NOTES.
1. Suggestions in the Construction of a Lecture: Referring again to the construction of a lecture, and holding in mind the framework given in Lesson 1; namely: 1. The Introduction; 2. The Discussion; 3. The Conclusion. I am reminded of the only lesson in speech forming ever given to me in College days, and that lesson was by a very inferior public speaker, but a very prince among teachers, the late lamented Dr. John R. Park, whose name will forever be associated with our State University. He said: "Be sure that your lecture has a beginning, an ending, and something between." Another form of introduction, discussion and conclusion.
As an illustration of this indispensable framework, Pittenger, whom I before quoted, gives the following illustrations from Shakespeare:
"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 Caesar 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—INTRODUCTION.
'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 (following) the thought simply is, 'I was Caesar'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 Caesar, or show that ambition on Caesar'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.
THE DISCUSSION.
"'If there be any in this assembly, any dear friend of Caesar's, to him I say that Brutus' love to Caesar was no less than his. If, then, that friend demand why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is my answer: Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more. Had you rather Caesar were living, and die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live all freemen? As Caesar 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.