–Descartes, Rules, I

Effective paragraphs share two characteristics, cohesion and coherence.  Effective curriculum must equip students with the ability or skill set to craft cohesive, coherent paragraphs as a matter of course.  These two abilities should be automatic, almost unconscious on the part of the student.  The Progymnasmata uses a pedagogy that instills these skills, a manner of thinking that by its implementation assures both cohesion within the communication and coherence within the paragraph.  What follows will briefly define cohesion and coherence then discuss how crafting paragraphs using classical pedagogy insures effective paragraphs in our students’ writings.

Cohesion occurs when each paragraph develops the thesis of the communication.  In other words when each paragraph relates back to the central idea of the writing the communication hangs together and readers are able to follow a rational line of thinking.  Longer or more complex writing will have layers of argumentation but cohesion will still occur within subsections and all the subsection will develop the thesis.  Paragraphs may also digress from the thesis and thus have little or no cohesion but if used artfully provide a needed “break” from the train of thought and actually help to reengage an audience.  Digressions by their very nature “prove” the essential nature of cohesion created by the paragraphs in a communication by drawing a reader away from the thesis for brief moment only to reengage with new vigor.

Coherence, when all the thoughts in the paragraph form a unity of persuasion, may be achieved in one of two ways.  A single argument (called a topic sentence in Modern Composition Theory) and accompanying heads of development (also called support) derived or crafted by the writer from the argument creates the simplest and clearest form of coherence.  In this case the complete thought as expressed in the topic sentence is demonstrated through various forms of paraphrase and narrative—the thought is “supported”—in hopes of engaging the imagination of the reader and persuading the reader the thought or argument is true.  A second manner of achieving coherence is to use several closely related arguments in crafting the paragraph.  For the student of classical Rhetoric the relation of these arguments are found in the Common or Special Topic from which they were derived.  In such a case two, three, or four arguments used in a paragraph may create coherence if they are all derived from a Common Topic such as definition or consequence; or a if they are all derived from a Special Topic such as expedience or propriety.

For example, a paragraph like the one immediately above has a single argument and two general affirmative narratives (called “causes” by Aphthonius in his Chreia and Maxim exercises.  The argument, which might have been derived from the Topic of consequence or of possibility, is that coherence is created in one of two ways.  The two condensed narratives are the two ways to create coherence.  If we analyze the two ways to create coherence we find both demonstrations contain Aristotle’s three components of Plot (Recognition (the argument being demonstrated), Reversal (going from no argument to an argument), and Suffering (granted the suffering is inferred and not well articulated but quickly acknowledged by anyone who has written paragraphs and struggled to write them well).  Further the six components of Plot structure: Agents (the nouns), Action (verbs), Time (verb tense), Place (inferred), Manner (adverbs), and Cause (the argument being demonstrated) may also be found in the two demonstrations.

The progymnasmata equips students with these explicit skills and as a result they have the liberty of consciously creating or crafting coherent paragraphs.  Of course, these liberally educated students also have the flow of intuition or subconscious at their disposal but they are not slaves to it.  After an intuitive flow of ideas they have the knowledge to consciously analyze their creation and correct deficiencies or improve on “inspiration.”

Relying on inspiration is one of the most significant weaknesses I have found in gifted writers who come to Whitefield late without training in the progymnasmata.  As a result they regularly write incoherent paragraphs.  I believe this occurs because they trust their naturally ability and the flow of thoughts it provides.  As a result they have no explicit standards for evaluating coherence.  They may be aware of or at least sense a relationship between the diverse ideas in their paragraph because the ideas all flowed out together.  It is a different story for the reader who is left in a muddle over a relationship not at all obvious from the text itself.  Training in the Progymnasmata virtually eliminates this weakness.  A writer would have to work at crafting an incoherent paragraph.

