Studies Structure The great length of the Reply will prevent your making so close an outline as was presented for Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, but you should make the outline full for the direct argument by which Webster disposes of the dogma of State Rights. Note the personal matters of the introduction and the various secondary questions he reviews and then omitting these from further consideration reduce to writing the argument of his plea. It will not be the easiest task but you will succeed. You may find yourself making several copies before one satisfies you perfectly but that is no more than every person must do who studies under even the best personal tuition. When you have prepared the outline and are sure you have all the points of the argument, reduce them to the fewest possible words and then make a final copy in form like the one of the Gettysburg Address on page 26. This will enable you to see the whole argument at a glance and will show you something of the way in which the thoughts lay in the mind of Webster before he clothed them in words. You will arrange the matter of your outline under the three great headings: Introduction, Dis cussion, and Conclusion. The introduction in the speech ends just before the paragraph beginning "I spoke, sir, of the ordinance of 1787." Where does the conclusion begin? How many distinct lines of argument do you find Webster pursuing in the body of the speech? Is the transition from one to another of these logical and natural ? Could any of them be omitted as irrelevant ? Are you impressed with the unity, the oneness of the oration? How many readings are required for you to get in mind the full course of the argument? Thought As an oration that ranks among the most powerful ever delivered, the Reply to Hayne deserves close and particular study. The profound principles discussed can be appreciated only through thorough understanding of the details and minor phases of the thought. To get in all cases Webster's full and exact meaning, first look up in a good dictionary every unfamiliar word. Perhaps the term farrago (page 87, line 3) is new to you. You must understand that it means a confused mixture, a jumble, in order to feel fully Webster's contempt for the mass of printed matter brought to light by his opponent. Again, consider the words vilified (page 88, last line) and scurrilous (page 89, 1). How much is added ¶ to the context if one knows, not, in a vague way, that these terms indicate baseness, but definitely, that vilify means to make base in the sight of others, usually as an unjustifiable gratification of low and bitter feeling, and that scurrilous could be applied only to "publications" which are unfair and which express ill-feeling. Likewise, it is not enough to guess or know vaguely that the word encomium (page 94, ¶ 3) means praise; it indicates strong commendation and the reader must realize this if he is to share the orator's feeling. An attempt to find not only the general definition but the finer shades of meaning of every other word not well understood will be amply repaid. Webster in several cases adds zest to his oration by the use of vigorous figures of speech. He begins, indeed, with likening the course of the discussion in the senate to that of the mariner who, driven out of his way on a stormy sea, seizes his first opportunity to take his bearings. Can you think of a more effective means of impressing the need of returning to the original point of the discussion that the exact position in the debate might be realized? Notice the amusing metaphor which runs through pages 45, 46 and 47. What effect do you suppose it had upon the audience? Trace carefully the application of all other figures that you find. Read aloud slowly and carefully the last paragraph of the oration, since it is filled with powerful and vivid figures. The speech abounds in allusions. Many of these references are explained in the notes. |