CHAUTAUQUA LECTURES.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4372, 1 February 1922, Page 2

CHAUTAUQUA LECTURES.

A CRITIQUE.

(By Lit.eratus.) Paeroa Chautauqua season being over —for the second and last time — there can now be no harm in making a critique .of the entertainment. At any rate, I propose to express a few. purely personal opinions of the two lectures I was able to be present to hear.

Dr. F. L. Loveland was obviously brimful of his subject, but his discourse would have been much more acceptable had he gone in for; a little “home separation/’ the process the dairying people use to extract the cream from the milk ; the former is sent fo the factory, and ultimately to the breakfast tables of the Empire, and the latter is given to the swine. Dr. Loveland gave us the milk and its eream content together, and we were supposed to do the separation business ourselves, with the result that there was much quantity and little quality., Figuratively writing, he took us all over the known world, which is a very wide space, considering that with the possible exceptions o;fi a portion of Central Africa and a slice around each, pole the world is all more or less known in these, days of quick transit and rapid means of communication by cable and wireless. He gave a sketch of the slave system, the feudal system, and the wage system, touched on one of the French revolutions, and tailed off with a smattering about Bolshevism, and a peroration Which was mainly a plea for closer unity between the United States of America and the British Empire. Any person who has had much experience in writing for public prints ■or in public speaking knows that the worthy doctor touched on. a score of subjects or phases any one of which would have been ample for a lecture. He attempted to cover altogether, top much ground, and would lie well advised to attempt one subject only at a time, and handle that subject well —within the space o|fl half an hour or forty-five minutest His lecture was entitled "The Bolshevist Bubble,” but he told us precipus l little abiut Bolshevism or the Bolsheviki; certainly we heard nothing new or informing. It was rather a pity that Dr. L6ve--1 and was so diffuse, for he appeared to be a man of character, and plea-santly-spoken withal. Let him practice the art of condensation ; give us the pith of a single subject, and eschew the vain attempt to detail the world’s history in a lecture.

The other speaker whose lecture I attended w,as Mr J. C. Herbsman. Mv criticism of Dr.. Loveland was written more in sorroxy th.an in anger; you will sense my feeling towards Mr (or was. it professor ?) Herbsman if you will transpose the two abstract nouns "sorrow” and “angel'.” He wasted about twenty minutes telling amusing enough anecdotes, but of which one ought to have sufficed to break the ice between his audience an-.l himself. His voice was naturally raucous, and he literally bawled from the beginning to the end of his lecture, except for such periods as he was obliged to moderate in order to fill his lungs again. His infernal row j-irred terribly on the auditory nerves ; I thought that maybe I was over-sensitive that night, but I heard several similar complaints next day on that score. Such shouting and ranting the veriest tyro at our New Zealand elocutionary contests has' not so far guilty of. All.force or emphasis the speaker intended to convey was entirely lost; he was like unto a man who uses so-called “forcible” language continually—no one takes any particular notice of him, unless it be to get away from the unseemly blast and much ado about nothing. Mr Herbsman had no idea of using the middle register,’ and modulating the. voice to lower or higher keys as the sentiment of the moment might dictate. i The subject, “Corner StoheS of Character,” was a mightily attractive orie, eyen to the apt alliteration of the wording of the title, but the lecturer’s treatment of the theme was. extremely disappointing. Like Dr. Loveland he attempted to be allj-emibracing, whereas he might have taken such an one as Abraham Rt. Hon. William Wart Gladstone, or maybe Florence Nightingale, or Napoleon Bonaparte, and given us a profound delineation of character —at its best and at its worst. Bacon tried tp embrace all knowledge as his province: he did not succeed, ev.en in( a lifetime. Moral: Do not try to give out an encyclopaedia of knowledge within the narrow limits of a lecture.

And while f am "strafing," Jet me voice the very general sentiment that) Britishers do not like praise put on with a trowel. If an American speaker with an .American audience, or a Frenchman with a French audience, thinks it fitting and just tp pay a tribute to our Empire’s war efforts and sacrifices, we will feel quietly gratified, but to laud us to the skies pointblank leaves us cold, if not just a little bit disgusted. It has been my privilege to fight side by side with some of the men who were the flower of America’s manhood, and although we went through some gruellipg experiences together we did not rbcite rhapsodies over 'each other; we just took each other’s soldierly qualities for granted. We knew full well that once the "Doughboys" had got rid of the idea that the trenches were so many shopting galleries they would make some of tlrife finest soldiers in the wrirld. They’were “sandwiched" in with us to be taught the value of caution when dealing with such wonderfully scientific soldiers as the Germans undoubtedly were, and we told them and shewed them aU we knew ; they were but there was no fulsome praise on either side; it would have been nauseating. f And by way of a final salvo for the night, let me have may say-so in . regard to a certain young pianist who was clever enough with the keys, but insufferably conceited/ in his every word and gesture? jf he had kept to

Continued in next Column.

Continued from, previous Column, the piano, we would all have forgiven; him his frills, but he had the impu-. dence. and audacity tp ten us that most people got their political views, subjects for x discussion, etc., from Chautauqua lectures. If his remarks ■> were intended to be applied to the American public—well, we are sorry for the sons and daughters of Uncle Sam, but for my part, I am not more than ordinarily weU-inform- < ed, I can honestly say that-the two . lecturers I heard did not tell me anything new regarding the subjects upon which the speakers were discoursing. In fact, their matter was. decidedly stale, .and has appeared, in ■ ; our daily papers long since, to say nothing of the special journals dealing with selected topics in a select way. Thd Chautauqua lectures were far from being informing, and as.for entertainment, the young lady who delineated the “Twelve Pound ■Look" was vastly more entertaining. Much of the music and the singing wak distinctly good, but on the whole F' was disappointed in Chautauqua, and I will not regret not having the “privilege”* of being a guarantor for? 'ri 1923 season. ’ 1