anatomy as Grandville Sharp Patterson. His lisp, his accent, his enthusiasm were irresistible. I have myself never entirely surmounted my German accent. I presume that it is at times very conspicuous in the lecture-room. When Dr. Chalmers for the first time called upon Southey the latter nearly fell into fits when Chalmers uttered the word 'saxtain' for sixteen. He, however, speedily recovered from his depression when a few days afterward he heard Chalmers preach. He readily pardoned the barbarous pronunciation. He had never before listened to such pulpit oratory and enthusiasm. "A good, clear, resonant, well-modulated voice is a great lever in a lecture-room which seldom fails to command attention. I have known a number of teachers to fail because of their feeble voice. Slow and rapid speaking are both bad; the one fatigues and invariably causes drowsiness; the other overwhelms and confuses the speaker. Dunglison was always brim full of his subject, but he was monotonous, and did not sufficiently emphasize the great points of his discourse. Το make himself impressive, a lecturer must italicize, and not infrequently bring down his fist to give utterance to his subject. "Many of our professors are slow of speech, mumbling or muttering their words. To such men, whom God never intended for such positions, the language of Moses is applicable: 'O my Lord, I am not eloquent.' These men differ from Moses in this, that while he was assisted by his brother Aaron as his spokesman, they proceeded in a stammering and hesitating and halting way all their lives. "Many teachers lecture well in a conversational style-a style which I have myself never fancied, and which is only effective when it is associated with a good, strong voice, and commanding presence, such as are combined, for example, in Wendell Phillips. The most noisy and earnest lecturer I have listened to was Dr. Drake, who certainly was one of the most interesting and fascinating men in the presence of students whom I have ever heard. A good voice in a lecturer is to a medical class what the spur is to a rider, or a whip to a driver, calculated to keep alive the attention of the listener and to goad on the weary animal. "There is a wide difference between a good lecturer and a good teacher. A man may talk well, and express himself in the most eloquent and scholarly manner, and yet may fail to impart his knowledge. "The only genius I possess is the genius of industry. The position which I attained in my profession has been achieved by hard blows, by no special intellectual endowment, by no special gifts from God, by no special favor from man. For more than forty-two years I have been a most laborious student. My mind has ever been on the alert to gather information from every available source. I have been an incessant reader, and, I believe, not altogether a bad discoverer of nature. I have never lost sight of common sense or the results of an enlightened general and personal experience. "When I received my appointment as professor of pathological anatomy in the Cincinnati College I was thirty years of age. During the four months that preceded the opening of the course I not only made full notes, but wrote out, nearly in full, a number of my lectures, which I always delivered in great measure-indeed, often entirely-extemporaneously. After the first session I had acquired sufficient confidence to trust myself with 'heads,' as they are termed, and dispense with manuscript altogether-a circumstance which gave me more ease and freedom, and greatly improved my power of utterance as an effective teacher. "I have now taught surgery for forty years and during all this time I have spoken extemporaneously. The only didactic lecture, indeed, that I have written was one on 'Scrofula,' which I committed to the flames long ago. A man who understands his subject should never appear before his class with his manuscript. He should be so thoroughly imbued with it, should have everything so completely at his tongue's end—as to let off as if it was so much steam, glowing and puffing, and throwing himself heart and soul into his matter. No man can talk so as to enchain the thought of his pupils or make any permanent impression, if he reads his lecture. He is as one tied hand and foot, deprived of motion and power of expression." It is because of a belief that these vivid characterizations of Dr. Gross will prove helpful by way of contrast and comparison, to professional and public speakers-professors and pastors-to-day, that they have been gathered into this paper. T. E. S. ARTICLE VIII. THE DOUBLET.* In the present critical analysis of the Bible the theory of sources play a large part. It must, therefore, be considered on its own basis. But yet the full answer of the source-theory cannot be given before there is an examination of the so-called doublet or double report. The doublet not only aids the source hypothesis, but lies at its very foundation. The true doublet is a double account of the same fact. Such doublets are the creation story in Gen. 1 and 2, the parallels of the two decalogues, of accounts in Kings and Isaiah, in Samuel and Kings compared with Chronicles, the double relation of the words of the sermon on the mount in Matt. and Luke, the double report of the Lord's prayer, the feeding of the 5000 in the synoptists and John, the account of the Lord's Supper in the synoptists, etc. But the doublet is claimed not only where it occurs thus separated but also in accounts, where it was combined. Thus in the Pentateuch, we are told, we have the reverse of the condition of the gospels. In these the doublets are separate, in the Pentateuch the editor has welded them together. Thus e. g. Jacob according to one source (Gen. 28, 10-22) is fleeing, and like a Semite erects a cromlech. All is simple, real, and fits original conditions. But according to the other source (Gen. 35, 9-15) Jacob's god is called El Schaddai, reveals himself specially and give Jacob the name Israel. Here the tendency is late. The double account when combined mixes up mat *A brief extract from the third lecture delivered in the Evangelical Lutheran Seminary at Mt. Airy, Philadelphia, and in the Y. M. C. A., New York. Somewhat changed it forms a small part of Chapter VIII, "The Historical Proof" in my book "Biblical Criticism," now in course of publication by the General Council Publication Board, 1522 Arch street, Philadelphia. This part is first issued in "The Review," because the lectures were originally intended as articles for "The Review," whose editor encouraged me to undertake this work. ters, and combines motives. In the early simple story of Jacob he flees because of Esau's threat, in the other source Jacob goes away from home that he may not, like Esau, take two wives. The later account has passed through religious reflection, and from this point of view the editor sought to obscure the simple early account with its report of primitive religious conditions. In the story of Joseph, part of the analysis, as reported by Driver,* is this: "According to J, Judah dissuades his other brethren from carrying out their purpose, and induces them to sell Joseph to a caravan of Ishmaelites, who happened at that time to be passing by, on their way from Gilead to Egypt, and the Ishmaelites upon their arrival in Egypt, sell him as a slave to an Egyptian of rank. According to E. Reuben, Joseph's eldest brother, dissuades the others from carrying out their plan; at his suggestion they cast Joseph into a pit, and Midianite merchantmen, passing by, draw him out of the pit, without his brothers' knowledge, and sell him to Potiphar, the 'captain of the guard.'" While Driver allows for a "foundation in fact," yet he finds in this double account which runs all through Joseph's life a reason to say: "That it is difficult to deny that the narrative (like those of Ishmael and Jacob) has been colored in some details by later events" (p. 772). Beside such doublets in the life of one person, it is held that sometimes, as in the case of the denial of their wives by both Abraham and Isaac, the same story has been assigned to different persons. Thus Rylet says: "The great similarity between the story-though not harmonized-of the repudiation of Rebekah by Isaac at the court of Abimelech at Gerar, and the story of the repudiation of Sarah by Abraham, likewise at the court of Abimelech, king of Gerar, will have occurred to all readers. The Abraham narrative (Gen. 20) is from E; the Isaac narrative (Gen. 26, 1-11) is from J. It can hardly be doubted that the two traditions are different versions of the same event. "Here then evidently one source is wrong in its transferrence. The doublet is also worked in the New Testament. When Christ speaks of losing life to save it in Matt. *Hastings Bible Dict. II, p. 767. |