When I was in college I heard a visitor draw a contrast between Cicero and Demosthenes.  I am not sure that it is fair to Cicero but it brings out an important distinction.  As I recall it, the speaker said, “When Cicero spake the people said, ‘How well Cicero speaks’; when Demosthenes spake his hearers cried, ‘Let us go against Philip.’” One impressed himself upon his audience while the other impressed his subject.  It need hardly be said that in all effective oratory the speaker succeeds in proportion as he can make his hearers forget him in their absorption in the subject that he presents.  I may add that there is a practical advantage in the speaker’s diverting attention from himself.  There is only one of him and he would soon become monotonous if he continually thrust himself forward; but, as subjects are innumerable, he can give infinite variety to his speech by putting the emphasis upon the theme.

It is better that the audience, when it breaks up, should gather into groups and discuss what the speaker said than to go away saying, “What a delightful speech it was,” and yet not remember the things said.  Whether the statements made are true or not it does no harm to have them challenged; if some dispute what has been said and others defend the speaker it is certain that thought has been aroused, and thinking leads to truth.  That is why freedom of speech is so essential in a republic; it is the only process by which truth can be separated from error and made to stand forth in all its strength.  We should, therefore, invite discussion.

While acquaintance with the subject and heartfelt interest in it are the first essentials of convincing speech, there are other qualities that greatly strengthen discourse.  First among these I would put clearness of statement.  Jefferson declared in the Declaration of Independence that certain truths are self-evident.  It is a very conservative statement of an important fact; it could be made stronger:  all truth is self-evident.  The best service one can render a truth, therefore, is to state it so clearly that it can be understood.  This does not mean that every self-evident truth will be immediately accepted because there are many things that interfere with the acceptance of truth.

First, let us consider depth of conviction.  Some people take their convictions more seriously than others.  In India I heard a missionary speak of another person as having “no opinions—­nothing but convictions”; while one of the enemies of Gladstone described him as being the only person he ever knew who “could improvise the convictions of a lifetime.”  Depth of conviction gives great force to an individual when he is going in the right direction, but he is difficult to change if he is going in the wrong direction.  When I visited the Hermitage for the first time they told me of an old coloured man, formerly a slave of Jackson’s, who survived his master many years.  He was, of course, an object of interest and many questions were asked in regard to Jackson’s characteristics.  One visitor inquired of him if he thought Andrew Jackson went to heaven.  He quickly responded, “If he sot his head that way, he did.”