Princeton Theological Seminary - Yearbook (Princeton, NJ)

Page 24 text:

S How fin' it is necessary? What are the reasons for it? ' I What is the idea suitable for an exordium? How test it? , I Why were the ancient orators less careful in thc DCITIIICIICY of an exordiuni ? What advantage doe: pertinency give? What are some varieties of form suitable ? What is the summary of rules for it! When should it be composed? In what manner should the subject be announced ? W hat are the two kinds of' proposition in which this may be done? , What arc the relative advantages and disadvantages of these ? X How far should the plan be formally announced ? Why should the principal divisions be explicitly indicated? VVhy was formal division so much avoided by ancient or- ators? Yluizsitfolzs. V What are transitions? W hat is the perfect idea of connection? What are the qualities of a good transition ? What is -the object of transitions? I Peroraiiozzr. I NVhat is the peroration? How does it resemble and how differ from the exordium? How do the two principal kinds of' discourse differ i11 regard to a peroration ? How far does it require a distinct form? WVhy is it required with or without a distinct form ? ' NVhat diversitysofforin does the necessity occasion ? WVhat is meant by the application which this part of' a dis- course implies? . How far should the application be special ? ' How is it to bc characterized in language and emotion 'Q What are the rules for it? What influences govern the form of sermonizing? 1 W hy is the form of sacred discourse more conventional than that of' other discourse ? VVhat is the true theory as to the form? How is the prevalent form characterized? What are its advantages and what its faults? How shall We best guard against a faulty form ? How far should the individuality of the preacher be stamp- ed on the form? What is best for the beginner? How far can rhetorical studies teach us order in discourse? In whom is the aptitude for disposition most wanting? How are We to practice with the best advantage ? Origziiality. How far can there be originality in preaching? Why should the sacred orator be pre-eminently original? Why should the present generation be more original than the past? What are the different characteristics of true originality?

Page 23 text:

. ..1,,J, , ww,-155 fir 7 What disadvantages attend the exercise of authority from these changes? What is the difference between natural boldness and true authority ? What is the first condition of genuine authority Z What advantage over the secular orator has the preacher T in using reason and conscience ? What other conditions are required? What is reprehension in preaching? Why is it delicate and perilous '! Why should it be special in adaptation to the particular flock 2 What are the conditions of successful reprehensionil W hat are rules to be observed in administering Qcensures? How far may irony have a place in the pulpit? How tar may indignation have a place ? DISPOSITIO N. What is disposition in oratorical discourse? YV hy is more order required in discourse than in t-he expe- riences of life to fbrln opinion and conviction ? What is the necessity of order in discourse? How is good order indispensable to instruction, persuasion, beauty, invention, and inspiration ofthe orator? How great is thc fault of neglecting it! How do We explain the want ofit in pzissionate discourses ? In what two points ofvicw are we to consider disposition ? What is the tirst thing in disposition after the proposition is in the mind? , What are the most indispensable parts in the division of any subject? What is the history of' honiiletic division? ' What are the advantages and disadvantages of the verbal division-and when only is it allowable? What is the scholastic method, and what are objections to it? What is the topical-and it-s advantages? What 'stage of division is the most important for the p1'0- per effect of the subject? What stage requires the greatest talent ? What should determine our choice among different plans, which are equally good, in a logical point of view? What are principles of division? What are rules of division ? What are rules for each particular Jart in the division ? How does oratorical division differ lrorn logical ? To what extent is the latter necessary to the former? What is the movement which the speaker should produce ? What is the first law of this inoveinent ? How is it violated? What are the diilerent forms of this movement? Where should we place the solution of doubts, kc. 1 WVhen only can there be nioveinent in a discourse of par- allel parts Z Ezzorclium. What is a proper definition of the exordiuin Z What is ordinarily requisite to success in this part of' dis- course ? ,.

Page 25 text:

i 24. l. 9 9 O 4. 5 6. - I 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 15. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 1. 2 3 4 6 T 8 ' S! 10 '11 36. 9 , Why do we reject the plea of Addison for plagiarism by dull men who are good speakers? What in the composition of a sermon most demands ori- ginality ? j ELOCUTION, ' 1 ' What remains after the choice and arrangement of ideas? VVhat is writing a discourse? Where does elocution display its character most? What is its twofold oflice '4 How Elscpit evident that the use of Words must be a labor ol' min . , Ofwhat value are thc ideas wrought in the minutest tex- ture of style ? . How flu' may a feeble thinker be a good writer? 1Vhy may a good thinker be a bad writer? ' VVhy must a good style as distinguished from diction merc- ly, characterize. only a good thinker? ' VVhy is the study of style a matter of serious obligation ? How is the study of style for its own sake as an art un- worthy of the preacher? , How is true art to be distinguished from artifice? How answer the objection that style has made men dupes of error? P How-the objection that imagination is a deceiver? How-that eminent preachers, as Paul, have disdained style C0 How-that it is appreciated by a small number? How-that the form may draw the mind from the sul- stauce ? How-:that we have not time in the urgencies of the gospel ? 1Vhy should style be as good in the country as in the city ? WVhy is it pre-eminently important at the present day that the style of the pulpit should be good? Fmzcicmzcntal Qzcalttzlzs of Style. How much of' rhetoric is peculiar to sacred discourse? What are the two classes into which qualities of style are distributed ? ' Enumerate the qualities belonging to the first class. VVhat distinction is made between style and diction? To what place, in importance, do we give perspzbuity ? VVhy are men imposed 611 at times by obscurity? Why should we not, however, give absolute confidence to - perspicuity? ' ' ' A 4 ' By what test should We judge of the perspicuity of style suited to any subject? ' -' . . , I How isperspiciiity defined? 1 4 A . I What-is its special necessity in the pulpit ?- , Wlrat are preliminary conditions of it? ' 12' 'Nilhat are special means or rules forattaining it? f13. 1 .,.H YVhat is an ultimate quality of' elocution, to be studied as f- '--. 1 well-as style and diction? 14 'L X15 fit Q How did the ancients distribute this quality into 'two classes ? ' What is the first indispensable property of a good delivery? VVhy are the utmost pains in attaining it worthy of the Christian minister?