Princeton Theological Seminary - Yearbook (Princeton, NJ)

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?

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 26 text:

10 lvliatlbur things are included in' this first requisite of' dc- livery? What is purify of style-and correctness' ?. I t How strong is the sanction for these qualities? lvhat is propriety as a quality of style '? 8 lVhy can there be no synonyms in any language ? How then do we substitute one word for another? XV hat does the law of propriety require, inapproaching the idea with the term ? l I WVhat are the great advantages of propriety? How may we labor to attain it? n What is precision, and how dillerent from propriety? How does it differ from conciseness ? To what faults is it opposed? In what kind of composition is it less necessary ? In what part ofthe same discourse is it 1ll0Sl3 necessary '! What is the general rule to be followed as to precision ? What is rapidity in style? Vllhat is proportiwz ? What is order as a quality of style ? WVhat is its iinport-nice, and the faults it is opposed to ? What are its rules ? l Fzuzdwmezztal Qualities, UVEctm'z'Ll1zcss.l hVhat is nutnralrzcss in style '? How is art more than the imitation of nature ? Vlfhat kind of civilization is most favorable to the natural in style 'Q lVl1y does this quality please so much? How does it diiler from naivete? Why is it difficult to be natural in 'the pulpit? How shall we attain it '? WVhat shall we avoid as inconsistent with it? W'hat is congruity in style 'P How far is there to be a distinct language for the pulpit ? What are the dilfcrent elements of congruity? What is sin2plz2:1'ty, and how distinguished from the natural ? How different from concisencss '? What is its excellence? Why does it take the name of popzclmffy 1? YVhat are its advantages-and what is opposed to it? Vlfhy does it take the name of' jlmlzfliarfty in sacred elo- quence ? H How far may the personality of the preacher mingle in his discouise ? A lVhat lS'Il0ZlI6ll0SS, and What gravity ? What element ot' congruity itself combines all these other elements often '? VVhat is properly the .screjotzzml tone in preaching? Why should this tone always prevail in the preaching style? W hat is the peculiar beauty of biblical literature? By what culture is the scriptural tone to be attained ? ,What is the second inain characteristic of delivery answer- ing to these .qualities of style '? What kmnd of rules are the best for attaining a na-tural manner? Whyis prezept better than example in teaching these rules?