(Scripture Reading Exercise.)

LIFE AND CHARACTER OF CONSTANTINE—HIS INFLUENCE ON THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

(A Lecture.^[A])

[Footnote A: Of all the abused terms in our "Mormon" vocabulary, perhaps this term "lecture" is the most abused. It is defined in the Dictionaries as "a discourse read or pronounced on any subject: especially, a formal or methodical discourse used for instruction." It includes the idea of careful preparation and literary excellence; but we style the most ordinary effort of our public speakers "lecturers." An error that should be corrected. When a "lecture" is announced, it should be understood that a treat is in store for the Quorum and their invited guests. See suggestion in a former lesson.]

NOTES.

Suggestions to the Speaker: In Lesson XXX some suggestions as to "plans" for discourses were considered. Continuing the subject, we quote from the authority (Mr. Pittinger) so often cited in these pages. On the undesirability of allowing the plan of the discourse to appear, he says:

"There may be occasions when a speaker is justified in announcing his divisions and subdivisions, but such cases are exceptions. Hearers do not care how a discourse is constructed, so it comes to them warm and pulsating with life. To give the plan of a speech before the speech itself is contrary to the order of nature. We are not required first to look upon a grisly skeleton before we can see a graceful, living body. There is a skeleton inside each body, but during life it is well hidden, and there is no reason that the speaker should anticipate the work of the tomb. It is hardly less objectionable to name the parts of the discourse during the progress of the discussion, for—continuing the former illustration—bones that project through the skin are very unlovely. The only case, I presume to think, where it is justifiable to name the parts of a discourse, either before or during its delivery, is where the separate parts have an importance of their own, in addition to their office of contributing to the general object. Much of the proverbial "dryness" of sermons arises from the preacher telling what he is about to remark, firstly, before he actually makes the remark thus numbered. Whenever we hear a minister read his text, announce his theme, state the parts into which he means to divide it, and then warn us that the first head will be subdivided into a certain number of parts, each of which is also specified in advance, we prepare our endurance for a severe test. What great speeches require are deep, strong appeals to the hearts of the people, through which shines the radiance of great truths and the lightning of intense convictions. These can all find their place in the most logically constructed address if the logic be not brought out and paraded in its offensive nakedness. No matter if the orator's mode of work is less understood. A tree is far more beautiful and impressive when covered with waving foliage, even if some of the branches are hidden. Let the tide of eloquence flow on in an unbroken stream, bearing with it all hearts, but giving no indication of the manner in which it is guided; or, better still, let it move with the impetus of the cannon-ball, but without proclaiming in advance the mark toward which it is flying. The plan should go just as far as the intended speech, that we may know exactly where to stop. Then we can arise with confidence, for we are sure that we have something to say; we know what it is, and, most important of all, we will know when it is finished. Most of the objections urged against extempore speaking apply only to speeches that have no governing plan. But when a firm and clear plan is prearranged, there is no more danger of saying what we do not intend, or of running into endless digressions, than if every word was written. Indeed, there is no better way of guarding against undue discursiveness in a written speech than by arranging such a plan before beginning to write. But it may be urged that this laborious preparation—this careful placing of every thought—will require as much time as to write in full. It may at first. The mind needs to be drilled into the work, and it will be of great value even as a mental discipline. No study of logic or of metaphysics will give such practical insight into the nature of the mind's workings as this prearrangement of thoughts and words to frame a speech. But the work grows continually easier with practice, until the mature speaker will save three-fourths or even more than that proportion of the time consumed by the speech-writer. The speech is now clearly indicated. A plan has been prepared that fixes each item in its proper place. There is no further danger of the looseness and desultoriness with which extempore speech has been reproached. Yet there is abundant room for the inspiration of the moment. It is possible, in all the fire of utterance, to leave the beaten track and give expression to any new ideas that may be called up by the ardor of speech. But a sure foundation is laid—a course is marked out which has been deeply premeditated, ant which gives certainty to all we say." (Extempore Speech, Pittinger. pp. 173-4-5-6.)

* * * *

Clearness in Speech: In Lesson XXX we dealt with ambiguity of speech through the use of too many pronouns: in this Lesson we propose to show the ambiguity that arises from the uncertainty of antecedents of pronouns.

Pronouns Must Have Unmistakable Antecedents: "A pronoun may be used a great number of times without destroying coherence, if it refers always to the same antecedent. In the following passage from Macaulay, "he" is used twelve times; yet the passage is firmly coherent:

"The situation of William was very different. He could not, like those who had ruled before him, pass an Act in the spring and violate it in the summer. He had, by assenting to the Bill of Rights, solemnly renounced the dispensing power; and he was restrained, by prudence as well as by conscience and honour, from breaking the compact under which he held his crown. A law might be personally offensive to him: it might appear to him to be pernicious to his people: but, as soon as he had passed it, it was, in his eyes, a sacred thing. He had, therefore, a motive, which preceding kings had not, for pausing before he passed such a law. They gave their word readily, because they had no scruple about breaking it. He gave his word slowly, because he never failed to keep it." (Macaulay: History of England.)

There is much danger that in some way the antecedent of a pronoun will be left uncertain. If the antecedent is shifted, if the pronoun stands without any antecedent, or with only a vague antecedent, or if the word to which it refers grammatically is not the word to which it refers in sense, ambiguity surely results. The following sentences are cases in point:

"Either way will be difficult, for the President will want the Secretary of War to be inferior in rank to the commanding general, as he will be more of a personal appointee, and so he will have a better control over the army."

Corrected: "Either way will be difficult, for the President will want the Secretary of War to be inferior in rank to the commanding general, because then the former will be more of a personal appointee, and he himself will so gain a better control over the army."

The first "he" refers to the Secretary of War, the second to the President; the shift in antecedent produces complete obscurity.

No doubt Banquo was ambitious, but it did not master him as it did Macbeth.

Corrected: No doubt Banquo was ambitious, but ambition (or the craving for advancement) did not master him as it did Macbeth.

In the original form, "it" is without an antecedent, because a pronoun may not refer grammatically to an adjective. The reader is left to supply the noun "ambition" from the use of the adjective "ambitious."

We went to the Capitol determined to vote against him, but got there too late for our votes to count, which seemed to our adherents a most unwise policy.

Corrected: We went to the Capital determined to vote against him, though this determination seemed to our adherents a most unwise policy, but we got there too late for our votes to count.

"Which" is here ambiguous, because its antecedent is vague. Speaking strictly, it has no antecedent, for "which" may not refer grammatically to a phrase or a clause, but, like all pronouns, must have one word as its antecedent. Disregarding, however, the grammatical fault, we may still condemn the sentence, because "which" may mean either the determination to cast a negative vote or the carelessness of coming late.

1. They (the Danes) did not care for grammar, and, consequently, their influence unsettled the inflections of the language and prepared the way for their complete disappearance.

Corrected. They (the Danes) did not observe the rules of grammar, and, consequently, their influence unsettled the language and prepared the way for the complete disappearance of inflection.

2. General Johnson's father, also a soldier, died in battle before his twentieth year.

Corrected. General Johnson's father, also a soldier, died in battle before his son was twenty.

In the first sentence, "their" refers grammatically to "the Danes," in sense to "inflections;" in the second, "his" refers grammatically to "father," in sense to "General Johnson." Be careful to make a pronoun refer grammatically to the word it modifies in sense. In all these cases, rewriting has increased the number of words, but when clearness is at stake, to think of the number of words is a "penny-wise, pound-foolish policy." (Composition and Rhetoric, Herrick and Damon, pp. 305-7.)