1848.] Rules for the Partition. 743 terruption of the train of thought breaks up the interest of the hearers in the dialogue. There are instances, however, in which the rules of rhetoric require an exception from the rules of logic. Thus, when a genus is the theme of the discourse, logic would require that all its species, however unimportant, be introduced as parts of the division, but rhetoric may simply require that the essential characteristics of the genus be introduced, and these constitute the partition, as technically distinct from the division. Again, it is a logical rule that no single branch of the partition shall be identical with the proposition itself, and that substantially the same sentence which constitutes a chief head of the discourse, shall not reäppear as one of the subordinate heads. The mind of the audience is interrupted in its progress from premises to results, by this appearance of repetition. The speaker is very apt to commit this fault by expressing his proposition too indefinitely, and by subsequently introducing heads of discourse which he had not at first designed to mention. Reinhard has a sermon with the theme, Warnings against a morbid Conscientiousness; and he first explains the nature of the fault; secondly, describes the signs and the workings of it; thirdly, states the reasons why we should guard against it. Now this third branch of the partition is the same in substance with the original theme, and the first two branches are not logically appropriate as parts of the proposition, but are presupposed by it. This reappearance of the proposition, after other heads have been discussed, might have been avoided by giving it a more general form; as for instance, Morbid conscientiousness, under which the abovenamed partition would be logically appropriate. This general theme, however, would excite the expectation of a merely intellectual treatise, and Reinhard designs to give a practical character, and the appearance of it, to his sermon. The relation of his discourse to the will is indicated in his proposition, and thus do the laws of rhetoric allow, and in some cases even require this prominence of the persuasive influence over the logical exactness of the arrangement. As the whole proposition should not be repeated in any one of the subordinate heads, so it should contain, in itself, all the ideas and none other than the identical ideas, which constitute the various branches of the partition. When the practical character of the discourse will not allow the preacher to treat thoroughly of his entire subject, he should either limit his proposition so as to cover no more ground than he designs to travel over, or else should inform his hearers that he intends to discuss a part only of the proposed theme. As the sentence announcing the subject of discourse should not be the same with any of the subordinate heads, so these subordinate heads, whether partes or sub partes, should never repeat but mutually exclude each other; and there should be no mingling of their various classes, no arranging of the species and proper subdivisions in the same rank with the genus and the proper divisions. This is the general rule; but when the proper subdivisions are of great practical importance, they may, by rhetorical license, be elevated to the same rank with the proper divisions. For example, The conscious effort to live a holy life benefits the soul; first, by revealing to it its moral imperfections and thus assuaging its restlessness; secondly, by comforting it amid the trials of life and at the hour of death; thirdly, by securing treasures for it in the life to come. Now the logical partition of this theme would be: The conscious effort for holiness benefits the soul, first in this life, secondly in the life to come. But the blessings of this life are divided, in the rhetorical arrangement, into two species, constituting the first and second heads, and these are arranged in the same class with the genus, comprising the blessings of the future state, and constituting the third head. The practical importance of considering, with marked attention, these two species, is a valid reason for giving them this illogical prominence. In order to promote the perspicuity and strength of a discourse, it is necessary that its parts be so arranged as to make the preceding prepare the way for the succeeding, and the whole discourse rise in a gradation, from the less important to the more important. The topics which interest the intellect alone, should precede those which excite the imagination also and the feelings; and those which animate the lower sensibilities, should come before those which stimulate the higher. So the least cogent arguments should precede the more forcible, and thus allow the latter to exert an influence which no subsequent considerations will diminish. If the weaker arguments come last, they will efface somewhat of the impression produced by the stronger. It was recommended by the ancient rhetoricians, that one part of the arguments be placed at the, beginning of the discourse, so as to make the first impression a strong one; that another part be placed at the close, so as to make the final impression strong also; and hence that the weaker arguments be placed in the middle, where they will be in some measure hidden from view. This arrangement was compared to the disposing of the forces of an army, so as to place the most inefficient troops in the centre, and to surround them with the bravest: Iliad, Book IV. v. 297 seq. But Quinctilian justly doubts the uniform propriety of this rule, and prefers that the arguments be arranged according to circumstances, but always ne a potentissimis ad levissima decrescat oratio. The secular eloquence of Greece and Rome allowed 1848.] Simplicity of the Partition. 745 the introduction of reasoning processes which were designed merely to deceive, and therefore were to be so placed as to elude the scrutiny of the judges. But sacred eloquence, excluding all proofs which are merely apparent and deceptive, requires that the thoughts which make the deepest impression on the mind of the speaker, and which will therefore be uttered with the greatest earnestness and listened to with the most profound attention, be so placed as to cause the hearers to rise, with the preacher, in a regular climax. Hence the arguments from reason should precede those from Scripture. On the same principle, the objections against the proposition are to be introduced before the direct proof of it. Else they will confuse the mind, diminish its interest in the discussion, and prevent the due influence of the positive argument. First, the hearers are to be convinced that the proposition can be true, and this is done by removing their previous objections; secondly, they are to be convinced that it must be true, and this is effected by the positive proof. In the arrangement of the objections, the strongest should be placed first, and the gradation should be regular from them to the weakest, and thus the way is prepared for the direct arguments. The same