Cohesion then occurs when writers creating or craft an argument for a paragraph (a topic sentence) by focusing specifically on the thesis using one of the Heads of Purpose or a Topic.  This crafting and its accompanying demonstration or support falls under the Canon of Invention in Classical Discourse Theory.  Mastering this canon equips writers with the skill to find all possible arguments for and against a theses or a matter under consideration.  The genius behind this comprehensive skill lies in the freedom it creates for the writer.  Only when one has all the arguments at one’s disposal is one free to choose the best arguments to use either in confirmation or refutation.  Pragmatically, given 40 minutes to write an essay for the College Boards the canon of invention equips students to generate 5 or 10 arguments in the first few minutes of planning the essay from which two or three may be chosen and developed in order to create a cohesive, coherent composition that is engaging and thoughtful and that demonstrates the students’ skills in argumentation and their command of the language.  When more time is available to the students they are able to discover a larger quantity of arguments and are thus able to write more interesting or more thoughtful essays, reports, etc.  When an entire semester is available for research or discovery all of the arguments may well be found by the diligent student and the appropriate ones chosen usually resulting a far higher quality of argumentation and development.  Though quality is central to our purpose one should not overlook the pragmatic benefit this skill set provides a college or graduate student.  I regularly receive emails from former students who tell me they are able to complete writing assignments in a fraction of the time it takes their peers.  Such a savings in time is an immense gift to overworked academics.

Thus it is with us that the teacher, in order to adapt himself to others, divides into many points the knowledge which he possesses in the universal.
–Aquinas, Summa, Part 1, Q. 106.

Learning to write requires time…a great deal of time. The comments above by two great thinkers help us understand why time is a key aspect of successful mastery of the craft of composition. First, a goal of Liberal Education includes moral formation, requiring the development of virtues such as persistence and attention. Writing instruction is foundational to Liberal Education for this characteristic of requiring labor rather than natural gifting for mastery. Second, writing is a “big” skill with “many points of knowledge.” This blog will examine how curriculums based in either Modern Composition or Process Theory approach writing instruction in relation to writing a sentence, a paragraph, and a composition, and then compare them with a progymnasmata curriculum based in Classical Language Theory.

Process theory assumes the skill of writing a sentence as a natural, intuitive skill possessed by all children. A further assumption is made that for the many students who struggle with sentence creation, simply engaging in the process will bring forth the ability. Given these assumptions explicit instruction would interfere with the natural creativity of the student and must be avoided. Rather students are given paper and pen and told to write whatever comes to them; to “guess and go.” I find the theory elegant and wish with all my heart it were so but it is not so. Some years ago (before I knew better) my daughter, after a year of Kindergarten instruction along these lines, scored significantly lower on the year-end assessment than she had at the beginning of the year. A significant percentage of students share my daughter’s experience and all these “ugly little facts” put the lie to this elegant theory. Classical pedagogy, which requires explicit instruction, insists that the process of sentence creation can be broken down into less complex sub skills, taught to all students, and then mastered by those same students through exercising within multiple contexts requiring deep cognitive engagement.

Modern Composition theory does teach explicitly. Grammar—parts of speech, syntax, verb/subject agreement, etc.—are the “points” of the skill of sentence creation. In theory, this approach should work. In practice it does not. I do not fully understand why it does not work but would venture the thought that these grammar skills are decoding skills—analytical in nature—rather then encoding skill—synthetic in nature—and are used in different parts of the brain making their use as writing skills inefficient and even ineffective. When we look at a classical curriculum we note a radically different approach. The skill of sentence creation begins with paraphrase. In other words students are not asked to create a complete thought but rather are given a complete thought and taught to “manipulate” that thought in a variety of ways. The points of classical instruction are not abstract or “universal” grammatical concepts but the simpler, concrete, and particular concepts of words and figures. These points include word substitution, word rearrangement, subtraction or addition of words (phrases and clauses), as well as variation of rhythm and tone.

