AN EMBRYO SPEECH, WITH MODELS OF VERY SIMPLE PLANS.
The first extemporaneous speeches attempted should be of the simplest
character. Too high an ideal formed at the outset may be very harmful by
causing needless discouragement. To speak freely in any manner, however
rude, until confidence and the power of making every faculty available
are acquired, should be the first great object. Many persons are slaves
of bad habits through life because they began wrong. Nothing harms an
orator more than cultivating his critical taste far beyond his power of
ready utterance. There is no necessary relation between the development
of the two things. To become a fine word-critic and master of an
excellent written style does not imply the power to strike off finely
finished sentences at the speed of the tongue; but it does tend to
render the speaker dissatisfied with anything below the level of his
written performances, and thus checks his fluency. To master the
difficult art of written composition first, and strive afterward to gain
a similar proficiency in spoken words, is a complete reversal of the
natural method, and in all but a few gifted minds puts a premium on
failure. An unlettered rustic may speak with perfect ease, because he is
not conscious of the numberless verbal blunders he falls into; but if it
were possible, by some process of spiritual infusion, to put him in
possession of a fine, critical taste, he would be instantly smitten
dumb.
The true method is to cultivate the faculty of extemporization side by
side with critical judgment. In case that is done, ease and confidence
will not be for a moment disturbed. It thus appears that while an
extempore speaker can never know too much, it is quite possible for his
knowledge and cultivation to advance in the wrong order. The pen will be
of perpetual use to the speaker; but his command of it must not increase
so rapidly in proportion as to make him ashamed of his tongue.
From this reasoning it follows that the best time to lay the foundation
of excellence in speech is very early in life. Speeches made then are
necessarily flimsy and rudimentary, but they are not the less valuable
on that account. They are to be estimated not for their own worth, but
for their results upon the mind producing them. The schoolboy’s first
“composition” has always been a mark for cheap witticism; but the boy
himself regards it with justifiable pride, as the first step in the
noble work of putting thought on paper. The same pains and patience
applied to the art of public talking as to written composition will
produce equal fruit. A few directions intended to aid in overcoming some
of the initial difficulties of speech, which may serve as suggestions to
teachers as well as helps to solitary students, are here appended. They
are purposely made of almost ludicrous crudeness, but will not, it is
trusted, be less serviceable on that account; for it is not so important
to aid the mature speaker in giving the last fine strokes of genius to a
masterly oration, as it is to stimulate and guide beginners in their
first stammering utterances.
The simplest oration or formal address that can be constructed has three
distinct parts. With these we will begin the great work of division and
arrangement. They may be named as follows:
1. THE INTRODUCTION.
2. THE DISCUSSION.
3. THE CONCLUSION.
On this framework a speech-plan can be constructed simple enough for any
child. And it is at the same time true that even a child, with such a
plan, might speak appropriately who would otherwise not be able to begin
at all.
We will consider these three parts in their order.
The introduction is at once important and embarrassing. First words are
nearly always heard attentively, and they do much to determine the
degree of attention that will be bestowed on the remainder of the
speech. The young speaker should select something as an introduction
upon which his mind can fasten, instead of dwelling upon the frightful
generality of the naked theme. Neither is it hard to construct a good
introduction if a few plain directions are heeded, which will be more
fully given in a succeeding chapter. All persons feel the need of some
kind of a formal opening, and therefore often begin with an apology—the
very worst form of an introduction, because it is not interesting in
itself and does not lead up to the subject.
In rudimentary speech, which we are now considering, the introduction
should be simple, and, above everything else, easy for the speaker to
comprehend and remember. If there is anything in the whole world which
he is sure he can talk about for a few moments, and which can be made to
have a moderate degree of connection with his subject, let that be
chosen for an opening. If it is also vivid and striking in itself, and
familiar to the audience, so much the better; but this quality should
not be insisted upon in these first attempts.
When the introductory topic is selected it should be turned over in the
mind until the speaker knows just what he is going to say about it. This
process will have a wonderfully quieting effect upon his nerves. He has
fairly mastered something, and knows that at all events he can begin his
speech. It is well to make a note of this introduction in a few simple
words which will strongly fasten themselves in the memory. No effort
toward elaboration should be made, for that would naturally lead to a
memorized introduction, and either require the whole speech to be
written, or produce a painful and difficult transition.
