William Atkinson - The Essential Works of William Walker Atkinson - 50+ Books in One Edition

III. Let your Introduction appear easy and natural, rather than labored or stilted. The conversational tone is effective, and tends to establish a feeling of intimacy between speaker and hearers. Cicero says that “The Introduction must appear to have sprung up of its own accord from the matter under consideration.” He held that in preparing an address or speech, the Introduction should not be composed until the later steps of the discourse have been completed, or at least until the succeeding steps of the argument are fully planned out and digested. In this way, he held, the Introduction will be full and complete, and in perfect harmony with the thought and words to follow it. This advice is approved by some of the best later authorities.

IV. While you should arouse interest and curiosity by your Introduction, you should avoid claiming too much at this stage, or promising too much. It is well to exercise a little modesty here, for if you create expectations which you cannot realize, or make statements which you afterward fail to “make good” you create a feeling of disappointment, doubt and impression of failure. It is well to be bold and positive in your opening claims, but this is far different from making claims which cannot be substantiated. Better a “measure heaped full and running over” of fulfilment, than “a sky-rocket introduction and a falling-stick finish.”

V. Avoid passionate appeal, vehemence, or strong feeling in the beginning. It is far better to appear to be laboring under repressed feeling and emotion, than to burst into feeling at the start. Save your emotion and feeling for later steps. The minds of your hearers should be led step by step toward strong feeling or passionate appeal. If, however, the nature of the subject is one allied to passionate feeling, the latter may be subtly suggested in the beginning, and then apparently held back for the appeal to reason.

VI. Never anticipate a material argument, or effective point of your argument, in your Introduction. You waste your powder by failing to observe this precept. Confine yourself to general statements in your opening, and save your heavy ammunition until the stage in which it will count.

VII. Measure your Introduction by your main discourse. Do not preface a short, argumentative discourse by a long Introduction, nor a long discourse by a trifling Introduction. As an authority has said: “The Introduction should be accommodated, both in length and character, to the discourse that is to follow; in length, as nothing can be more absurd than to erect an immense vestibule before a diminutive building; and in character, as it is no less absurd to overcharge with superb ornaments the portico of a plain dwelling-house, or to make the entrance to a monument as gay as that to an arbor.”

The Division of an Argument is that step in the discourse in which the speaker states the general method or plan of argument to be followed, and the heads or divisions of the subject of the discourse. This step of the Argument is often omitted, particularly in cases in which the nature of the argument confines it to one or more leading points. Some of the best authorities advise speakers to omit this step of argument wherever possible, citing the tiresome and tedius practice of the old-time preacher with his interminable “heads” and “divisions”—his “thirdly” and “fourthly”—as a horrible example. But even if this step be omitted, the speaker should observe a formal plan of division and method in his address.

Quackenbos says: “A formal Division is used more frequently in the sermon than in any other species of composition; but it has been questioned by many whether the laying down of heads, as it is called, does not lessen, rather than add to, the effect. The Archbishop of Cambray, in his Dialogues on Eloquence, strongly condemns it, observing that it is a modern invention, which took its rise only when metaphysics began to be introduced into preaching; that it renders a sermon stiff and destroys its unity; and is fatal to oratorical effect. It is urged on the other hand, however, that a formal division renders a sermon more clear by showing how all the parts hang on each other and tend to one and the same point, and thus makes it more impressive and instructive. The heads of a sermon, moreover, are of great assistance to the memory of the hearer; they enable him to keep pace with the progress of the discourse, and afford him resting places whence he can reflect on what has been said, and look forward to what is to follow.”

The best of the modern authorities seem to incline to the opinion that instead of employing a formal statement of the Division to be followed in the discourse, the speaker would better suggest the division and heads of his discourse in his Statement , not technically or formally, but incidentally—the suggestion being expressed by the order observed in the various points in the Statement. But this does not relieve the speaker from observing the rules of the Division in preparing his discourse, making his notes (if he uses this method), and of mentally arranging and classifying his subject. The following rules are approved by some of the best authorities:

I. Let the division between the various parts or sub-divisions be distinct —avoid the common error of including one sub-division in another.

II. Let the division be natural, and along the natural “lines of cleavage” or separation, rather than artificial classification.

III. Let each division or sub-division include and exhaust its entire subject-matter. Leave no “loose ends” or “unclassified residuum.”

IV. Let your divisions and sub-divisions be sufficiently general and large to avoid a tedious and unnecessary multiplication of heads.

V. Let the division follow the arrangement of first the simplest points , and then the more difficult ons arising from the former— always rising from the simple toward the complex or difficult.

Other rules bearing upon the question of Division will appear in connection with the subject of the Statement, which follows.

The Statement of an Argument is that step in the discourse in which the general and leading facts of the subject of discourse are presented briefly for the consideration of the hearer. There is quite a difference between the various authorities regarding the value of, and most effective method of presenting, the Statement. Some hold that the Statement should form a part of the Introduction, if not indeed superseding the latter; while others incline to the idea herein favored, i e., that it is advisable to first attract the attention of the hearers by a short Introduction, before proceeding to a formal presentation of the Statement.

Sheppard says: “It is unwise to weary the imagination of the hearer, because you are sure by that means to weary his muscles and sinews. It will weary his imagination to be told at the start what you propose to accomplish before you stop. It will weary him to tell him that after you have done so and so you will do so and so, and then so and so, and finally and in conclusion, so and so. Go on and do it. Say your say and be done with it. Never say: ‘Before I pass to the preliminary remarks, by way of preface to the introduction to the first head of my sixteen heads, I wish to remark, in the first place, that—but, by the way, before I pass to that, I wish to say that, etc.’” The same writer quotes approvingly the criticism that the late Moses Stuart preached a sermon in which he (1) “occupied a large part of an hour telling his audience what he was not going to preach about, of errors he was not going to combat; giving (2) a sketch of the heresies alluded to; (3) a few strokes designed to show how easily they could be demolished if he should take the time, and (4) the real instruction for unlearned hearers who cared nothing for exploded theories, was summed up in a few paragraphs.”