Classical pedagogy contains a myriad of specific skills simply around instruction in sentence writing. One begins to appreciate the need for time if we expect our students to master the skill of composing complete, elegant, and effective thoughts—sentences. Of course sentences are a critical sub skill in the art of writing. When this sub skill is rushed or worse, assumed, we should not be shocked that such a large percentage of children struggle with composition. The need for time will become ever more manifest as the next blog considers the crafting of paragraphs and whole compositions.

–Descartes, Rules, I

I was recently asked how Classical Composition prepared students for college writing courses that might be based upon or assume the “The Six Trait Writing Model.” I have copied the information below about the Six Trait Writing Model from the following website: http://www.writing-smart.com/six-traits-of-writing.html. I have then followed each trait with italicized comments to explain how such traits are developed in Classical Composition.

The Six Trait Writing Model comprises the following traits:

• Ideas and Content. The message the writer conveys, what the writer has to say. This should be fresh and original, unique to the writers’ personal experience. The content should contain details to support the main message.

The ability to create original arguments and develop them with persuasive detail are taught in the Refutation/Confirmation, Common Topic, Encomium/Invective/Comparison, and Thesis/Law stages. The ability to develop or support arguments are taught in the Chreia/Maxim stages.

• Word Choice. Words that are precise and accurate. The writer should use strong action verbs and descriptive adjectives.
  

This trait is taught in several ways.   First, the weekly sentence variation exercises impart a profound facility with language.  Second, students master Figures of Description and Figures of Speech which teaches them precision in word choice.  Finally, the Characterization and Description stages specifically teach two different types of Style, of which word choice. or diction. is a vital component.  All of these exercises equip students with a wide range of choices and increased flexibility in their diction, including the ability to use strong action verbs and descriptive adjectives.

• Conventions. Punctuation, grammar, spelling, capitalization, paragraph structure. These elements should be used to make the writing content easy to read, accessible to the reader, and provide a smooth ride.

Also referred to as Writing Mechanics.  Students in Classical Composition are writing daily and have constant exercise in using proper mechanics of punctuation, grammar, spelling, capitalization, and paragraph structure.

• Voice. The unique personality of the writer. The reader should get a sense that a real, truthful person is writing the content, is behind the words and meanings on the page.

Classical Composition equips students with the ability to create their own thoughts, arguments and support from within their own internalized set of writing skills, allowing them to communicate their own unique personality in their compositions.

• Sentence Fluency. The ability to create smooth flow and rhythm of the sentence structure. The fluency of short vs. long sentences should carry the reader along seamlessly.

Sentence fluency, as is Word Choice, are aspects of what is called Style in classical composition theory. The Refutation/Confirmation, Characterization, and Description stages specifically exercise a student’s mastery of simple, complex, compound, and compound-complex sentences. The smooth flow, rhythm and fluency of a student’s sentence construction is ensured as the students learn to create sentences (complete thoughts) based upon the relationship of the ideas in each sentence.

• Organization. The overall logical and efficient structure of the content. The introduction of the plot or theme, the build-up, the climax, and the resolution should all be introduced and addressed with proper timing and balance.

Also referred to as Arrangement in classical composition theory, this skill is taught throughout all fourteen stages of the curriculum.

–Hegel, The Philosophy of Right,III. Additions 97 (151)

Definitions:

Cohesive–Of thought, speech, reasoning, etc.: Of which all the parts are consistent, and hang well together.  For our purposes cohesive refers to a composition with a single purpose, that is, it argues a single thesis.  The argumentation may well be complex with various lines of discourse or it may be a simple five-paragraph essay but a single thesis is argued.

Coherent– ‘To be well connected; to follow regularly in the order of discourse’ (Johnson).  Again, for our purposes, coherence refers to paragraph structure and denotes that all thought within the paragraph develops either a single argument or a single topic of argument.

On demand—the ability to write when called upon and if the writer finds a lack of inspiration or intuitive flow is able to craft a clear, persuasive and pleasing composition.

