too, is imperfect; for a speech that is descriptive may use, as accessory to its purpose, narration, exposition, or argument, as it needs; and so with the others. The truth is that we must keep in mind all three of the systems of classification when studying any speech,-Emerson's, Aristotle's, and that of the rhetoricians,-if we would arrive at anything like a complete judgment; for (1) we must think of the importance of the subject-matter as Emerson thought of it; (2) we must think of the speech as an effort at communication with a certain audience, as Aristotle thought of it; and (3) we must think of the effectiveness of the process employed, as the rhetoricians enjoin.

THE ORAL QUALITY.

Whatever their classification, most successful speeches have one marked characteristic in common. Even when reduced to print, they appeal primarily not to the eye but to the ear. The attentive reader feels called upon in imagination to hear a speech as he reads it. If his mind is active he images also the speaker, the audience, the occasion; and is impelled to find out as much as possible about the feelings that ruled the hearts of men when it was delivered. He is ready to make concessions to cover the loss which the spoken sentence may suffer when printed. A printed extemporaneous address when read critically will usually show faults of phrasing that were doubtless overlooked by those listeners who shared the speaker's feelings. Speech has an excellence of its own, entirely apart from its literary quality. Moreover, in the leisure of reading, we often take pleasure in a certain subtlety and fineness of statement; we like to make our own inferences; we accept mere hints of what we are expected to think, and we have time to suspend

reading, if need be, in order to make sure of our ground. In spoken discourse, there is no time for this. The speaker must move forward to his conclusion by a simple plan and a directness of statement that leaves no doubts pending. A speech may have all of the literary virtues and may yet fail for lack of simplicity of structure and the easy intelligibility which comes from direct idiomatic statement. Having these latter, together with energy and insight into the meaning of the occasion, a speech will be effective, though it lack grace, suggestiveness, refinement, and even strict grammatical accuracy. We prize in a speech certain of the qualities of good conversation,-unpretentiousness, short and pointed phrasing-but not its waywardness; in a speech we look for the straight-forward march to partial and complete conclusions. These characteristics of speech, which may be called the oral (or, equally well, the aural) quality, are forced upon the speaker by the immediate presence of his audience. Some writers, too, are keenly conscious, while composing, of those whom they are addressing; they hear each sentence as they put it on paper. Their writing is essentially oral although it may never be spoken. Many an open letter or newspaper editorial, sometimes even a state paper, has this oral quality. Some spoken discourses lack it; they are essays rather than speeches, addressed to the eye rather than to the ear.

FASHIONS IN PUBLIC ADDRESS.

While the notion of addressing a specific audience, with its resultant (the cultivation of the oral quality) has persisted since the days of Aristotle, and is, indeed, the explanation of the present ideal of public speech,effective self-communication,-it is equally true that

fashions have changed in this as in the other arts. The essential worth and dignity of the old classical oratory cannot be questioned; yet its manner would by many be accounted mannerism today. For instance, public taste at the present time is somewhat intolerant of any but the most indirect and carefully disguised attempts at emotional appeal. We want the facts: the facts, we think, carry their own appeal; having the facts, we think that we know how to feel about them. Hence arises the greater share of the intellectual element in the speeches of today as compared with those of former times; and the more scrupulous regard for accuracy of statement. Hence, too, has come about the gradual abandonment of certain fashions that were once prevalent, and the adoption of new fashions. It was once the fashion, for example, for a young lawyer addressing a jury to refer humbly to his youth and inexperience, or to eulogize the jury system. It was once the fashion for a skillful speaker to apologize for a pretended lack of skill. It was once the fashion always to emphasize the importance of the subject, even though every one appreciated its importance. These things were not insincerities; they were the conventions of the moment; they were expected. It is the fashion today to do none of these things, to take much for granted, and (whether intrinsically a good fashion or not) to get speedily to the essential point to be presented, with very little preliminary or introductory matter. The fear of delay, the fear of over-formality, which prevails among speakers today, while generally wholesome, is doubtless the cause of a certain abruptness, nervousness, and undue haste, that are often noticeable in contemporary speaking. We have rid ourselves of indirection, and of tardiness in taking hold of our theme; but we

have sacrificed something of ease and grace in the process. To be always relentlessly business-like, direct, and practical in speech, may itself, at some future time, be criticised as a mannerism of the present age. There is, however, in modern speeches, a nicer adjustment of the time-element to the importance of the message. Economy of time has become a paramount consideration. Speakers today usually know, beforehand, how much time they are expected to occupy, and govern themselves accordingly.

METHODS.

Not only do oratorical fashions change from age to age, but at any given moment there are marked differences of method. Among the Greeks, for instance, most of the orators and teachers insisted upon elevation of thought and sentiment, with diction to match, as essential to a good speech; but then, as now, there were successful speakers who, like Andocides, professed a contempt for the rules of rhetoric and for any serious study of the art which they themselves practised; who paid little attention to arranging their material in an orderly way; who relied on a fund of good stories to help them in times of need; and who advised speakers to trust to their native gifts, and to the inspiration of the occasion. There were some, like Hyperides, who advocated a conversational manner, the plainest of plain speech, and a large use of colloquialism, in opposition to those who advised the cultivation of a more dignified, stately, or highly ornate diction. Some studied the art of the public actors in order to learn "the outer signs of eloquence" and thus cultivated a theatrical manner of speaking; others, disdaining this as shallow trickery, studied the art of being artless. There were those, however, who advocated

the sound principle that the cultivation of the "inner spirit," the systematic and prolonged education of the mind and heart, the achievement of a strong character, -should precede and accompany the study of the "outer signs." Many followed Eschines in practising written composition assiduously and in studying general literature and philosophy, as essential elements in the education of a speaker. Demosthenes, the greatest of Greek orators, illustrated the value of unremitting and purposeful labor. In order to overcome defects of voice, articulation, breathing, and physical manner, he imposed upon himself arduous exercises through a series of years; he watched the ways of the actors and of other professional speakers, and imitated them in those points which seemed appropriate to his own personality and temperament. He gave seven years of his life to practising written composition and to studies in history, law, and statesmanship. Believing that he could win no lasting success without worthy thinking, he endeavored in all of his studies to find out what was fundamentally right and not merely what was expedient, in order that, throughout his life, he might habitually and unconsciously apply the highest test to every question that he might be called upon to discuss. In thus devoting himself primarily to gaining sound knowledge and to developing moral earnestness, while steadily learning, through practice and a study of models, the approved modes of speech that were suitable to himself as an individual, he set for all time the example of a sound method of training for effective self-communication on any subject of discussion; a method involving first, adequate knowledge of the facts to be discussed; secondly, the ability and the disposition. to apply principles of right and wrong to the facts as