relationship of thoughts is an index of confusion, and is almost sure to result in unclear expression. On the other hand, a clear perception of such matters conduces to clarity of expression. It remains then only to present one's thoughts with simplicity and directness.

I. Simplicity

It would be an error, of course, to underestimate the attention which these two qualities require before they become habitual with the speaker. But the task is greatly lightened by getting the right idea from the start, and thus escaping the pitfalls which yawn for those who set out with a false sense of values. An ability to use big words and high sounding phrases, for example, is sometimes deliberately and unfortunately cultivated. The use of such words as "ratiocination," "postprandial," and "ebullient," when "thinking," "after-dinner," and "lively," would express the ideas, may inspire awe in the "unskillful" but "it cannot but make the judicious grieve." Not that the principle of clearness requires the avoidance of all large or unusual words. If a polysyllabic word of Latin origin, like "circumvallation," a technical term, such as "electrolysis," or even a foreign expression, like "denouement," or 'zeitgeist," is requisite to express the speaker's exact idea, he should feel free to employ it—with

such explanation as may be necessary. But to seek such words, or to strain for "elegance" by turning every "big fire" into a "disastrous conflagration," every "funny reply" into a "titillating rejoinder" is a great mistake. In a word, the speaker should aim to use the simplest, most easily understood language consistent with adequate expression of his thoughts. And that simple language is ordinarily adequate to convey the beauty, strength and emotion of even the most profound thoughts is shown in such a speech as Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address." This immortal utterance so finely illustrates how simplicity of expression is consistent with impressiveness that I venture to quote it entire.

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

We

"Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

"But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate— we cannot consecrate-we cannot hallow-this

ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far beyond our poor power to add or to detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us, the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us-that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave their last full measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

II. Directness

Closely akin to simplicity as an aid to clearness is directness. This comprises brevity and straightforwardness of construction. It means the avoidance of intricate, wordy, clumsy or stilted sentences. Such sentences call to mind the following specimen from Benjamin Franklin's proposal to revise the Book of Job. As a sample of improvement, he advocated that the sentence, "Doth Job fear God for naught?" be changed to, "Does your majesty imagine that Job's good conduct is

the effect of mere personal attachment and affection?" With all his proverbial common-sense, the renowned Franklin erred here. And every speaker errs who proceeds on the theory that a statement is impressive in proportion to the number of words which it contains, or to the ponderous and involved manner in which it is made. If an idea can be as fully expressed in five words as in ten, the extra five are usually a waste, and frequently a hindrance to clearness. A wordy speaker might say, for example, "A collection of the most famous and most widely known and popular essays that have endeared themselves to lovers of literature for many generations will be published by Smith and Company for all those who enjoy reading." With a terse speaker this would become, "A collection of the essays most popular with many generations of readers will be published by Smith and Company." The gain in clearness, and force as well, is obvious.

There are occasions, of course, when long sentences are necessary to express the speaker's thoughts. In such cases he should preserve clearness by direct, straightforward construction. For this purpose, the observance of two simple rules will aid greatly. First, the order of subjectpredicate-object or attribute should generally be observed. Exceptions may be made occasionally for the sake of coherence or variety. Secondly,

all modifying words, phrases, and clauses should be kept as close as possible to the words modified. It is remarkable how frequently sentences are ambiguous, misleading, or unfathomable only because of injudiciously placed modifiers. Take, for example, the following typical cases:

I neither am Republican nor Democrat.

Both the platforms of the rival parties are unsatisfactory.

He was asked to marry the defendant repeatedly.

The attorney hurried from the court-house, where he had been trying a tramp in an automobile.

The clipping was brought from an address which had been published the night before by a messenger boy.

These sentences strike one as absurd, and yet unclearness arising from just such errors is by no means uncommon. The speakers usually know better, of course, but, owing to carelessness, or to open disregard of form, they acquire a habit of obscurity.

D. FORCE

The fourth requisite for an effective style of speaking is force. This quality is in no small part inherent in unity, coherence and clearness.