principle is to be observed in the arrangement of the explanatory heads. The most remote explanations should be placed first, and there should be a gradual progress, nearer and nearer to the full statement thus progressively explained. Hence negative heads are proper in a discourse, and should precede the posi- . tive. It is an important rule that the partition be simple, that is, contain as few parts as the clearness of the investigation will allow. It can, however, be made too simple. Particulars may be reduced to such general propositions, that the whole discourse will be too abstract for the common mind; often, then, should the individual and concrete statement be preferred to a more comprehensive one, because it is better adapted to the imagination and the feelings. Reinhard has a sermon on the duty of those who are called to severe and mysterious afflictions. He might have adopted the simple division into the outward and inward duty, but he prefers a less general classification, and makes prominent the following obligations: first, such mourners should be earnest in thought; secondly, modest in their judgments; thirdly, submissive in their feelings; fourthly, conscientious in their actions; fifthly, cheerful in hope; and sixthly, holding fast upon him who, through the suffering of death, has been crowned of God with glory and honor. Such a plan is far more vivid, and leads to a more impassioned peroration than the simple and comprehensive one first mentioned. In the search for the simplicity of a partition, writers are tempted to express their theme in a style so general as to require too great a number of subordinate heads. A sermon will not allow such a multiplicity of subdivisions as is proper for a scientific treatise. The evil of this extended dissection is not always removed by what is called the symmetry of a plan. This consists in making all the parts of the discourse equal to each other in length; each of the principal heads correspondent with every other in the number of its subordinate heads; and each class of the subordinate parts correspondent in its style and significancy with every other class. One partition, for example, may detail a certain number of the causes of a certain fault, and another partition the same number of the remedies for it, each remedy being applicable to the cause which numerically corresponds with it. This symmetry is made the more conspicuous by an exact resemblance or contrast in the phraseology of the partitions. The pulpit affords far more license for such symmetrical arrangements, than was offered by the secular eloquence of antiquity, the latter being unequal to the former in subjecting the plan of the discourse to the choice of the orator. There is great danger, however, of making a sermon artificial by this search for evenly balanced partitions. The thought is often distorted for the sake of regularity in the style. The charm of variety is sacrificed to the uniform measure of the divisions and subdivisions. This measure may be allowed when and only when the true, harmonious presentation of the thought requires it. We should study the demands of the subject, and should comply with them rather than the stiff rules of rhetoricians. Quinctilian censures those, qui partitionem vetant ultra tres propositiones; and says, Hoc aut alio tamen numero velut lege non est alliganda (partitio), cum possit causa plures desiderare.3 8. Conclusion. Cicero says of Pericles, "tantam in eo vim fuisse, ut in eorum mentibus qui audissent, quasi aculeos quosdam relinqueret." True elo 1 Dräseke has a sermon with the following interrogative proposition : “Does not the religion of Jesus require too much of us?" and with the following responsive division: 1. It seems, indeed, to require too much, (a) when we consider its commands according to their letter and not according to their spirit; (b) when we make the conduct of the masses our standard of the capabilities of the race; (c) when our own failings cause us to distrust our moral faculties. 2. It does not seen to require too much, (a) when we consider the spirit of the commands; it cannot seem to require too much, for, (b) if so, it is not for man; and, (c) if so, it is not from God. 2 Inst. Orat. L. IV. c. 5. Cic. De Oratore, L. 3. c. 34. 1848.] The Recapitulation. 747 qence has its triumph in the epilogue or peroration. The total impression of the discourse does not, indeed, exclusively depend on the manner of ending it; for the power of the conclusion must be derived, in great measure, from the substance of what has preceded. All parts of the discourse should converge to the final impression; all should conspire to the end. Still, the mode of collecting the means of this final impression, and of bringing them to their designed result, has been considered by all rhetoricians as preeminently important. A failure here is an essential evil to the whole. If the conclusion be not intimately connected with the parts which have gone before it, the discourse will be offensive through want of an unbending adherence to one purpose. If the conclusion be deficient in liveliness and strength, the discourse offends against the law of gradation, which requires the preacher to ascend; and, as far as he is able, to take his hearers with him from one stage to a higher, until he reach the most elevated point in the peroration. There are different methods in which he may gather up the influences of his discourse, and combine them in one predominant impression. Among these methods, the ancient orators attached a high value to the recapitulation. The Greek rhetoricians termed it ávaxɛqaλaíωσις οι ἐπάνοδος. Cicero calls it "enumeratio, per quam res disperse et diffuse dictae unum in locum coguntur, et reminiscendi causa unum sub adspectum subjiciuntur." It is not to be denied that an animated, compressed, forcible repetition of the most important parts of the discourse, such a repetition as will give to the hearer an instantaneous, a comprehensive, and an affecting view of the entire theme, such as shall present this theme in its just proportions, and give the needed prominence to its most essential parts; such as shall combine in itself all the power which has pervaded the preceding divisions, and unite in one focus their enlightening and warming rays, is an essential aid to the hearer's intellect, in particular to his memory, and is also a persuasive appeal to his will. Nothing can be more appropriate as the finale of a sermon. But when the recapitulation is introduced abruptly, without seeming to grow out of the body of the sermon, when it is loose instead of precise, diffuse instead of condensed, when it is dry, stiff, lifeless, calmly didactic rather than energetically persuasive, a mere and a cold repetition of preceding topics rather than a vital concentration of them, when it is uniformly introduced in the same style and wants that variety and versatility which the excited minds of the hearers require, then it defeats its own end, and is more proper for any other part of the sermon than 1 De Inventione, L. 1. c. 52. |