When a student has mastered the Refutation/Confirmation stage she is equipped to write cohesive, coherent essays on demand.  In common parlance the student is able to generate or create “topic sentences” using Heads of Purpose (Topics) which argue the thesis.  The student has learned to “Invent” these topic sentences or arguments by considering the thesis of the composition in light of the several Topics.  This process insures cohesion within the composition as each topic sentence derived from the single thesis.   Because the student generates arguments by a learned skill they are not depend upon “flow” or intuition she is limited only by time relative to the number of paragraphs she can compose.  Any intuitive flow of ideas which occur remain available to the student once the ideas are checked with the thesis to insure the argument supports the thesis.

The student then develops or “supports” each topic sentence using the Heads of Development mastered in the Chreia/Maxim stages, Heads of Purpose derived from the same Topic, or a combination thereof.  Again, coherence within the paragraph is assured by the mental process of crafting or generating the support.  The student may consider the topic sentence (argument) of the paragraph in light of the eight Heads of Development in order to create supporting narratives of various types from analogies to examples, as well as citations and paraphrases of the argument.  Or the student may create a more complex coherence by using multiple arguments from the same Head or Topic and adding Heads of Development as is appropriate.   Once more, available time determines the length and complexity of the paragraphs rather than any natural gifting or lack thereof.

An introductory paragraph has also been learned at this point in the curriculum.  Several credit or discredit statements with suitable enhancement techniques along with a clear thesis sentence make up this serviceable structure and, once again, may be crafted with the use of mastered skills.  The students will learn two more types of introductory paragraphs in the stages to come but there is no need to delay having students write compositions based on their reading or other classes.

The concluding paragraph will be constructed by restating the thesis and paraphrasing the most persuasive arguments used as topic sentences in the essay.  If it is a five-paragraph essay then all three arguments should be included through paraphrasing.

Mastery of Refutation/Confirmation usually occurs near the end of the seventh or beginning of the eighth grade year and from that point on students are equipped with the skill necessary to write coherent and cohesive essays.  As teachers we have not assumed any of the skills necessary for this writing task, on the contrary these skills have been carefully and thoroughly imparted to and internalized by the students.  These essays serve to reinforce the skills and allow for more complex thinking on the part of our students that writing often engenders.

–Epictetus, Discourses, Bk 3.9

Style: Characterization and Description

Aphthonius states, “Characterization is developed in a style that is clear, concise, colorful, unconstrained, not intricate or figurative. Instead of heads, you will divide into the three times – present, past and future.”[1] Clarity and conciseness are achieved by the use of a Topic sentence (Head of Purpose) (always simple in construction-a single subject and a single predicate, i.e. a single clause) with abbreviated heads of development and by adhering to a minimal word count.  Colorful style will be achieved by developing each thought–topic or head–with the use of paraphrase.  Unconstrained, not intricate or figurative style is achieved by the elegance and speed of simplicity, that is, by the absence of either figures of description or figures of speech.

By mastering this skill of clarity, conciseness, and color our students learn a style of writing.  They are the masters of the style not slaves to style.  If we taught them nothing else they would not have a choice in the style of their expressions.  We will teach them another style in the Progymnasmata with Description, thus equipping them with the ability to make a choice regarding their discourse, achieving once again a goal of liberal education–freedom.  When these student enter Rhetoric they will understand the concept of Style and building on the two diverse styles they have mastered will be able to learn through analysis, imitation, and repetition a wide variety of patterns of expression utilized by great contemporary and past writers.   Rather than be imprisoned by their personal “Voice,” which is nothing more than their innate or natural abilities, no matter how gifted, they will be freed (“liberalized”) to use whatever Voice is necessary to reach the hearts and minds of their audiences thus allowing them to make a difference in the shaping of their communities.

A well known example of this type of discourse is the eighth chapter of Proverbs.  Of course this material is not an exercise so its structure is different but there are striking similarities.  The continual use of paraphrase, as in the exercise, is interesting and the other heads of development are easily identified.  Additionally, the basic outline of present, past and future is utilized in this chapter of Proverbs.

