could appreciate his qualities as a rhetorician enjoyed listening to his addresses. Indeed, for many reasons, it was a privilege to listen to his utterances. He had much to say that was well worth hearing and he said it beautifully. But it was not always oratory. He gave one of his great lectures in my church in an Eastern city some years ago. When he commenced the house was crowded, the galleries were packed, the aisles were filled and all were animated with pleasure in prospect of the treat about to be enjoyed. Long before he finished his lecture the house was nearly empty. He was absorbed

in the delivery and seemed utterly unconscious of his vanishing audience. It was great, but it was not oratory, it was not eloquence. It appealed only to the few; those who were on his own plane enjoyed him, but the universal man in every man wearied of his flood of words. Those who were pleased were greatly pleased, but the majority would not remain through the monologue which went on for two hours and a half. His power was different from that of the orator in that it appealed only to a class and not to common human

nature.

Some persons entertain the opinion that great intellectual power constitutes the orator; eloquence is great thought, magnificent expression; it is logic, convincing argument, plainly set forth. But is it not true that many speakers who were incapable of profound and sustained thought have been most powerful in the mastery of great audiences? The highest dramatic oratory in some cases, if not most, is born rather of vision than of thought. Gough did not think; he Not what he thought; but what he pictured put him in that condition which never failed, for many years, to inflame his audiences no matter how heterogeneous they were.

saw.

On the other hand many a speaker of greatest mental power, dealing in grandest thoughts, utterly fails to command a hearing from the people. He is a giant intellectually — but he is not an orator; his profound abstractions weightily uttered are cold. In all the respects named the orators of all lands and ages have differed one from the other. To no one or more of the qualities considered is man as man sus

=

read in some most for

ke fa without that re

ITS Bmong all classes of hearers.

sver este gee of culture, no 2 Lag I maines eminnet jy a speaker which fail to emre za eman te bling to master audiences. Va pesa y rid them whatever else he me

The answer to the question: What is oratory or constitutes an orator, though very simple, is overlooked Because we f2 to make a distinction between an simply, on the one hand and the great orator on the This distinction exists and must be recognized in ary thinking on the subject.

Robert Ingersoll says: "Oratory is the perfect thought and expression — of logic, of personal presenc voice and gesture." It would require genius to miss the more completely. No instance of such oratory has eve known. A man might be all this were it possible yet not be an orator. Ingersoll was an orator though not an example of one "perfect in thought and express logic, in personal presence, in voice and in gesture" thought was never profound and rarely correct — is was always lame.

In a sentence following the one quoted above be a "The great orator idealizes all he touches, transfigure common, and changes the meanest metal into gold. B creator. He is candid, sincere, poetic, winged with tion, sympathetic, persuasive, convincing and almost i ible." This is rhetoric-bet suggests a truth. Als "The great orator is a genius” The The But the not necessarily az orr

Furthermore, there has been many THT VON D genius

ecessary to be a great personality gifted above others. The rator is a man in such earnest as to have his passional nature ominate expression. He is a man whose thought, be it great small, has become a conflagration, and has fused all his Owers into unity. Passion has coordinated all the elements f his personality. Some one has well said: "Every man eloquent when in earnest." The languages of the heart are any and are comprehended by all classes of men. Eloence is in a degree independent of mere words. A pause ay overwhelm an audience. A glance a pose may be resistible. Pere Hyacinth, in his best days, could powerlly affect men who did not know the meaning of a word e spoke. On the other hand masses of men could listen to e most powerful logic unmoved if the speaker himself spoke aly from the brain. The power that commands is the power I the heart. Heart is imperial. It rules in the orator. and rough him commands the audience. It commands all the ator possesses. If the speaker is great in resources, if he affluent in knowledge and thought, if he is large in symthy - rich in experience; then when some great occasion ves the spark that sets his great soul aflame he becomes a eat orator. Then the keener and grander his intellect, the ore faultless his logic; the finer his rhetoric; the more quisite his culture; the more refined his manner; the more splendent the display the more overwhelming is his wer. The heart alone is master of the will. Only when the art says the word can the will command every resource the personality. Here is the law that separates and that 11 forever separate the orator from the actor. Let the actor ady ever so carefully, he can never assume command of hatever genius he may possess, until his heart awakens and ves his will the power to command. He cannot will to act if he really felt. One moment of genuine feeling would stantly transform him as if by magic. The mere actor, hower painstaking, is always theatrical - the orator is always amatic - never theatrical. Here lies the explanation of e mischief wrought by the plague of theatrical elocutionists. here is a bridgeless abyss between the theatrical and the

