education along lines of expression we must begin with the "content," or
cause, of expression. We may for the moment postpone discussion as to the
relative power of the sign to evoke the feeling, and the power of the
feeling or condition to evolve the most effective sign. There is something
to be said upon both sides; and, surely, the truth lies in the adoption of
all good means to produce the desired end.

First, then, to the basis. All oratorical values are measured primarily
from the standpoint of the "what;" the "how" is important, too, but only
in its relation to the "what" and "wherefore." The voice of the orator
must be an influence--a sincere vibration of the motive within.
Theoretically it is so naturally, but practically it is so only when the
voice is free from bias and is responsive through habit or spontaneous
inspiration to the thought of the speaker.

We will admit that genius sometimes is great enough to bring into
harmonious action all powers of the individual under its sway; but
education mainly strives to unfold the imperfect, to balance, the
ununified elements. Even genius, however, needs direction and adjustment
to secure the most perfect and reliable results. How, then, shall we
develop the motive, how enlarge the content?

There is such a subtle relation between motive and action that it has been
said, "The effect of any action is measured by the depth of the motive
from which it proceeds." [Footnote: Ralph Waldo Emerson.] And so this is
why the clever performer cannot reproduce the effect of a speech of
Demosthenes or Daniel Webster. This is a reason aside from that arising
from the difference in the occasion. Great men and great artists
_make_ the occasion in the hearts of their hearers. The voice of the
orator peculiarly should be free from studied effects, and responsive to