I promised I would alert you to some interesting articles written by two respected scholars, Manfred Kraus and Marjorie Woods.  I have not been able to read Dr. Woods article at this point, although she has recently published an extraordinary book, Classroom Commentaries: Teaching the Poetria nova across Medieval and Renaissance Europe, that every classical educator would find beneficial.  Dr. Kraus’s article, “Rehearsing the Other Sex: Impersonation of Women in Ancient Classroom Ethopoeia,” raises questions and suggests a solution regarding the fact that somewhere between 25% and 30% of all extant male student exercises of Characterization (also known as Ethopoeia) had females as the subject.  Dr. Kraus deals in a thorough and delightful manner with the issue and reasonable concludes, “…they could  not be allowed to display violent grievous, timid or pitiful emotions in their own persons, for this would have evoked danger of effeminacy.  Thus ethopoeia imposes itself as a convenient means of saying things and expressing feelings one cannot say or express in one’s own person.”  The value in creating choice and innovation in the style a writer chooses is enhanced by understanding and expressing ideas from new perspectives.  Characterization provides for students to stretch their imaginations, putting themselves in new places and learning to write accordingly.

–Euripides, Iphigenia at Aulis

The next two stages of Aphthonius’ curriculum, Characterization and Description, focus on the skills of Style–the third Cannon of Rhetoric.  We will come back to these two fascinating stages in our next blog, discussing not only Style but the interesting observations made by Manfred Kraus (University of Tubingen) and Marjorie Woods (University of Texas-Austin) concerning the subjects of Characterization in extant manuscripts.

Turning to the final two stages, Thesis and Law, Aphthonius directs his instruction to deliberative communication–arguing what will or will not be in the future.  The thirteenth and fourteenth stages of exercises hone the reasoning skills through the mastery of counter-points or what in contemporary parlance might be called “qualification.” Students learn to consciously invent arguments that will likely be used by their opponents and then to resolve or “demolish” these arguments with their argumentation and development.  These stages provide the students with a plethora of opportunities to create arguments using the heads of purpose (Invention) and to demonstrate these arguments using the heads of development thus engaging not only the intellect but the imagination of their audience.

The efficiency and effectiveness of the progymnasmata is striking.  Students, while they are building the foundation of Invention, Arrangement and Style, also learn of the three modes of speech–judicial, epideictic, and deliberative–with their special arguments and styles of speech.  Students master these skills not because of special language arts gifting but because the skills are divided into explicit sub-skills, presented in an engaging manner, and assessed by a teacher in an objective, straight forward manner that never leaves a student with the slightest doubt as to what is wrong with a composition and how to corrected it.  This shared knowledge by student and teacher of the explicit skills of writing in each of its larger components accounts for the effectiveness of the curriculum.  Past and present experience attests to this effectiveness.  We find few if any complaints in the past about students who, having received an education, cannot write well, while at Whitefield Academy in Kansas City, every graduating senior–100%–since 2005 (when the essay was introduced on the ACT college entrance exam) has been able to produce cohesive and coherent essays on demand.  We, as teachers in the twenty-first century, are indeed fortunate to once again “follow” this virtuous curriculum’s footsteps.

–Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 4, Sec. 3

After Invention students learn Arrangement or the ability to place material (arguments, development, narration, encomium or invective, digression, etc.) in the most effective manner depending upon purpose and audience.  Aphthonius’ Progymnasmata follows a similar progression.  Common Topic uses exercises that teach students or organize material for forensic (judicial) communications.  As mentioned previously forensic communication persuades as to what was or was not (past).  Students continue to exercise their skills of invention and development through narration under six “Heads” used to structure their writing.  Common Topic exercises seek to persuade an imaginary jury to appropriately punish general types of evil-doers such as tyrants, drunk drivers, and surprisingly, one of the favorite topics—students who cheat. The Heads or categories of composition in this exercise become standard pieces of any forensic rhetorical event useful in any and all situations. Students continue developing their skill in the creation of effective exordiums with an adumbrated prologue which includes a thesis statement, and two arguments or heads of purpose supporting the thesis. The adumbrated prologue is followed by three Heads, the “contrary,” which is a general story, the “exposition,” which is a particular story told in the first person, and a “comparison,” which is an analogy in story form. These three Heads are followed by three more which are formed using arguments: “intention,” which calls into question motivation, “digression,” conjecturally abusing the subject’s past, and “rejection of pity” by juxtaposition. A concluding category is constructed with all six heads of purpose in a single paragraph.  Common Topic reinforces and varies the skills mastered in the previous stages at the same time that students learn how to arrange their material in the most effective manner. Though explicit and focused, students find this exercise a creative and wide open expression of their thoughts. It is one of the most popular of the Progymnasmata.

The next stages, Encomium, Invective, and Comparison continue instruction in Arrangement now focused on Epideictic communication—persuading as to what is or is not.   If Refutation and Confirmation are the most difficult stages these three are the most sophisticated.  In fact, formal Rhetoric instruction will add nothing to what the students learn at this point.  As they learn to structure their material they continue to invent arguments and develop them reinforcing previous skills using new contexts requiring them to think deeply about what they write.  They must utilize and integrate heads of development as the exercises lead them in moving back and forth from particular to general.  The introductory paragraph for these exercises is the most complex yet. It includes, as the previous exercise did, a thesis and two arguments but then it reaches back to the earlier Chreia/Maxim stages and uses encomiums with the application of “heighteners.”  The Introduction is followed by the Birth or Origin paragraphs, which develops the students ability to alternate enthymeme and example around the categories first of Place and then of Time. Paragraphs on Education and on Achievement follow that teach students three subtle categories that stretch their reason and imagination.  A  Comparison, further strengthening their analogical thinking, precedes a concluding Epilogue consisting of a brief restatement of their original thesis.

–John Locke, Wealth of Nations, 5.1

Now Classical Discourse Theory turns thoroughly practical.  Students learn language master using the Five Canons of Rhetoric.  The most difficult task of any writer is Invention or the creation of arguments and their support or demonstration.  In other words Classical theory both requires and equips teachers to impart to their students the ability to generate a plethora of arguments at will regardless of the Muses’ presence or absence.  There is nothing wrong with inspiration or intuition when writing but when it is late at night and a paper is due the next morning students have to be able to craft a clear, cohesive composition whether they feel it or not.  This is called the craft of writing and any student can master this craft with proper instruction.  Classical Language Theory provides this instruction for creating arguments through the first Canon of Rhetoric–Invention.  The second and third Canons, Arrangement and Style, equip students with the ability to write to purposefully and persuasively to a variety of audiences.

The first six stages of the Progymnasmata (and Classical Composition) train the mind to invent arguments.  The curriculum begins with Fable and Narrative and teaches students to begin the mental processes of focusing their thoughts in a particular manner in order to come up with or invent ideas and thoughts.  The invention of arguments proper will be taught in Refutation and Confirmation but that extremely difficult task takes the preparation for the first four stages if all students are to be equipped regardless of their innate ability.  One of the many geniuses of this curriculum is its dependence not upon the gifting of students but rather its success lay in the willingness of students to apply themselves to the exercises.

In Refutation and Confirmation the students will learn how to invent arguments or what Aphthonius says is the “full force of the art.”  They will achieve this massive skill by limiting the number of categories or “topics” to six.  When the student gets to formal Rhetoric she will be introduced to and master 35-40 topics allowing for immense creativity.  We see here the genius of the Progymnasmata in using a limited but innovative repertoire to teach a way of thinking (quality) which allows for the adding a wide variety of Common and Special Topics (quantity) in Rhetoric.  Attempting to teach 40 Topics at once overwhelms and frustrates students.

