Would someone explain to me...

[Guest]

the Classical model of writing and why it is superior to modern methods? I don't even know what modern methods are.

[Trivium Academy]

The very simple quick answer: The "modern" version is a watered-down version of the progymnasmata which was taught for centuries. Modern writing contains these elements:

• cause/effect essay
  
• comparision/contrast essay
  
• definition essay
  
• description essay
  
• narration essay
  
• persuasive essay
  
• process analysis essay

but it is not in the tradition they were traditionally taught. Another difference is the lack of the logic integration and rhetoric training.

 

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong...

[Guest]

So how are they taught? I was never taught to write, just expected to know how to do it magically.

[Trivium Academy]

Eee gads...I hope someone else chimes in but the Fable stage of the progymnasmata is about retelling a fable in narrative form, that would constitute a narrative essay in modern terms. Check out www.classicalcomposition.com or www.classicalwriting.com for progymnasmata curriculums. Here's one of my favorite progym links: http://members.aol.com/cmarsch786/progym.htm

and this site helped me when I was first looking: http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/Pedagogy/Progymnasmata/Progymnasmata.htm

[LanaTron]

Many on this board will disagree, but I don't know that one is "superior" to the other...that will be different for different kids and different families...whatever gets them writing and writing things that are interesting and coherent. Included in that is the parent's comfort level with teaching the two methodologies.

 

I tried classical method with my eldest...maybe it would work better with him in the teen years, but he hated it. Now he's using a "modern" methodology curricula, and he actually is enjoying it. Any time I mention doing the other, he groans.

[Beth in Central TX]

I think Lene Mahler Jaqua, Co-Author of Classical Writing, does a great job of explaining the differences between modern and classical writing here: http://home.att.net/~MikeJaqua/modernwriting.html

[Guest]

WOW! That was very well written and explained. Thank you once again, Beth.

[Beth in Central TX]

You're welcome. This article was very pivotal in our decision to use the Classical Writing program. So far, I've been extremely pleased with the results, and I plan to use the program as long as the authors continue to release the different levels.

[Reya]

All writing programs are somewhat limited in scope and artificial in construction. Classical writing is vastly more artificial and limited. However, it does has the virtue that the very artificiality of it makes more of a "checkbox" approach work, in terms of both teaching and evaluation. I don't think it would damage most kids and some will eat it up, but I found every implementation that takes itself seriously to be highly silly.

 

I make my living as a writer, BTW.

 

EDIT: I do like most classical programs a lot more than I do Writing Strands. I loathe Writing Strands--there is no other word for it. I won't be using a packaged writing curriculum at all with the 3+ kids I'll be hsing.

[Beth in Central TX]

All writing programs are somewhat limited in scope and artificial in construction. Classical writing is vastly more artificial and limited. However, it does has the virtue that the very artificiality of it makes more of a "checkbox" approach work, in terms of both teaching and evaluation. I don't think it would damage most kids and some will eat it up, but I found every implementation that takes itself seriously to be highly silly.

 

I make my living as a writer, BTW.

 

EDIT: I do like most classical programs a lot more than I do Writing Strands. I loathe Writing Strands--there is no other word for it. I won't be using a packaged writing curriculum at all with the 3+ kids I'll be hsing.

 

You wrote, "Classical writing is vastly more artificial and limited." Are you talking about Classical Writing the writing program or just classical writing in geneneral. "It's" vastly more artifical and limited than what? Are you comparing CW to another more "real" writing program? Or are you comparing classical writing to modern writing?

 

You also wrote, "but I found every implementation that takes itself seriously to be highly silly." What implementation are you referring to? I don't think I would continue to teach a program that didn't take itself seriously. I find the authors of CW to be very serious and professional in all of the products they produce.

 

I'm not trying to be confrontational in my questions, but I truly don't understand some of your comments, and I wanted to see if you would clarify your points.

[Reya]

You wrote, "Classical writing is vastly more artificial and limited." Are you talking about Classical Writing the writing program or just classical writing in geneneral. "It's" vastly more artifical and limited than what? Are you comparing CW to another more "real" writing program? Or are you comparing classical writing to modern writing?

