by the Greeks to be best illustrated in the eulogy and the invective; but surely it is not just to regard these as forms of display and to judge them solely by artistic considerations. Even the modern oratorical contest, which is most often accused of being purely epideictic, rejects as inadequate this basis of judgment and demands a judgment based upon the value of the thought as well as upon the style and the delivery. In spite of all this, the psychological fact on which Aristotle based his classification remains true,-that a speaker must consider his audience and must try to adapt his material to what he supposes the mental state of a majority of his listeners to be. The ideal standard of speech thus becomes not mere self-expression, for self-expression implies no thought of the audience; but rather self-communication, which implies a constant effort to carry our ideas over to those who listen to us. This ideal standard we owe to Aristotle.

A third classification divides spoken discourse, as written discourse is usually divided, into descriptive, narrative, expository, and argumentative. The principle of division here is the rhetorical process employed. This classification makes no attempt to describe a eulogy, or a sermon, or a speech at the bar, or an after-dinner speech, or any other kind of speech, as a distinct species having a quality of its own that no other species possesses. It assumes that the vital characteristic of any utterance is not indicated by its popular class label. It assumes that eulogies, sermons, and the rest, differ so widely in variety and method, that no class characteristic that is at once useful and true can be found for each of them. But every speech may be examined for its rhetorical process, and this examination will show the fundamental types of oral discourse. This classification,

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. The last paragraph of Stephens's speech on Secession (p. 172) for instance, contains faults 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