# 21. Another Word on the Art of Lecturing

One of my essays also deals with Ludwig Tieck's art of recitation. I would like to say a few words about this subject, following on from the previous essay. There, the importance and artistic value of the lecture was emphasized. Tieck's example provides striking proof of this value. I would venture the assertion that Tieck was such an excellent theater director mainly because he was such an outstanding master of performance. Thus, as a performing artist, he was close to the theater in a field that is closely related to the art of acting. As has already been emphasized in these papers, the theater director should be a man of letters, either a dramatic poet or a critic. Only in this way is he able to bring the theater into the right relationship with literature. An actor or director as stage manager will always have the inclination to look at the plays from the point of view of how they work through the actor's art. Their literary value will be less important to him than the question of whether they contain good roles, whether they are theatrically effective and the like. As a writer or poet, however, the stage manager will find it very difficult to gain authority over practical theater people. The latter will be made considerably easier for him by the fact that he is able to exert an effect as a master of performance. This is proven by Tieck.

At the time when Tieck worked at the Dresden theater, his lectures were among the things that were considered artistic in the city. Just as visitors to Dresden went to the picture gallery, they also tried to gain access to such a lecture. As a result, the stage manager had a tremendously stimulating effect on the actors.

We know that Tieck was a master of characterization in his lectures. It is a pity that he did not leave us any remarks on this art. They would certainly be just as instructive as his statements on dramaturgy and acting. For we are almost entirely lacking a theory of the art of performance. In this, more than in any other field, the learner is left entirely to himself and to chance.

Not only for the actor, but for the widest circles of educated people, such a theory would be useful today. With the shape that our public life has taken, almost everyone is now in the position of having to speak in public more often. One would be inclined to do something for the training of the art of speech if one is forced to speak in public. But if you want to develop in this area, you have to go to a stage performer or a master speaker who only practises the art of public speaking with the stage in mind. However, the speaker should not be an actor. The elevation of the ordinary speech to a work of art is a rarity. We Germans are incredibly casual about it. For the most part, we completely lack a feeling for the beauty of speech and even more for characteristic speech. Our most eminent orators are not artists of speech. Do not believe that a speech delivered without any art can have the same effect as one that has been refined into a work of art.

Of course, all this has little to do with stagecraft. But it is also important for the latter. Anyone who has received some training in the art of speaking will be able to make a much more accurate judgment of an actor's performance than someone who knows nothing about this art. By far the majority of writers and journalists who write about the theater today are incapable of passing judgment on the art of speaking. This gives their judgments a dilettante quality. No one would have the right to write about a singer who has no knowledge of the art of singing. As far as acting is concerned, far lower demands are made. One is satisfied with general amateurish talk about artistic achievements in this field. People who understand whether a verse is spoken correctly or not are becoming increasingly rare.

Artistic speaking is often regarded today as misguided idealism. This could never have happened if people were more aware of the artistic training potential of language.

Our schools also place far too little emphasis on the cultivation of artistic speech. It is overlooked that careless, inartistic speech is just as repulsive to those who have the right sensibility for it as tasteless clothing. We are about to devote more attention to the arts and crafts than has hitherto been the case. We want to furnish homes not only in a functional way, but also in an artistic way. Speech is also a kind of handicraft. Here, too, nature must be elevated to culture.

We want to furnish homes in such a way that they are not only functional but also beautiful. Everything should point to the purpose of the home. But it should not be abstract and functional, it should not be sober. The purpose should appear in such a way that it points to the purpose in a beautiful way.

We would like to demand something similar from speech. First of all, it has the task of conveying the meaning of what is to be communicated. It should be made as suitable as possible for this purpose. 'But this task can be achieved in various ways. It can happen in such a way that no importance is attached to beauty and grace of expression. Then, however important the subject, the speech will appear sober, perhaps even tasteless. But it can also happen that the purposeful is achieved in a beautiful, graceful way.

Here the personal touch is expected to do an enormous amount. A speaker who expresses content in such a way that the intention to speak beautifully is noticeable will make little impression as a "beautiful speaker". But there is a degree of euphemism that corresponds exactly to the subject matter. If the speaker achieves this degree, the harmony between expression and content will be perceived in his speech - and will be perceived sympathetically.

However, only those who have a feeling for the beauty and style of speaking in general can develop this rhythm. This feeling must become an unconscious part of the speaker's personality. As soon as one notices the search in the speech, the sympathy of the listener is gone.

But in order to achieve this unconsciousness of feeling in relation to beautiful, stylized speech, an education in rhetoric must be sought. One must speak for a while for the sake of beautiful speech, then later one will also speak stylized if one does not consciously strive for it.

The German has the peculiarity of regarding such things as stylized speech as a trivial external matter. He is very wrong to do so. Here, more than in any other area, the saying applies: clothes make the man. We will never be converted to the view held by French orators that it doesn't matter what we say if we have only found out how we should speak. But we should attach more importance to this how than we are used to doing.

A speaker who knows how to speak, the words run after him. He draws the listener in. That is a sentence of experience. Why shouldn't we act according to this principle? We serve the content more if we help it through rhetoric than if we just say our little slogan to the exclusion of all rhetoric.

It is precisely because we want to give the content its validity that we should give it a sympathetic form. But we will only speak sympathetically if we have undergone training in the art of speaking.