 

You also wrote, "but I found every implementation that takes itself seriously to be highly silly." What implementation are you referring to? I don't think I would continue to teach a program that didn't take itself seriously. I find the authors of CW to be very serious and professional in all of the products they produce.

 

I'm not trying to be confrontational in my questions, but I truly don't understand some of your comments, and I wanted to see if you would clarify your points.

 

I mean that every classical writing program that I've seen is very artificial. (I did not capitalize it because I meant it in the generic!) All programs are artificial, of course, but classical programs are far worse than most.

 

In most conventional modern programs, kids are taught the five-paragraph essay, for example. NO mature writer uses a three-point, five-paragraph essay! Kids are taught to outline at awkward stages in the planning process and are asked to alternate between several contrived methods of planning--say, webbing or some other sort of diagramming, too. These are artificialities of FORM. I don't mind artificialities of form as long as a writer is encouraged to mature past them. They can be very useful. There are also restriction on CONTENT--for example, the comparative, the narrative, the persuasive, and the instructional papers. The genres of modern programs are fairly natural in their divisions. One would really write instructional and persuasive papers, and one would certainly use narrative elements in many situations. There's a lot more to writing than that, but it's a start.

 

Classical writing programs have far, far more artificiality of form and content, both. They must, if they are to be based off the original progymnasmata. The frank truth is that the progymnasmata existed to teach people to write like Plutarch or Livy, and neither one would be consider to have good prose by contemporary standards. They would be considered to be rigid, formulaic, dry, long-winded, and dense *as contemporary authors.* All modern "classical" programs reinterpret classical approaches to writing in various ways to make them more palatable to modern people and to produce writing that is more flexible and fluid than in the ancient goals. But they remain rooted in the elaborate and ritualized progression from one highly contrived exercise to the next.

 

Here's a good explanation of how classical writing was taught:

 

http://rhetoric.byu.edu/Pedagogy/Progymnasmata/Progymnasmata.htm

 

So here's level one: "Students were given a fable, typically one of Aesop's, which they would amplify and abbreviate. Or, they would write a new fable in close imitation of Aesop. It was specifically recommended that students turn indirect discourse into direct discourse."

 

Lovely--if this is a week-long exercise. It is NOT lovely as originally implemented, however. It is stultifyingly narrow. And programs trying very hard to be "authentic" reflect this limitation of scope.

 

Take a look at the chreia:

 

"Amplify a brief account of what someone has said or done, using these steps:

1. Praise the sayer or doer, or praise the chreia itself

2. Give a paraphrase of the theme

3. Say why this was said or done

4. Introduce a contrast

5. Introduce a comparison

6. Give an example of the meaning

7. Support the saying/action with testimony of others

8. Conclude with a brief epilog or conclusion"

Check-box formula. This is a problem that hounds all classical writing programs.

 

People also have this strange idea that the progymnasmata was widely used 100, 200, 300--heck, 500 years ago. It wasn't. This is NOT what Dickens, Austen, Swift, Shakespeare, or Chaucer did in school, nor was it what their contemporaries did. It was strictly, well, *classical.*

 

By far and away the silliest part of Classical Composition, in particular, is the contrived vocabulary--as if a "description of the wind" or of trees is a some kind of modern literary figure to imitate! Yes, and let us have kennings in all our prose, too. And epithets! Why do we not give our characters proper epithets anymore? Surely if Homer called Hera white-armed, we would do well by imitating him and coming up with a similar epithet to use every time we refer to one of our characters, too. Or not. I hope you can see my point! Highly contrived and stereotyped writing had its place, but it is no longer considered GOOD writing among other contemporary works. This is what I meant by taking itself to seriously--I meant taking its role as transmitting classical methods in a blind and slavish fashion.

 

I am not saying this as a person who despises forms. On the contrary, I plan to teach the kids to construct poetry according to all the classic meters--and to require its regular production. I will assign numerous "voice" exercises, requiring that they imitate particular authors or styles and that they write for different audiences. I will require close analysis of prose. In fact, I will likely have them memorize, as I did in school, the entire 600-plus-page Harmon's A Handbook to Literature, and I will have them doing all sorts of formal exercises. I won't, however, limit my scope to prose as it existed 2000 years ago. Where in this program is a place for the sonnet, for goodness sakes? Where is the 18th-century essay? The Great Dialogue moves on. And so must we.