The discussion deals directly with the subject or central idea of the
discourse. Here a clear statement of at least one thought which the
speaker can fully grasp should be made. The pen (or pencil) may be used
in preparation without impropriety. If but one idea is thought of, let
that be written in the fewest and strongest words at the student’s
command. While doing this it is likely that another and related thought
will spring into mind which can be treated in the same manner. With
diligent students there may even be a danger of getting down too many
seed-thoughts. But that contingency is provided for in the chapters on
the fully developed plan, and needs no further notice at this time.
When this central division is completely wrought out, two other points
claim attention. How shall the transition be made from the introduction
to the discussion? A little reflection will show how to glide from one
to the other, and that process should be conned over, without writing,
until it is well understood. It is wonderful how many outlines of ideas
the memory will retain without feeling burdened; and this power of
retention grows enormously through exercise.
After this, the mode of gliding from the discussion to the conclusion
may be treated in the same manner, and with equal profit. The conclusion
itself is scarcely less material than the introduction; but there is
much less range of choice in the manner of closing than in that of
beginning. The subject is before the audience, and any wide departure
from it seems like the beginning of a new speech—something not usually
well received. There is this distinction between the relative value of
introduction and conclusion: a good introduction adds most to a
speaker’s ease, confidence, and power during the moment of speech; but a
good conclusion leaves the deepest permanent impression upon the
audience. It is usually remembered longer than any other part of the
address.
When a discourse has been prepared in this simple manner it has
virtually five parts—three written and two held in memory. From such an
outline it is far more easy to make an address than from the bare
announcement of a theme. It is true that all these parts may be formed
and held in mind without ever making a pen-stroke. A practiced orator
will do this, in a moment, when unexpectedly called upon; or he may only
forecast the introduction and trust to finding the plan as fast as it is
needed. But in this he is no model for imitation by beginners. Even
powerful orators sometimes spoil the whole effect of a good address by
an unfortunate mode of closing. They may forget to close in time—a
grievous fault!—or may finish with some weak thought or extravagant
proposition, by which the whole speech is mainly judged and all its good
points neutralized. The construction of even as simple a plan as here
indicated would have more than double the effect of many speeches made
by great men.
A few simple and rude plans are annexed. No merit is sought for in any
one of them beyond making plain the method recommended.
PLANS OF SPEECHES.
EXAMPLE FIRST.
SUBJECT.—CHINESE EMIGRATION TO AMERICA.
INTRODUCTION.—The number of emigrants to our country and the nations
they represent.
[A totally different and more effective introduction might be the
description of a group of Chinese as seen by the speaker.]
DISCUSSION.—The nature, amount, and present effect of Chinese
emigration.
[It is possible for the speaker in his introduction to foreshadow the
position he expects to maintain in his speech; or he may make a
colorless introduction and reserve his opinion for the discussion. The
material under this head is unlimited. It is only necessary from the
oratorical standpoint that the speaker should determine what course to
take, and then carefully think out in advance or read—for history and
statistics cannot be improvised—all about that which he intends to use.
When he can tell it all over easily to himself he may reasonably feel
assured of his ability to tell it to others. The various arguments
should be weighed and the best selected. That which most naturally
connects with the introduction should be firmly fixed in the mind as the
first, that it may form the bridge from the one part to the other.]
CONCLUSION.—Results of policy advocated, either predicted,
described, or shown to be probable. Mode of remedying evils that
might be apprehended from that policy.
[In the conclusion the speaker may take upon himself the character of a
prophet, poet, or logician. He may predict results and let the statement
make its own impression. He may put all emphasis upon a vivid painting
of the future colored by the views he advocates; or he may sum up his
reasons, deduce consequences, and weigh alternatives. The choice between
these different modes may be made instinctively, or it may require
considerable mental effort, but when made, the best mode of transition
will be very easily found.]
In all this process, which in the case of undisciplined speakers may
extend over many days of hard work, the pen may be used freely, making
copious notes of facts and arguments. After enough has been accumulated
and put in such shape that the speaker can easily look over the entire
field, he is ready for another process—that of simplifying his plan.
