« PreviousContinue »
the pages of the book from which he had learned it; and that if anything had occurred to interrupt this illusion, he should have stopped instantly."
4. Adopt stringent measures for riveting your attention upon your sermon. Some men before attempting to store a sermon in the memory, discipline themselves upon a mathematical demonstration. Others, after having once recited a discourse in private, utter it in conversational tones to a friend. There are clergymen who have what Roger Ascham calls a "good memory," 2 and need nothing more in learning a sermon by heart than to rewrite it with care. In the simple process of transcribing it they so fasten their attention upon it, that they engrave it deeply on their minds, and can immediately preach it without, as easily as with, their manuscript. Seneca records of Portius Latro that he remembered everything which he had once written down; other men, thinking that what they have written is secure, pay no further attention to it, and forget it. There are clergymen who have no special gift of recollection, yet have such a love for the truths which they have arranged in a sermon, that they can attend to it with constant delight, and thus hold it with a quick and strong grasp in their memory. Here, as elsewhere, a pious heart is the source of true cloquence.
5. Cherish a hearty interest in the truth as the truth of God, and a trust in his Spirit, who will accompany his word with his blessing. Love to the truth facilitates the recollection of it. There is more reason for saying that a man will remember what he loves to remember, than for saying that he will believe what he loves to believe. Trust in God gives confidence in speaking of him, and this confidence frees the memory from confusion. Remembering himself, a man forgets his sermon. Concerned about his personal success, he learns slowly, and can no more retain what he has
1 Intellectual Powers (Harpers' edition), p. 92.
2" A good memory is well-known by three properties: that is, if it be quick in receyving, sure in keping, and redie in delivering furthe again" - Schole
learned than if he had eaten the lotus. A blunder in the pulpit perturbs him. If he care more for his subject than for his own fame, he will be serene amid all the mortifying mistakes which he may have made; he will not go back and correct an error for the mere purpose of saving his own reputation. A performer in the orchestra, if he mistake a note, need not go back and correct his error, protracting the jar. A racer who stumbles need not retrace his steps and show that he can run with a sure foot; for so he merely delays reaching the goal. If a minister's aim is to do good, rather than to speak well, he will not rectify his mistake, unless he have uttered either heresy or nonsense.
6. While committing your discourse to memory, aim to commit it for a lengthened period. This secret intention will have a secret though wonderful influence on the methods of associating your ideas. It connects them with great principles which will never be forgotten. It is like a sleight of hand, which works when it is not understood.
7. Commit your discourse to memory by short sections, rather than by attempting to learn the whole at once. The simpler the arrangement of the entire discourse, so much the more readily will it be remembered. One section, being devoted to a single train of thought, may be easily impressed on the mind, and will suggest the other sections with which it is indissolubly connected. The various sections, like the stones of an arch, may keep each other in place. Such men as Dräseke, having habituated themselves to the exercise, are enabled to repeat their sermons by reading them only once immediately before entering the pulpit. A clergyman "has often told me," says Dr. Beattie, "that when he commenced preaching, it was the labor of many days to get his sermon by heart, but that by long practice he has now improved his memory to such a pitch that he can by two hours' application fix one in his mind so effectually as to be able to recite it in public, without the change, omission, or transposition of the smallest word." But whatever may be said
1 Works, Vol. i. p. 74.
of experts in the art, the general truth is that the memory is weakened, rather than strengthened, by the attempt to gain in one effort the command of an entire sermon. Even Mr. Edward Everett, when he entered the clerical office, learned by heart only one page of his sermon at a time; when he left that profession he could learn the entire sermon by reading it over twice.