 

That said, I DO like the programs I've seen far more than Writing Strands. The level of composition in the *examples* of WS is not something I would tolerate from a child, much less something to be held up as an example worth emulation, and the exercises go against everything that I believe in about good prose.

[HollyinNNV]

I think Lene Mahler Jaqua, Co-Author of Classical Writing, does a great job of explaining the differences between modern and classical writing here: http://home.att.net/~MikeJaqua/modernwriting.html

 

Respectfully, I do believe this was written by a proponent of Classical Writing. I'm not sure that it is a very fair description of "modern writing."

JMHO

Holly in NNV

[sassenach]

I found your post very interesting. Maybe you should create a new homeschool writing curriculum. Seriously. That's how new curriculums get started. Thanks for your input!

[Beth in Central TX]

I have to politely disagree with your basic tenet here: "The frank truth is that the progymnasmata existed to teach people to write like Plutarch or Livy, and neither one would be consider to have good prose by contemporary standards. They would be considered to be rigid, formulaic, dry, long-winded, and dense *as contemporary authors."

 

The fact that Plutarch and Livy have survived for such a long time is proof that their writing is relevant and well-received. If not, no one would have bothered to copy and save their writing over the past 2,000 years. I think that our modern writing has produced readers who can't read great writers such as Plutarch. Much of today's writing lacks substance and form. It's all fluff and twaddle that I constantly have to watch out for as I guard what my boys read. The writing of the great authors is considered dry and rigid, not because of their style of writing then, but because of our style of writing now along with the lack of rhetorical training in schools over the past generation. Our world is based on instant gratification and image bites that leave use numb and unable to read anything of real depth. I want my boys to be able to read Livy, not only in English, but in Latin too. I want them to be able to understand what they read, consider it logically, discern whether or not it's valid, and articulate their own point of view. In my opinion, I can accomplish these goals only through a classical writing program because, from what I've seen, a modern writing program will not meet my needs as I teach my boys.

 

I'm listening to a Teaching Company lecture by Professor Peter Saccio on Shakespeare. He contends that Shakespeare did not have university training, but he did attend a grammar school rich in literary training that included grammar, composition, rhetoric, poetry, figurative language, and the classics. While this might not be exactly like the classical writing programs of today, I think it's the closest thing we have available to us.

 

We do have some common ground though; I'm not a fan of WS or CC either. The exercises you have planned for your kids on poetry sound very similar to the types of exercises we just completed in CW Poetry for Beginners A. I didn't have much enthusiasm going into the program, but we all learned so much, and my boys are looking forward to Poetry for Beginners B next year; I am too. I have to say I was very impressed with their final assignment to imitate terza rima (iambic meter with an interlocking rhyme) based on the model, Ode to the West Wind by Shelley. Many of the selections chosen in the CW program are not limited to prose that existed 2,000 years ago.

 

Take care,

Beth

[Penny]

All writing programs are somewhat limited in scope and artificial in construction. Classical writing is vastly more artificial and limited. However, it does has the virtue that the very artificiality of it makes more of a "checkbox" approach work, in terms of both teaching and evaluation. I don't think it would damage most kids and some will eat it up, but I found every implementation that takes itself seriously to be highly silly.

 

I make my living as a writer, BTW.

 

EDIT: I do like most classical programs a lot more than I do Writing Strands. I loathe Writing Strands--there is no other word for it. I won't be using a packaged writing curriculum at all with the 3+ kids I'll be hsing.

 

Reya,

 

What do you recommend for moms like me who must use a 'packaged' program to teach writing? I bought CW Aesop, sold it, and am now considering buying it again. I don't like the program; it takes enormous amounts of time and just seems overdone. However, I'm not sure WHAT I should do to lay a good foundation.

 

Thanks,

 

Penny

[Reya]

I found your post very interesting. Maybe you should create a new homeschool writing curriculum. Seriously. That's how new curriculums get started. Thanks for your input!