Rough and copious notes brought with him to the platform would only be a
source of embarrassment. But the germ of his ideas, which are now
familiar, can be put into very small compass. Perhaps the following
would recall everything in the preceding outline:
THE CHINESE QUESTION.
1. EXPERIENCE.
2. ARGUMENTS.
3. RESULTS.
But it is clear that a skeleton containing only three words need not be
kept in view. The whole outline of the speech will therefore be in the
mind. If numerous figures or citations from authorities are employed,
they may be classified and read from books or notes, as needed. Such
reading in no way detracts from the extemporaneous character of the
address, though if too numerous they tend to damp oratorical fire and
break the unity of discourse. One who has had no personal experience, or
who has not carefully observed the methods of other speakers, can
scarcely imagine how much a simple outline, such as here suggested,
accomplishes in removing the confusion, fear, and hesitation which
characterize beginners.
Another specimen, not of controversial character, is subjoined.
EXAMPLE SECOND.
SUBJECT.—THE OCEAN.
INTRODUCTION.—The vastness of the ocean. No one person has seen more
than a small part of it. Power evidenced by storm and shipwrecks.
DISCUSSION.—Five great divisions of the ocean. Use in nature,
watering and tempering the land; in commerce, as a highway; in
history, by dividing and uniting nations; its mystery, etc.
CONCLUSION.—Proof of the Creator’s power and wisdom found in the
ocean.
_The Same Plan Condensed._
SUBJECT.—THE OCEAN.
1. VASTNESS AND POWER.
2. PARTS, USE, AND MYSTERY.
3. EVIDENCE.
DEAN SWIFT’S SERMON.
This eccentric clergyman once preached a sermon shorter than its own
text, yet having all the three parts of which we have spoken. The text
was Prov. xix, 20: “He that pitieth the poor lendeth to the Lord; and
that which he hath given will He pay him again.”
The sermon was:
“Brethren, you hear the condition; if you like the security, down with
the dust.”
The collection is said to have been munificent.
In this short sermon the text with the word “Brethren” constitutes the
introduction; the phrase, “you hear the condition,” is a good transition
to the discussion contained in the next member, “if you like the
security,” which assumes the truth of the text, makes its general
declarations present and personal, and prepares the way for the forcible
and practical, if not very elegant, conclusion, “down with the dust.”
Among the many speeches found in Shakespeare, the existence of these
three essential parts may easily be noted. The funeral speeches over the
dead body of Julius Cæsar afford an excellent example. The merit of the
orations of Brutus and Antony are very unequal, but both are
instructive. We will analyze them in turn.
Brutus speaks first. He shows his want of appreciation of the true
nature of persuasive eloquence by declaring that this will be an
advantage. His introduction is also too long and elaborate for the work
he has in hand. The central thought with which he opens is in substance,
“I am worthy of your closest attention.” This cannot be considered a
fortunate beginning, and it would have been fatal for any one less
highly esteemed by the people than “the well-beloved Brutus.” He says:
BRUTUS’ SPEECH.
“Romans, countrymen, and lovers! hear me for my cause, and be silent
that you may hear; believe me for mine honor, and have respect to mine
honor that you may believe; censure me in your wisdom and awake your
senses that you may the better judge.”
* * * * *
This introduction is a master-piece of Shakespeare’s art, because it
pictures so well the character of Brutus in his dignity and blind
self-confidence; but for Brutus it is unfortunate, because it puts him
on the defensive and makes the people his judges. He must now plead
well, or they will condemn him.
In the discussion the thought simply is, “I was Cæsar’s friend, and
therefore you may well believe that I would not have killed him if he
had not deserved death because of his ambition.” This is the whole
argument, and it is weak because it does not prove the ambition of
Cæsar, or show that ambition on Cæsar’s part was a crime which Brutus
had a right to punish with death. The antithetic sentences lack both
logic and passion. As they touch neither head nor heart, they can have
but slight and momentary effect. Notice the discussion as an example of
fine words which do not serve their purpose.