8. Although your main care should be to associate your ideas on philosophical principles, yet you need not altogether refuse the aid of a local or artificial memory. In every age men have made some use of some mnemonic system. They have often carried their artifices to a ridiculous and even injurious excess; but a wise man can derive some benefit from principles which have been sanctioned by Cicero and Quintilian. After justly disparaging the formal schemes of mnemonics, Schott insists on one method of bringing the eye into the service of the memory. He urges the importance of the preacher's writing his sermon on as little paper as is consistent with a clear, legible chirography, on his introducing no interlineations, marginal corrections, or erasures; marking
The earliest known system of artificial memory (Ars Memoriae) was invented, according to some, by Simonides of Ceos; according to others by Hippias of Elis. After its invention it was improved by Hippias, Metrodorus, and Theodectes. Aristotle wrote a work (now lost) upon the Mnemonic art. The Roman rhetoricians had their own Ars Mnemonica, associating the main topics of a discourse with the rooms (loci) of a house, and the subordinate topics with the articles (imagines) in each room. Jerome and Augustine allude to this device, although it does not appear that the Church Fathers practised it in their homilies. Thomas Aquinas also makes mention of it. Raymund Lulle, in the fourteenth century, prepared a new and scientific system of Mnemonics, Schenkel and Sommer in the sixteenth century introduced a modification of the Greek and Roman systems. Dieterich published at Hamburgh in 1696 a Mnemonic Art, especially adapted to preachers. About the beginning of the present century Gräffe wrote an Essay on the psychological principles of the art, as applicable to the pulpit; Aretin wrote his Treatise on "The true Idea and Use of Mnemonics" in 1804; on the theory of Mnemonics, in 1806; a similar work in 1810; Kästner published the second edition of his system of Mnemonics in 1805, and in 1826 was published his "Guide to the practice of committing sermons to memory quickly and surely." During the last fifty years the systems of Mnemonics have been multiplied in Germany, France, and England. See Schott's Theorie der Beredsamkeit, III. ss. 358-363.
the more important transitions by visible signs; underscoring the more suggestive words, and designating the most important phrases by double lines or lines of red ink; dividing the sermon into conspicuous paragraphs; and thus making the entire manuscript a picture of the entire train of thought, using the places and images of the chirography as the ancients used the rooms and furniture of the house.1
9. Take your manuscript with you into the pulpit. You may need it for security, even if you do not need it for safety. It may serve the same purpose as a rope to an expert climber on the Matterhorn, or a life-preserver to an athletic swimmer in the sea. Even a Garrick, who is called to repeat only a few passages, and those perhaps for the hundredth time, has an assistant who may prompt him if he err. In the general, an American divine will not pronounce an entire discourse from memory, except on some rare occasion. For the sake of memorizing a scene, he may commit to memory his sermon. Being unaccustomed to the effort, the knowledge that his manuscript is near him may prevent his own perturbation of mind, and may relieve his hearers from suspense. Mr. Albert Barnes, when called to address a distinguished assembly at a signal time, laid his notes upon the open Bible, and then recited his sermon memoriter. He thus manifested a respect for his hearers, and kept them, as well as himself, at ease. Hortensius, who at evening recollected all the articles purchased during an entire day, all the prices paid for them, and the names of all the purchasers at a public sale which he attended, might speak hour after hour without the danger of needing a parchment; but he is not a standard for other men.
10. In applying any rule for preaching memoriter, consult your own idiosyncrasies. If you do not follow them, you ought to notice them, and adapt the rule in a greater or less degree
1 Theorie der Beredsamkeit, Band III. ss. 364, 365. Dr. Beattie in his Treatise on Memory devotes three pages to the mode of penmanship "most expedient for those who write with a view to ascertain their knowledge and improve their minds"-Works, Vol. i. pp. 37-40, 70.
to them. Some rhetoricians prescribe that a man who is to preach memoriter should familiarize himself with his discourse immediately before he enters the pulpit; but there are clergymen who would so overburden their memory by this labor that they would hesitate and falter in their pulpit effort. Other rhetoricians prescribe that he should not oppress his retentive power by mentally reciting his discourse. on the day of his public repetition of it; but there are men who could not recollect their sermon unless they had disciplined themselves by mentally rehearsing it immediately before preaching it. Let every one be fully persuaded in his own mind. The general rule is that a man should preach with his eyes open; but there is an impressive pulpit orator in Germany who cannot preserve the mastery over his thoughts unless his eyes be closed. Charles Butler says: "It is remarkable that Bourdaloue, who had no action, and spoke, though distinctly, very rapidly, with his eyes almost closed and with little inflection of voice, was a decided advocate for the sermon's being prepared with great attention, learned by heart, and exactly spoken as it was committed to paper; while Massillon, whose action was both elegant and vehement, and Father de la Rue, more celebrated for action than any other preacher in France, maintained the contrary opinion. Father Segaud (himself a preacher of eminence), thought Fenelon's sermons were evidently the worse for their want of preparation. He admitted that they contained splendid and beautiful passages, but thought the effect of them was destroyed by the weakness of other passages. Father Segaud, however, listened to Fenelon with the cool attention of a critic. The flock of Fenelon heard him with other ears. To them he was the good shepherd, who knew his flock, whom his flock knew, and whose voice they loved."1
1 Life of Fenelon, pp. 203, 204.