Puritan Rhetoric: The Issue of Emotion in Religion

Strategies of Disposition

Strategies of Disposition 193 and experienced into the unknown and the unexperienced [1:12}, his use of homey and idiomatic expressions [1:11, 12; 2:5, 7], his reliance upon specific, action-carrying verbs, and his mastery of different modes, moods, and tempos such as exhortation, dehortation, advocacy, and exposition [1:1; 2:21; 4:1J. Although Gay employs some modern rhetorical touches, do you agree that Chauncy and Edwards are more modem in their style and composition [5:2, 3]? In general, do you flnd that the language patterns of our speakers are velY similar to those used by public speakers today? Stmtegies of Disposition Do our speakers tend to divide their speeches according to the traditional Puritan sermon format discussed in Part One: Text, Doctrine, Reasons, Application? In conformity to tradition set by the founders, do they design the Text-DoctrineReasons segments essentially to supply information and logical analYSis for the purpose of enabling the faenlty of the Understanding to render a rational judgment? Do they intend that only the Application segment should address the entire range of the faculties-Understanding, Will, and Affections? Or, do our speakers-including Gay-ignore the traditional dispositional disjunction of logic and emotions? That is, does Edwards -and Chauncy to a lesser extent-incorporate emotional proofs into his speeches at whatever places they will contribute to his argument? And, does Gay resist using emotional proofs even in the Application? Thus, so far as the logical-emotional tone is concerned, each of our speeches constitutes basically a dispositional unit? What functions do our speakers assign to the respective sermon parts [1:4; 2:21; 4:13; 5:6}? To what extent do they use the individual parts of the sermon as sequential steps in the persuasive process, i.e., as means of "opening" the listeners to accept the persuasion which is to follow in the succeeding parts [1:4; 2:1; 3:3; 4:2; 5:4, g]? Of the three speakers, would you agree that Edwards excels in the tightness, variety, and 194 INQumy general effectiveness by which he disposes his supporting arguments and materials [I:?, 11, 13; 2:3, 5, 14; 3:3, 4, 6, 8;' 4:lOJ? Would you agree that Edwards is the only one of our speakers to structure the individual parts of the speech in such a way that the development builds to one or more peaks of attention [1:1, 17; 2:21; 4:1, 12J? Do you find any genuine variation among the speakers in their use of signposts, transitions , and intemal summaries [1:3; 3:8; 5:12]? If we agree that the dispositional characteristics of the speeches conformed to the expectations of the audiences,. do you think that modem listeners would consider the speeches to be over-structured? The main heads and subheads to stand out intrusively? After consulting some current text in public speaking, do you consider that each of our speakers-in his own way-seems to represent a transitional stage between the traditional PUlitan method of disposing a speech and the methods of modem speakers [1:2,3; 2:1; 3:4,8; 4:2; 5:2,3,6,7, 12]? Notes Bibliography ...