 

Honestly, I'd be at a loss as to how to get people who *aren't* writers to evaluate writing--and whatever I came up with wouldn't be suited to the particular student at his particular stage. So I can't say that, in writing a kind of textbook, that I'd do a very good job at all.

 

It's like the difference between giving violin lessons and trying to write a book that teaches excellent violin skills despite the fact that the direct instructor might not know a peg from an f-hole! Actually--that's easier--you can physically *see* wrong bowhold, etc., and poor playing is offensive to any ear. (Well, almost any! *g*)

 

But how do you teach the teacher how to evaluate writing? That's really, really hard, and that's a major reason behind the artificiality of many programs.

 

I've been thinking about it for a long time. I may be able to come up with something in half a dozen years or so, but I'd need that long to make sure that I wasn't just messing people up!

[Reya]

Reya,

 

What do you recommend for moms like me who must use a 'packaged' program to teach writing? I bought CW Aesop, sold it, and am now considering buying it again. I don't like the program; it takes enormous amounts of time and just seems overdone. However, I'm not sure WHAT I should do to lay a good foundation.

 

Thanks,

 

Penny

 

I don't think it's a bad starting place at all! I just think some of the exercises should be taken with a grain--or a tablespoon--of salt. Strip down the elaborateness of the requirements until you get to the heart of what they're going for. Avoid the extraneous, jumping-through-hoop-like requirements--just toss them out altogether and go for the meat. Then expand on what they ask for in other directions by doing imitations of other works, for example. Try different techniques of expanding and summarizing numerous different kinds of stories. If you use the CW curriculum as a springboard instead of following it perfectly, it will get you much farther. Also, just keep in mind as you go along that they aren't going to be looking at many, many types of writing that have been developed in the past 1000 years. You'll probably want to figure out how to work in a Baconian essay and the three main types of sonnet--that sort of thing. Make sure that they understand modern genres like literary analysis and the editorial. You can work things into their writing after they are exposed in their reading.

 

I don't at all think the program is bad. I like both CW and CC much, much more than WS. I haven't had a chance to look over IEW (it's too expensive to buy just to review!), but it might be a good counterbalance.

 

The classical writing programs aren't bad. They aren't *great*, but they are at least decent at written and can be made to be quite good with a little thought into the extension of the curriculum. And that's way ahead of the majority of writing programs!

[Reya]

The fact that Plutarch and Livy have survived for such a long time is proof that their writing is relevant and well-received. If not, no one would have bothered to copy and save their writing over the past 2,000 years.

 

And Galen was copies and saved for 2,000 years because his writing is relevant and well-received, right?

 

Wrong.

 

Galen was copied for 2,000 years because he wrote a landmark work that was incredibly great for its time--so great that it influenced people for centuries, for good AND very much for ill. That means that, yes, he is worth reading now, but if you read him not because of his historical influence but because you believe in his relevance to modern medicine--well, your life will likely be much shorter than that of the average person.

 

Landmarks are important because they are, in fact, landmarks. The first novel. The first history. The first metrical poetry. The first epics. All these things bloom and shine for their moment and then form a kind of compost over the years from which even greater things can be grown--if we learn well from our past and make use of it rather than trying to force new plants on barren soil. But to point to something that is old and say, "That is good because it is old, and its age is proof of its excellence"--come on, now. I could use that argument to say that the cave paintings of France are better than the Mona Lisa and that we should ignore the Renaissance and go back to the oldest ways of doing things that we can find.

 

Please keep in mind that 99.5% of everything is twaddle and trash. That goes for what was written 2,000 years ago as well as what is written today. We only have a tiny, tiny percentage of what was produced that long ago, and to try to make it normative and compare it with a modern average is, I think, a mistake. It is also a mistake to not see that, in some ways, even the worst twaddle of modern production does have some elements that are lacking in ancient work that make modern work more readable and more powerful--such as paragraphs, punctuation, point of view, graceful handling of dialog, a straightforward and immediate presentation of emotion, all sorts of figures of speech, and many other things. This doesn't mean that bad modern writers are better than great ancient ones. It means that even if their own stature is worm-like, modern writers have the advantage of standing on the shoulders of giants, including classical giants.

