the audience at large. Present-day student debating impresses one with a waning sense of reality. It does not represent the natural warm-blooded argument of intelligent youth. If possible, the debating societies which still exist should try to remedy this, by taking questions impossible to force into conventional resolutions, by winning decisions on a rational basis, and by doing away with the idea that they exist only in the interest of the conspicuous public contests. In reply to this, Prof. Winans acknowledges that, with few exceptions, the charges are true, and, on the whole, debating is deteriorating. Yet he would not abolish intercollegiate contests. It is a means of self-expression and a cause for the study of public questions which should not be discouraged. Most of the evils mentioned are traceable to the instructions usually given to the judges, which direct them to take into consideration practically every quality involved in public speaking and also the arguments presented. But a debate should be to determine the best arguments, not the best speakers. Stress laid on this latter phase produces false decisions. Good composition and delivery are a great advantage; they make the argument weigh for all it is worth. So, if the judges have to mark upon these also, their effect is really counted twice. Delivery and composition may have won many a case for a lawyer, but no jury would find for him on those grounds alone. Then, too, the judges have perhaps thirteen or more aspects of six strangers to consider, and often estimate in figures, in about ninety minutes. How can they weigh carefully the one important thing, the argument, especially as the addresses are condensed to the utmost limit? Moreover, the speakers are led to look upon delivery not as a means, but as an end, and immediately acquire the affectation for which college speakers are often ridiculed. But the worst effect of the system is shown in the lack of spontaneity. Affirmative and negative should squarely join issue, but this can only be done by extemporizing, and extemporizing does not lend itself to graceful language and delivery. So six committed "orations are presented, and each side goes its own way, unmindful of the other. Perhaps they conflict, perhaps not; there is no debate, in either case. Do away with the premium on form, and base the decision on argument alone. The debaters would work not less, but more, for they would prepare to meet emergencies; they would sacrifice some form for the sake of demolishing the cpposition; and they would be forced to depend on themselves and in no wise on a coach. Then, too, many judges lose themselves in a maze of "points" and figures. And figures will lie, even in the hands of a mathematician. A debate is not mathematics. The judges would be glad to follow a clear statement of their duties. For instance: You are not asked to decide upon the technicalities of speech; but are requested to listen as you would to an argument elsewhere (entire impartiality being assumed); and at the end to answer this question: Which side has made the more convincing argument? Or, which has better maintained its position? REALITY vs. ARTIFICIALITY. A letter written by William Trufant Foster, of Bowdoin College, and published in the "Nation," gives an account of a radical and most valuable departure in public speaking recently adopted in that institution. Mr. Foster declares that, as at present taught, the work is usually merely academic. And this, too, even where, as in more advanced courses, the students are required to deliver eulogies, afterdinner speeches, Memorial Day addresses, etc. But these exercises must always lack one essential of effective speaking -adaptation to the time, the place and the people, and no amount of imagination can create an atmosphere of reality, even though the addresses are delivered before the class. Bowdoin, on the contrary, has adopted the laboratory method, and brings each student in the most advanced course to the ultimate test-the special audience. This does not mean the conventional commencement audience of indulgent friends, but heterogeneous social settlement groups, Memorial Day audiences, extension lecture clubs, grange meetings, town meetings, lumber camps, churches, high schools, political rallies. The work is elective only for men who have shown proficiency in the underlying courses in English composition, voice training, argumentation and debate. Every address is prepared for the special occasion under the direction and criticism of the instructor, and the course ends with a banquet, at which every man gives an after-dinner speech. The effect on the students of this change from artificiality to reality is striking; they see that public speaking which has more than momentary effect must be based on vigorous thinking; and their attitude in the class room changes from passive receptivity to eager solicitude for instruction and criticism. As to the effect on their hearers, it need only be mentioned that every co-operating institution of last year applied for another student speaker this spring, and forty special addresses had been arranged to be delivered outside of the college before June by the twenty men taking the course. WHAT ABOUT THE EXPENSES? Is your college a member of a debating league? If so, how are its expenses met, with ease or difficulty? There is a great difference in this respect, even in colleges which are near together. For instance, at Williams the two lower classes alone by voluntary subscriptions raise enough money to meet all expenses attendant upon the debates, and Williams is a member of two leagues. Yet in another New England college, fully as large and as well known as Williams, it seems well-nigh impossible to collect the necessary money. A mass-meeting of the students not long ago voted a tax of fifty cents on each man for the support of debating. But when it came to the point of actually paying the money, the tax which they themselves had voted upon was more often dodged than not. It seems possible that debating must be given up here for lack of pecuniary support. If it were athletics, now,-! After which of these colleges does yours model itself, Williams or the other? AS REGARDS JUDGES. The method used in obtaining judges for the contests of the central oratorical league is interesting, and seems to deserve mention here. The league, which consists of the Universities of Columbia, Cornell, Ohio Wesleyan, Chicago and Virginia, has provided in its constitution that "not later than six weeks before the annual contest each of the visiting universities shall propose six names of suitable judges to the secretary, who shall, in turn, promptly send the whole list to each university for approval or protest. All protests must be in writing, and sent to the secretary at least three weeks before the contest. From the list of unprotested names five judges shall be procured by the secretary, whose invitation shall be extended in such a way that, as far as possible, each institution may have among the judges one whose name appears upon its list." Further, "the residences of proposed judges must be within a radius of three hundred miles from the university where the contest is to be held. . . . No relative of any contestant, or person who holds or has held any relation with any of the competing institutions shall act as judge. In this league, as in an increasing number of others, per cents. hold no place in the decisions rendered by the judges. They are required to rank the contestants in order, from one to five, and then to sign and seal their decisions for delivery to the committee of award. QUOTATIONS. A question which comes near being a vital one in many oratorical contests is that of quotations. To what extent shall the orators be allowed to swell their own periods by extracts from better-known speakers than themselves? And how definitely shall the student indicate the ownership and length of the quotation? Questions similar to these can be supplied in any number by any one who is at all familiar with college oratory. The answers are of every description and degree of effectiveness, but that given by the Central Oratorical League seems to be clear and definite enough to cover every case, and, while not forbidding quotations, yet by its spirit, discourages them. This league, which includes the Universities of Columbia, Cornell, Ohio Wesleyan, Chicago and Virginia— presents, among the other provisions in its Constitution, the following: "Any contestant who quotes from another speaker or writer shall not only mark the name of such speaker or writer in the printed copies of his oration, but he shall state plainly to his audience the authorship or authority quoted, and he shall indicate clearly in words the beginning and end of all quotations used." No uncertainty as to quotations is possible here, and it does not seem likely that many would be used, moreover, since both ends of the extract must be clearly marked out in words. Bannockburn BY ROBERT BURNS. Scots, wha hae wi' Wallace bled, Now's the day, and now's the hour: See approach proud Edward's power,- Wha will be a traitor knave? Wha for Scotland's king and law By Oppression's woes and pains, Lay the proud usurpers low! Liberty's in every blow! Let us do, or die! |