THE GIFT OF SPEECH

Ellesmere Guardian, Volume XLV, Issue 2930, 27 October 1925, Page 2

THE GIFT OF SPEECH

ITS SPELLBINDING EFFECT,

UNACCOMPANIED BY KNOWLEDGE.

The Into William Jennings Bryan was a prominent figure in the life of the Uni ted States. This prominence came neither from his fundamentalism nor from his bimetallism, but from his gift of speech. Because of this gift millions were ready to hail him as a leader." It has been said that, except in time of war, speech rules the world. It certainly does so in America. But for the great increase in recent years of the activity of the press, there is nothing in all the world to-day to disptite the supremacy of speech. Even an insurrection in an ancient civilisation like the Chinese seems to be dominated by the, ready speaker. By speech we mean "pure speech," the spoken word, apart fjrom any knowledge 0T administrative ability. The man who can speak best is at once accepted by the mass as its leader. This seems very strange, but jit comes from democracy. There is no more connexion betweea a man's power to speak and his power to rule or lead or work than there is between his skill to govern a country. Yet we can nevjer persuade the "pee:>le" of that. To them speech is the -hallmark of kingship. | Lord Bryce examine z the claim made ■ that the Americans arc more skilled in speech than the English. On the whole he will not admit the superiority. In readiness of production at short notice, in quickness in gettirr; into touch with .their audience, and i;i delivery, he ad- ; mits that the Americ: "is may be superj ior. In instances he '.hinks they afe probably inferior, w! i!e their style tends to be turgid &rd inflated. Their efforts at "orating" and at "spellbinding" world procace i;hese faults. But the,Ti Lord Bryce was Lord Bryce. He was not the peopl 7 much less the mass of the psople. Next to France, America is almost certainty the land where speech is cultivated most successfully as an art, and where it goes furthest to subdue or arouse the great public. We could understand an audience crowding, to hear a great speaker, just as they crowd to hear a Krieslor or a Paderewski. But why should they pour forth from their entertainment resolved to make their entertainer their king and the decider of the policy of the nation? That is the problem which puzzles the student of mankind. And this- puzzle becomes the more difficult in the light of two facts which w,e k,now about "spell-binders" or great masters of the art of oration. We know as a matter of history that great speakers have not as as rule had the gift of knowledge or of administration. Their skill in speech'has gener-' ally been a substitute for these other/ j qualities. We know the converse also, and that with feven more sureness. Men of outstanding- knowledge and men of great executive ability have almost never -been very successful speakers. They have never been "spellbinders." One would think that some slight per--1 ception of this general law would reach down into the masses of man; that in their,daily criticism and discussion they" would be abl,e to prick the bladder and find out the " insubstantial" nature of wind.. But no. Words still sway men as wind blows the dust. Another thing has often been noticed. The "spellbinder" is generally a crank. A crank has an extremely logical mind, and runs aloflg just one set of rails, and he cannot see anything save what is on his own fixed line. Though there are exceptions—exceptions in a florid, varied, and discursive speech —upon the whole the " spellbinder" is a crank; and a crank is, above s all others, a man unfit to lead and unable to govern a people. This one-sided crankiness of tlie man of speech makes his ascendancy only more puzzling than ever. There may be suggested two explanations of this strange ascendancy of speech over men. Untrained minds almost always feel that a thing they understand must be true. They have nev;er realised the mysteries of life or what may be called the frequent "irrationality" of Nature. Hence they make intelligibility the test and the guarantee of truth. Falsehood is always more specious than truth. But the mass of men never allow for this fact, or even contradict it. The case which can be pade, clear, attractive, simple, intelligible is the true case, and the ma,n who can do this is the prophet of truth. Then they have .another feeling—that the mini who rui explain in the man who can do. Tlure is a cynical saying tiat

"the man who can, does; the man "who cannot* teaches." We might mwdify that into '' the man who can, does; the man whp cannot, talks.' ' But the pt >pulace instinctively reject that criticism. They always feel that the man who »can speak is the man who can do. Borne up on these two tendencies in human nature, the "spellbinder" rises into supremacy, and acquires power. There 2.3 no doubt that to a great extent in thft eases of Bright, Galdstone, and Lloyd George their ascendancy was due chiefly to their power of speech. In the* case of Bryan it was tenfold more so. His speaking alone made him one of the ' few figures at the very top of the political life of the Union. "Democracy is in danger of combin- | ing,the strength of a giant with the critical intelligence of a child." There is a story of a French butcher who, having, need of legal aid, finally, after looking over a number .of lawyers, I selected the fattest one. So democracy when, choosing a leader is often in danger of choosing the most talkative one. We cannot get away from, democracy at the present day, even should we desire to do so; But we should be able to get away from the effects "of its "qualities. '' The devil, as is well known, writes Irving Babbitt, is a comparativeily harmless person unless Ite is allowed to disguise himself as an B*ngel of light. This worship of talking by the people, this gift of power to the "spellbinder" I appeals to us as being freedom of speech and right of private judgment. It is really the right of the lower naI ture in man to subdue" the higher; the ! right of the ear and the tongue, to do- | minate the brain. Those little weaknesses in man would, tend, to prove that he is descended from the monjtey Tatter than from the elephant—which..is a valuable piece of information.