* * * * *
“If there be any in this assembly, any dear friend of Cæsar’s, to him I
say that Brutus’ love to Cæsar was no less than his. If, then, that
friend demand why Brutus rose against Cæsar, this is my answer: Not that
I loved Cæsar less, but that I loved Rome more. Had you rather Cæsar
were living, and die all slaves, than that Cæsar were dead, to live all
freemen? As Cæsar loved me, I weep for him; as he was fortunate, I
rejoice at it; as he was valiant, I honor him; but as he was ambitious,
I slew him. There are tears for his love, joy for his fortune, honor for
his valor, and death for his ambition. Who is here so base that would be
a bondman? If any, speak; for him have I offended. Who is here so rude,
that would not be a Roman? If any, speak; for him have I offended. Who
is here so vile that will not love his country? If any, speak; for him
have I offended. I pause for a reply.”
* * * * *
As several citizens cry out, “None, Brutus, none,” he passes to the
conclusion, which is as weak as the discussion.
* * * * *
“Then none have I offended. I have done no more to Cæsar, than you shall
do to Brutus. As I slew my best lover for the good of Rome, I have the
same dagger for myself, when it shall please my country to need my
death.”
* * * * *
He has gained nothing by the whole speech, save the knowledge that none
of the citizens present care at that time to impeach him for his crime;
but their minds were open to other influences. Shakespeare thus shows
how an able man might use all his powers in the perfection of oratorical
and rhetorical forms, without producing a great or effective speech.
Antony now comes forward. Behold the contrast!
ANTONY’S SPEECH.
The introduction is like and unlike that of Brutus. The same three
titles are used; the same call for attention. But there is no
repetition, no egotism, no elaboration. The introduction is short,
calling attention to his ostensible purpose, and prepares for a
beautiful transition to the discussion.
INTRODUCTION.
“Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears.
I come to bury Cæsar, not to praise him.”
There is not a superfluous word. But how can Antony glide into those
praises of Cæsar, which he has disclaimed, but which are necessary to
his purpose? The next sentence solves the question:
“The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Cæsar.”
This leads most naturally to the thought of the discussion, which is,
“No event of Cæsar’s life shows guilty ambition; but many do reveal love
to the people and care for the general welfare. He should, therefore, be
mourned, and—the next word is not supplied by the orator, but forced
from the hearts of the people—_avenged!_” We quote a few only of the
well-known words:
THE DISCUSSION.
“The noble Brutus
Hath told you Cæsar was ambitious;
If it were so, it were a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Cæsar answered it.
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest,
(For Brutus is an honorable man,
So are they all, all honorable men,)
Come I to speak in Cæsar’s funeral.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me;
But Brutus says he was ambitious,
And Brutus is an honorable man.
He hath brought many captives home to Rome,
Whose ransom did the general coffers fill.
Did this in Cæsar seem ambitious?
When that the poor hath cried Cæsar hath wept.
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff.
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious,
And Brutus is an honorable man.
You all did see, that, on the Lupercal,
I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse. Was this ambition?”
The strongest argument against belief in guilty ambition on the part of
Cæsar and in favor of punishing his murderers is reserved by the subtle
Antony for the last, and then he manages to have the people demand it of
him. He proceeds very naturally and effectively from the rent robe and
the bleeding body to the will of Cæsar. This instrument gave the Romans
each a large donation in money, and bestowed upon them collectively “his
walks, his private arbors, and new-planted orchards” as a public park.
The argument was irresistible, and needed no elaboration. If his death
was avenged as a murder, the will would be valid; otherwise, it would be
set aside, and his estate confiscated by the conspirators. The people,
thus fired by the strongest motives of gratitude and interest themselves
supply the conclusion, and Brutus had to fly for his life.
The whole speech is worth study as an exhibition of almost perfect
eloquence. Shakespeare meant to draw in Brutus the picture of a scholar
coming before the people with fine words, and producing little more than
a literary effect. In Antony he pictures the true orator in the
plentitude of his power, to whom words are but servants in accomplishing
his purpose of persuading and inflaming the people. The one speech reads
as if it might have been written out in the closet and memorized; the
other gushes from the heart of the speaker as he watches the sea of
upturned faces, adapting his words with exquisite skill to suit and
swell the passions written there.