What is the first business of him who philosophizes? To throw away self-conceit. For it is impossible for a man to begin to learn that which he thinks that he knows–Epictetus, Discourses, Book 2, Chpt. 17

Classical Language Theory is comprehensive. This comprehensiveness, as well as its cohesion and coherence, derives from the universal use, development and perfection of the theory over two and a half millennia by the West. This use, development, and perfection has occurred in hugely different cultures during both radical changes and long periods of stability. Classical theory accounts for all components of a discourse in great detail with great clarity. Having accounted for purpose, also referred to as “class” of communications (cf. previous blog), the theory turns to the modes of communication—ethos, pathos and logos. The relationship between the curriculum promoted on this web site—Classical Composition—and Classical Language theory is thoroughly and rigorously derived from the Progymnasmata (a Greek term meaning the “Before Exercises”) and more explicitly from Aphthonius’ group of exercises. The Progymnasmata holds an indispensible, fundamental, and universal place in the pedagogy of Classical Discourse Theory.

Ethos refers to the speaker and what he brings in his person. So a speaker’s facial expressions or bodily gestures adds to or takes away from his persuasion. A speaker’s humor or lack of it, his attire whether formal or informal, all affects the speaker’s ethos. Even a speaker or writer’s mastery of language when displayed in his choice of Style adds or detracts from his ethos. One significant benefit supplied by the Progymnasmata is the confidence it instills in young writers. Confidence derives, of course, from mastery, and when a student knows he controls his own writing process and that excellence may be achieved with the application of his skills, his self-esteem rests on a solid foundation. This confidence adds in subtle ways to the weight of a writer or speaker’s ethos.

Pathos refers to the audience and its emotional response in the discourse. Pathos is largely driven by imagination and the ability of the hearer or reader’s imagination to engage in the discourse. So we see Jesus constantly telling parables (general narratives) to demonstrate his arguments, thus engaging the imaginations of his hearers. The Progym works diligently in equipping writers with the tools necessary to consistently engage an audience’s imagination. These tools stretch from argumentation and development to style and arrangement.

Logos refers to the material—whether oral or written—of the event. [After purpose or class is established the question of modes arises.] The Progymnasmata imparts skills primarily concerned with logos—creating a multiplicity of arguments allowing writers a wide array of choices for their composition, such as the creative development of support, the effective arrangement of material, and the persuasive use of multiple styles.

However, the three modes, like the Trivium itself, are closely intertwined. We divide them in order to conceptualize discreet skills and instruct efficiently and effectively, but as skills in one mode are mastered, a student’s ability in the other modes increase as well. For example, when we teach students to create arguments, they learn to create arguments from all sides of a question. This ability teaches them not only a writing skill, but also the character skill of critical thinking. This ability to effectively argue the opponent’s side of an issue (counter points),  and then show why the opponent’s arguments are inadequate, builds tremendous ethos for the speaker.

Over the next several weeks I would like discuss the place of Classical Discourse Theory in my second decade of experience teaching students to write and other teachers to teach writing. I claim no exceptional abilities (as my own writing vividly attests) other than a stubbornness to accept nothing less from a writing pedagogy than mastery through labor, which every student may achieve, rather than mastery through inherited skill, which only twenty to thirty percent of students may achieve. When as educators, we are able to explicitly teach clear, distinct, vertically integrated skills, then I have found without exception the truth of the German proverb “Practice makes the master.”

Actually, my stubbornness also extends to an insistence that writing mastery be obtained without tears. My serendipitous discovery of the Progymnasmata began over twelve years ago when, as a new Headmaster of a classical school, I saw several fourth grader in tears as they attempted to complete a writing assignment. I determined to find a better way. Many of my own students might vehemently deny I have a heart, let along a soft heart, but try as I might to hide it, I do. Thanks be to God, Aphthonius’ writing curriculum dropped into our laps, and we have, literally not had a tear since! I vividly recall a new fourth grade teacher coming to me at a Christmas luncheon and with astonishment telling me her student’s favorite subject was writing. Success!