ceptible. If they were all united in some most, fortunate person still many would listen, if at all, without that response which eloquence awakens among all classes of hearers. No quality, however exalted, no degree of culture, no assemblage of qualities exhibited by a speaker which fail to stir the emotions can explain the ability to master audiences. He who possesses any or all of them, whatever else he may be, is not an orator necessarily.

The answer to the question: What is oratory or what constitutes an orator, though very simple, is overlooked largely because we fail to make a distinction between an orator. simply, on the one hand and the great orator on the other. This distinction exists and must be recognized in any clear thinking on the subject.

66

Robert Ingersoll says: Oratory is the perfection of thought and expression of logic, of personal presence, of voice and gesture." It would require genius to miss the mark more completely. No instance of such oratory has ever been known. A man might be all this were it possible — and yet not be an orator. Ingersoll was an orator though he was not an example of one "perfect in thought and expression, in logic, in personal presence, in voice and in gesture." His thought was never profound and rarely correct his logic was always lame.

In a sentence following the one quoted above he adds: "The great orator idealizes all he touches, transfigures the common, and changes the meanest metal into gold. He is a creator. He is candid, sincere, poetic, winged with imagination, sympathetic, persuasive, convincing and almost irresist ible." This is rhetoric - but suggests a truth. Again he says: "The great orator is a genius." True. But the genius is not necessarily an orator at all, not to say a great orator Furthermore, there has been many an orator who was no genius.

There are just two things essential to oratory, viz: normal manhood, and passion. To be a great orator it is

66

necessary to be a great personality gifted above others. The orator is a man in such earnest as to have his passional nature dominate expression. He is a man whose thought, be it great or small, has become a conflagration, and has fused all his powers into unity. Passion has coordinated all the elements of his personality. Some one has well said: Every man is eloquent when in earnest." The languages of the heart are many and are comprehended by all classes of men. Eloquence is in a degree independent of mere words. A pause may overwhelm an audience. A glance a pose may be irresistible. Pere Hyacinth, in his best days, could powerfully affect men who did not know the meaning of a word he spoke. On the other hand masses of men could listen to the most powerful logic unmoved if the speaker himself spoke only from the brain. The power that commands is the power of the heart. Heart is imperial. It rules in the orator. and through him commands the audience. It commands all the orator possesses. If the speaker is great in resources, if he is affluent in knowledge and thought, if he is large in sympathy - rich in experience; then when some great occasion gives the spark that sets his great soul aflame he becomes a great orator. Then the keener and grander his intellect, the more faultless his logic; the finer his rhetoric; the more exquisite his culture; the more refined his manner; the more resplendent the display the more overwhelming is his power. The heart alone is master of the will. Only when the heart says the word can the will command every resource of the personality. Here is the law that separates and that will forever separate the orator from the actor. Let the actor study ever so carefully, he can never assume command of whatever genius he may possess, until his heart awakens and gives his will the power to command. He cannot will to act as if he really felt. One moment of genuine feeling would instantly transform him as if by magic. The mere actor, however painstaking, is always theatrical the orator is always dramatic never theatrical. Here lies the explanation of the mischief wrought by the plague of theatrical elocutionists. There is a bridgeless abyss between the theatrical and the