated areas of the high seas, to which it is clearly my duty to call your attention.

WOODROW WILSON, 1917

The following, though much longer, aims to do the same thing--to announce the topic of the speech clearly. Notice that in order to emphasize this endeavor to secure clearness the speaker declares that he has repeatedly tried to state his position in plain English. He then makes clear that he is not opposed to _a_ League of Nations; he is merely opposed to the terms already submitted for the one about to be formed. This position he makes quite clear in the last sentence here quoted.

Your Excellency, Ladies and Gentlemen, My Fellow Americans:

I am largely indebted to President Lowell for this opportunity to address this great audience. He and I are friends of many years, both Republicans. He is the president of our great university, one of the most important and influential places in the United States. He is also an eminent student and historian of politics and government. He and I may differ as to methods in this great question now before the people, but I am sure that in regard to the security of the peace of the world and the welfare of the United States we do not differ in purposes.

I am going to say a single word, if you will permit me, as to my own position. I have tried to state it over and over again. I thought I had stated it in plain English. But there are those who find in misrepresentation a convenient weapon for controversy, and there are others, most excellent people, who perhaps have not seen what I have said and who possibly have misunderstood me. It has been said that I am against any League of Nations. I am not; far from it. I am anxious to have the nations, the free nations of the world, united in a league, as we call it, a society, as the French call it, but united, to do all that can be done to secure the future peace of the world and to bring about a general disarmament.

SENATOR HENRY CABOT LODGE in a debate in Boston, 1919

The Introduction and the Audience. When we turn from the material of the introduction or the speech we naturally consider the audience.

Just as the salutations already listed in this chapter indicate how careful speakers are in adapting their very first words to the special demands of recognition for a single audience, so a study of introductions to speeches which have been delivered will support the same principle. A speech is made to affect a single audience, therefore it must be fitted as closely as possible to that audience in order to be effective. A city official invited to a neighborhood gathering to instruct citizens in the method of securing a children's playground in that district is not only wasting time but insulting the brains and dispositions of his listeners if he drawls off a long introduction showing the value of public playgrounds in a crowded city. His presence before that group of people proves that they accept all he can tell them on that topic. He is guilty of making a bad introduction which seriously impairs the value of anything he may say later concerning how this part of the city can induce the munic.i.p.al government to set aside enough money to provide the open s.p.a.ce and the apparatus. Yet this speech was made in a large American city by an expert on playgrounds.

People remembered more vividly his wrong kind of opening remarks than they did his advice concerning a method of procedure.

Effect of the Introduction upon the Audience. Many centuries ago a famous and successful Roman orator stipulated the purpose of an introduction with respect to the audience. Cicero stated that an introduction should render its hearers "_benevolos, attentos, dociles_"; that is, kindly disposed towards the speaker himself, attentive to his remarks, and willing to be instructed by his explanations or arguments. Not everyone has a pleasing personality but he can strive to acquire one. He can, perhaps, not add many attributes to offset those nature has given him, but he can always reduce, eradicate, or change those which interfere with his reception by others. Education and training will work wonders for people who are not blessed with that elusive quality, charm, or that winner of consideration, impressiveness. Self-examination, self-restraint, self-development, are prime elements in such a process. Great men have not been beyond criticism for such qualities. Great men have recognized their value and striven to rid themselves of hindrances and replace them by helps.

Every reader is familiar with Benjamin Franklin's account of his own method as related in his _Autobiography_, yet it will bear quotation here to ill.u.s.trate this point:

While I was intent on improving my language, I met with an English Grammar (I think it was Greenwood's), at the end of which there were two little sketches of the arts of rhetoric and logic, the latter "finishing with a specimen of a dispute in the Socratic method; and soon after I procured Xenophon's Memorable Things of Socrates, wherein there are many instances of the same method. I was charmed with it, adopted it, dropt my abrupt contradiction and positive argumentation, and put on the humble inquirer and doubter....

I found this method safest for myself and very embarra.s.sing to those against whom I used it; therefore I took a delight in it, practised it continually, and grew very artful and expert in drawing people, even of superior knowledge, into concessions, the consequences of which they did not foresee, entangling them in difficulties out of which they could not extricate themselves, and so obtaining victories that neither myself nor my cause always deserved. I continued this method some few years, but gradually left it, retaining only the habit of expressing myself in terms of modest diffidence; never using, when I advanced anything that may possibly be disputed, the words _Certainly, Undoubtedly_, or any others that give the air of positiveness to an opinion; but rather say, I conceive or apprehend a thing to be so and so; it appears to me, or _I should think it so or so_, for such and such reasons; or _I imagine it to be so_; or _it is so if I am not mistaken_. This habit, I believe, has been of great advantage to me when I have had occasion to inculcate my opinions, and persuade men into measures that I have been from time to time engaged in promoting; and as the chief ends of conversation are to _inform_ or to be _informed_, to _please_ or to _persuade_, I wish well-meaning, sensible men would not lessen their power of doing good by a positive, a.s.suming manner, that seldom fails to disgust, tends to create opposition, and to defeat everyone of those purposes for which speech was given to us, to wit, giving or receiving information or pleasure. For if you would inform, a positive and dogmatical manner in advancing your sentiments may provoke contradiction and prevent a candid attention. If you wish information and improvement from the knowledge of others, and yet at the same time express yourself as firmly fixed in your present opinions, modest, sensible men who do not love disputation will probably leave you undisturbed in the possession of your error. And by such a manner you can seldom hope to recommend yourself in _pleasing_ your hearers, or to persuade those whose concurrence you desire. Pope says, judiciously: