During Friday's class, I didn't quite get the chance to ask a question that came to me as the bell rang. We differentiated between Johnathan Edward and Patrick Henry's audiences as well as their style of delivery. What if their styles had been reversed? What if Edwards had delivered his speech at the Puritan revival meeting in a fiery, bellowing, passionate voice. What if Henry had delivered his last line, coldly and cooly, as if death was something he looked forward to encountering? Would the success of these two speeches still hold true today? Would they have utterly failed? I know these are all hypothetical "what if" situations..but I kind of get the feeling that they still would have worked. That's just my opinion, though.
Also, just a quick question: During our Puritan unit, we covered the Mayflower Compact (1620). In this document, they never renounce their political allegiance to the crown.
We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France, and Ireland King, Defender of the faith, etc. In this line, they established themselves as loyal subjects. Yet in the essay before The Declaration of Independence, we learn that Hobbes gained his ideas from experiencing a harsh political climate in the 1600s as civil war errupted between Anglicans and Puritans "who denied the King's right to absolute control." So...which is it? I just need slight clarification, it would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks,
Sam Maliha
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I feel that we actually addressed this question already during class. By coming to the conclusion that one cannot expect to give a speech without considering the audience, we also concluded that the delivery of speeches was only successful in those specific circumstances. So, considering the fact that both Edwards and Henry tailored their delivery to their audiences, switching the two would have resulted in disaster.
If I'm not mistaken, the question you're asking is mainly historic in nature. I'm not entirely sure of this (Since U.S. History was oh so long ago...) but didn't the Separatist Puritans leave prior to the outbreak of the English Civil War? Though they had already been subjected to several discriminatory laws, they avoided a bulk of the political violence that preceded the war.
As Tiffany said, the delivery of a speech often is tailored to its audience. Henry made a conscious decision to use emotion, as he was aware that it was the best way to rouse a sense of nationalism in his audience. Edwards consciously spoke in flat monotone, as it was his belief that excessive emotionalism led to a lack of true conversions.
Regarding your historical question, I believe Tiffany is correct. The Mayflower Compact occurred before the English civil wars...Furthermore, although the Puritans separated themselves from England's church, they still considered themselves to be English citizens.
-Eric Wei
Switching the styles of Edward and Henry would not necessarily have resulted in a disaster; however, the two different scenes would have been very awkward for both the speakers and the audience. As mentioned before, Edward and Henry understood the nature of their audience and designed the content, rhetorical devices, and style accordingly. Therefore, adopting the opposite style would not bring a successful result.
If Edward had spoken as passionately as Henry, it would have been a very embarrassing situation for Edward since he would receive either a weird or even no response
at all. Puritan listeners might have thought that Edward was going insane. They would simply not understand the reason behind Edward's behavior.
On the other hand, if Henry used Edward's style, he would have not effectively aroused as much emotions as he would have using his original style.
Jennifer Park
I would actually beg to differ, though my choice in words was a tad too extreme. Given the circumstances, the crowd that Henry spoke before was primed for the fiery speech presented in all its grandeur that day. If one were to switch out that fervor within the speech and replace it with calmness, the crowd would have been unlikely to respond favorably. Admittedly, the crowd was primed and excited by the speech itself, but Henry's delivery did not conjure their feelings out of thin air. The already-existing need for a passionate speech was there. Edwards' delivery would have been wholly unsatisfactory for the crowd. Even if it did manage to make somewhat of an impact, the results would have paled greatly in comparison with the response to Henry's delivery.
Hey! It's been awhile since I've blogged. I don't know why but I've just been so busy lately, and I've been forgetting to post.
In response to what you said Sam, I think delivery is a huge part of any speech. There is an old saying, “It’s not what you say, it’s how you say it.” I think this saying holds true in a great number of circumstances. As for the speeches on Edwards and Henry, had their deliveries been switched, I feel both speakers would have not received a positive reaction from their respective audiences. Had Edwards delivered his sermon with fire and passion, I think it would have fallen rather flat. What made Edwards’ speaking style so effective was that he was unique, and his delivery brought about it a certain eeriness. Essentially, his speaking style was a scare tactic which frightened people to the point of submission. If he had used a more flamboyant style, not only would he have not achieved this, but there would have been little separating him from his contemporaries who delivered speeches with lots of energy and wild gesticulations. Similarly, had Henry delivered his “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” speech coldly, it would not have effectively stimulated his audience. The content of Henry’s argument does not have to do with damnation or fear, but instead it deals with an emotional argument. Henry in his speech is trying to rally people. If such a speech were delivered coldly it would have in no way inspired people the way it did. In essence it would fail.
Yes, Eric and Tiffany are right. The English Civil War did not occur until after the Mayflower Compact had been signed.
(Kevin Trainer)
"Would the success of these two speeches still hold true today?" --Sam
This question is in reference to switching the emotions of Edwards and Henry in their speeches. I think that if Edwards had given a passionate speech, he would have been doing exactly what he had condemned-- he would have elicited an emotional response, not a rational response. Edwards' speech works without a passionate performance because it is based in reason and logic, while Henry's speech would not function as well without passion because, although it is based somewhat in logic, its primary drive is emotion. Imagine Henry saying "give me liberty or give me death" in just as stolid a fashion as he said everything else. I can't imagine that he would have gotten much of a response. Henry was banking on the fact that his emotion would be contagious, and he was attempting to elicit an immediate emotional response (unlike Edwards) in order to gain votes.
Emily T.
Then all of this discussion leads me to my next question: Do you think that Edwards and Henry practiced their oratory masterpieces before performing them live? And to what extent did they do this? When they actually presented, were they allowed to keep a written version of their speech on hand, lest they falter in the process? They probably had in mind the way they hoped to deliver their speeches, but did they stare in their mirrors and practice?
It's hard to believe that they neglected any sort of practice. But Henry begins his speech calmy and collectedly; this shows in the actual writing. Did he speak calmy and collectedly while gaining passion as he hit his final line, or was this pre-planned as well? I don't think we can answer some of these questions, but it's really bothering me that I don't have the answer!
(Sam Maliha)
Well, addressing the original question, I don't think that Edwards' speech would've been as well known. I think that if he used a fiery, passionate tone, he wouldn't have stood out from all the other speakers during his time. In regard to Patrick Henry, I don't think his speech would have been as effective, especially since it seems his audience was directed towards those who still had to decide which side of the conflict they were joining.
To answer the second question, I imagine that they would spend a lot of time thinking about what they were going to say and how they were going to say it. In both cases, I think that they would have to know their speech well enough to the point where they would have it nearly memorized. An important part of speaking is eye contact. If a speaker is too busy reading off of his notes, he may be viewed as not prepared enough to make such a speech. Some may even view him as being incompetent by the audience, affecting their response to the speech. Also, I know from personal experience how necessary it is to think about the tone that you are planning to use depending on the situation and the audience. Even by emphasizing certain words can influence the type of message that the speaker wants to convey to the audience. So in general, I'd say that a speaker, especially ones as influential as these two, would definitely have prepared a lot before they made their speeches.
Post a Comment