move hand in hand. The idea that the body of a speech should contain only convincing matter, and that the conclusion should embody the entire persuasive factor disregards human nature. We are not effectively convinced unless persuaded; nor are we truly persuaded unless convinced. Moreover, the notion that conviction lies wholly in the substance of a speech, and persuasion entirely in the form of expression is erroneous. So, in dealing with style, wherein form is emphasized more than substance, we are concerned not only with persuasion but also with conviction.

It is not an uncommon thing to hear a speaker who has an abundance of excellent speech-material, but who fails to make an effective address because he presents it poorly. Cicero went so far as to observe, "It is a great matter to know what to say and in what order to say it, but to know how to say it is a greater matter still." Perhaps the relative importance of form and substance has altered since the days of the great Roman, but it is still necessary to cultivate a style of speaking which shall present our material effectively both to the minds and the sympathies of our auditors. Each individual will, naturally, possess certain personal characteristics of expression, and as far as these meet with good results they are to be developed. One man, like Grady, has an unusual descriptive faculty; another, like Macaulay, is

especially effective in the use of balanced structure; a third, like Roosevelt, possesses a marked capacity for forceful phrasing. But the student of speaking must first acquire the basic qualities of a good style of expression, irrespective of any individual traits. The essentials of such a style are unity, coherence, clearness and force. These old friends of our rhetoric days are "true" if not always "tried," in the sense of being employed. But they are neglected at the expense of the speaker; for in whatever respects the style of address may have changed throughout its history, practical speaking has never profitably parted company with unity, coherence, clearness and force because the essential workings of the human mind have not changed. In order to think definitely and conclusively, a person must concentrate upon one thing, and proceed from beginning to end with clearness and logical sequence—a process which in itself is forceful.

A. UNITY

In its uncontrolled activities the mind does, indeed, make curious jumps at times-from Canadian reciprocity to string beans to bishops; thence to the thought of an uncomfortable collar only to alight, perhaps, upon a contemplation of Wagner's immortal Ring Cycle. But while such a disunified series is in some respects interesting, it has the

vital defect that it does not get us anywhere with anything. It is really surprising that speakers should so often be guilty of a lack of unity which differs from the illustration just cited in degree rather than in kind.

The man who speaks in public could hardly make a more useful resolution than never to force an audience to "wonder what he is driving at." Not only should there be no straying from the subject of the discourse as a whole, but the discussion of each phase of the topic must constantly and obviously bear upon the specific point in question, avoiding confusion with other aspects of the subject. If one is talking on "Canadian Reciprocity," for example, every section of the development should lend itself to a summary statement which clearly contributes something to the main theme respecting Canadian reciprocity. Furthermore, the discussion of any particular phase, such as the effect upon the farmers of the United States, should be strictly confined to that point, without encroaching upon any other phase, such as the effect upon Canadian manufacturers. It is quite likely that this observance of unity will shorten many a speech by eliminating inconsequential padding, side-line excursions into allied fields, and confusing repetitions incident to the ill-advised use of the same material under two or more points. However, a reduction of the quan

tity of the average speech, accompanied by a corresponding improvement in quality, would be one, or rather two, of the most felicitous things that could happen to this much abused art.

The following excerpt from Professor G. Lowes Dickinson's discussion of the means by which a League of Peace might effect its purposes offers a typical example of unity. Particular attention is directed to the way in which the opening and closing sentences definitely introduce and terminate the idea of the passage. Note also how the substance of the entire matter can be summed up in a single statement. After the observation that the combined military force of the League might be employed against an offending member, Professor Dickinson says:

"Military force, however, is not the only weapon the powers might employ in such a case; economic pressure might sometimes be effective. Suppose, for example, that the United States entered into such a league, but that she did not choose, as she wisely might not choose, to become a great military or naval power. In the event of a crisis arising, such as we suppose, she could, nevertheless, exercise a very great pressure if she simply instituted a financial and commercial boycott against the offender. Imagine, for instance, that at this moment all the foreign trade of this country were cut off by a general boycott. We should

be harder hit than we can be by military force. We simply could not carry on the war. And though, no doubt, we are more vulnerable in this respect than other countries, yet such economic pressure, if it were really feared, would be a potent factor in determining the policy of any country. It is true that no nation could apply such a boycott without injuring itself. But then the object is to prevent that greatest of all injuries, material and moral, which we call war. We can then imagine the states included in our league agreeing that any offender who made war on a member of the League, contrary to the terms of the treaty, would immediately have to face either the economic boycott or the armed forces, or both, of the other members. And it is not unreasonable to think that in most cases that would secure the observance of the treaty."

B. COHERENCE

I. Coherent Thought

As to coherence, there are two considerations: thoughts must be presented in reasonable sequence; and the verbal expression must indicate their relationships. In discussing unity it was observed that the uncontrolled mind often passes rapidly through a disunified series of subjects. Similarly, with respect to coherence, the