The Making of an Oration

CHAPTER I

A WORKING DEFINITION

'N ORDER to attain success in any art, it is necessary

IN

to have a clear conception of what that art is. This principle applies no less truly to the art of oratory than it does to the art of painting.

Oratory may be treated either as an art or as a science. A science has been well defined as classified knowledge. From this point of view a discussion of oratory would have as its aim the presentation of the principles of oratory in a systematic order, without special reference to the practical application of those principles in actual public speech. One may know oratory as a science and be wholly unskilled as an orator; just as one may be a critic of painting without being a painter. He may be able to point out with profound insight, keen perception of truth, and exact knowledge, the artistic qualities of Rosa Bonheur's great painting, "The Horse Fair,” and not possess enough skill on his own part to draw a sawhorse. In other words, one may be familiar with a

science and not be master of the corresponding art. Whether the reverse of this law is true may well be questioned; whether one can be a skilled artist without knowing the laws of that art is more than doubtful. It may be granted that, through native gifts and constant practice, one may attain some measure of success in a given art; but it is only the genius that can reach the highest success without knowing the science on which the art is based, and we have little if any conclusive evidence that even genius has ever attained supreme success in any art without familiarity with the fundamental laws or science of that art. Demosthenes and Cicero are the leading names in the history of oratory; both of them studied for years in order to perfect themselves in this art of all the arts. They studied the science in order to perfect themselves in the art.

Oratory will here be considered primarily as an art. The aim of this manual is preeminently practical. But in order to make it practical, some attention will need to be given to the science on which it is founded and of which it is the outgrowth. Such attention, however, will be incidental. So far as we shall study the science of this type of discourse, we shall study it for the sole purpose of developing skill in the art of preparing orations.

The relation of oratory to rhetoric in general is not difficult to understand. Indeed, oratory is rhetoric turned in a specific direction and applied in a particular way. It is the species of which rhetoric is the genus;

or more precisely, rhetoric is the family, while persuasive discourse is the genus, and oratory the species. Therefore all the laws of rhetoric must find exemplification in oratory, and in addition there is something added that differentiates this type of discourse from all other forms.

What, then, is an oration? Its general nature may be developed by combining the following characteristics:

1. An oration is an oral address. It is not a short story; it is not an expository address; it is not exclusively an argument. It may combine the characteristics of any or all these, but these are not what give it its distinctive character. It is an oration partly because it is designed for presentation in a face-to-face and an eye-to-eye contact with an audience. This fact gives it peculiarities of structure and peculiarities of style that adapt it to effective vocal delivery, but that would not always be desirable or even allowable in other forms of discourse.

It is said that Edmund Burke held the theory that oratory, so far as its style is concerned, should differ in no respect from discourse written for leisurely reading. But Burke himself, although professedly exemplifying his theory, actually proved the rule to the contrary; for, while he adorned his speeches with all the fullness of thought and richness of imagery appropriate to written discourse, he not infrequently emptied the House of Commons. The speeches that are read with delight were often heard with indifference.

Because it is oral discourse the oration has both advantages and disadvantages that do not pertain to that which is written for the reader. It has the advantages of the magnetic presence, the kindling eye, the thrilling voice, the suggestive gesture. On the other hand, the orator labors under the disadvantage incident to the necessity of delivering his soul in a single utterance, with no opportunity to elaborate his thought or to give to its expression those graces of style that the essayist or the novelist has, who writes at leisure for the instruction or amusement of those who read at leisure. Because it is an oral address, therefore, the oration must possess all the ease, flexibility, rhythm, simplicity, directness, and intensity of earnest extemporaneous speech, and at the same time it must proceed on those broad and general lines of thought adapted to arouse the interest of the hearers, fit their understanding, and especially direct their purposes.

2. In the second place, an oration is an oral discourse on a worthy and dignified theme. Not all subjects are suitable for oratorical treatment. They lack dignity, or they lack seriousness, or they lack that elevation of thought essential to genuine eloquence. They may be too literary in substance,—appropriate to the essay or book, but requiring too elaborate treatment for the platform. They may be too philosophical, or too abstract, or too technical, and thus be incapable of impressing the popular mind, of arousing the popular feeling, or of moving the popular will.