And the philosophy which underlies this is what makes public speaking immortal.  The Master understood this very well, and that is why He chose to speak by word of mouth rather than by writing epistles.  The Saviour never wrote a single epistle—­no, not even a single word.  He spoke His message.

Think of a gospel announced to the world in cold type!  Absurd, is it not?  It may be repeated in that form, but its initial power must come from the spoken word and vital personality of its author.  But Christ’s addresses were not “extemporaneous.”  All His life He had been preparing His few sermons—­lessons.

The great speakers to whom I have listened have confirmed certain conclusions upon the subject of speaking at which I arrived while in college.  It seemed to me that the college method of speaking was wrong because it was irrational—­that the studied gestures, the “cultivated” voice, the staccato impressiveness, were all artificial devices to attract the attention of an audience to these things, instead of to the thought of the address.

Analysis of the problem convinced me that an audience is only a larger person—­a great collective individuality—­and therefore that whatever, in manner and matter, will please, persuade, and convince a person, will have the same effect upon an audience.  Hence one readily deduces that a simple, quiet, but direct, earnest address; a straightforward, unartificial honest manner, without tricks of oratory, is the most effective method of lodging truth in the minds of one’s hearers.

Any affectation, any mannerism, detracts from the thought because it calls the attention of the listener to the mannerism or affectation, when his whole attention should be monopolized by the thought.  Read Herbert Spencer on the “Philosophy of Style,” and apply his reasoning to the delivery of an address, and you have the rationale of the art of speaking, as well as of speech, put with that wonderful thinker’s unerringness.

The method commonly employed in preparing speeches is incorrect.  That method is, to read all the books one can get on the subject, take all the opinions that can be procured, make exhaustive notes, and then write the speech.

Such a speech is nothing but a compilation.  It is merely an arrangement of second-hand thoughts and observations and of other people’s ideas.  It never has the power of living and original thinking.

The true way is to take the elements of the problem in hand, and, without consulting a book or an opinion, reason out from these very elements of the problem itself your solution of it, and then prepare your speech.

After this, read, read, read—­read comprehensively, omnivorously, in order to see whether your solution was not exploded a hundred years ago—­aye, a thousand—­and, if it was not, to fortify and make accurate your own thought.  Read Matthew Arnold on “Literature and Dogma,” and you will discover why it is necessary for you to read exhaustively on any subject about which you would think or write or speak.