 

He contends that Shakespeare did not have university training, but he did attend a grammar school rich in literary training that included grammar, composition, rhetoric, poetry, figurative language, and the classics. While this might not be exactly like the classical writing programs of today, I think it's the closest thing we have available to us.

 

The progymnasmata has only one thing more in common with Shakespeare's education than with modern composition: the fact that most of his composition was probably in Latin. Other than that, it's just as different as modern composition. Composition and rhetoric in the 1500s followed a modified medieval scholastic model, not any sacred sequence preserved from ancient times. And, as Ben Jonson writes, Shakespeare hardly had a great Latin education, possessing "small Latin and less Greek," as the famous phrase goes. However much Latin he knew, he was far from comfortable in it, and even if he could struggle through Latin texts, as an adult, it is clear that he read in English whenever he could. (Though he certainly read Ovid in Latin in school, like every other schoolboy, as an adult, he choose to read a translation--we know this from his plays.)

 

There is a reason that English poetry didn't flourish until it cut itself free from the Latin models--just as there is a reason that Greek meter had to be adapted before excellent Latin poetry could be produced. The history of excellence in literature is not one of mindless devotion to the compost but to the careful cultivation of new blooms in the best soil we can find.

 

The problem with slavish classicalism is that you get mired in compost.

 

The problem with throwing out the past is that you try to grow a fabulous garden in hardpan.

 

Neither, I think, has the answer.

 

ADDED: I will be teaching Latin, too--*after* Spanish and Mandarin. I am going to be teaching the kids to read in Latin because it is so incredibly useful in historical and philosophical studies, but I couldn't care less about writing or speaking.

[Guest]

This is fascinating but I hope no one thinks I intended to start a war!!!!

 

One question to Reya,so is Writing Tales a better option as it uses more modern stories for the child to emulate?

[HollyinNNV]

And Galen was copies and saved for 2,000 years because his writing is relevant and well-received, right?

 

Wrong.

 

Galen was copied for 2,000 years because he wrote a landmark work that was incredibly great for its time--so great that it influenced people for centuries, for good AND very much for ill. That means that, yes, he is worth reading now, but if you read him not because of his historical influence but because you believe in his relevance to modern medicine--well, your life will likely be much shorter than that of the average person.

 

Landmarks are important because they are, in fact, landmarks. The first novel. The first history. The first metrical poetry. The first epics. All these things bloom and shine for their moment and then form a kind of compost over the years from which even greater things can be grown--if we learn well from our past and make use of it rather than trying to force new plants on barren soil. But to point to something that is old and say, "That is good because it is old, and its age is proof of its excellence"--come on, now. I could use that argument to say that the cave paintings of France are better than the Mona Lisa and that we should ignore the Renaissance and go back to the oldest ways of doing things that we can find.

 

Please keep in mind that 99.5% of everything is twaddle and trash. That goes for what was written 2,000 years ago as well as what is written today. We only have a tiny, tiny percentage of what was produced that long ago, and to try to make it normative and compare it with a modern average is, I think, a mistake. It is also a mistake to not see that, in some ways, even the worst twaddle of modern production does have some elements that are lacking in ancient work that make modern work more readable and more powerful--such as paragraphs, punctuation, point of view, graceful handling of dialog, a straightforward and immediate presentation of emotion, all sorts of figures of speech, and many other things. This doesn't mean that bad modern writers are better than great ancient ones. It means that even if their own stature is worm-like, modern writers have the advantage of standing on the shoulders of giants, including classical giants.

 

 

 

The progymnasmata has only one thing more in common with Shakespeare's education than with modern composition: the fact that most of his composition was probably in Latin. Other than that, it's just as different as modern composition. Composition and rhetoric in the 1500s followed a modified medieval scholastic model, not any sacred sequence preserved from ancient times. And, as Ben Jonson writes, Shakespeare hardly had a great Latin education, possessing "small Latin and less Greek," as the famous phrase goes. However much Latin he knew, he was far from comfortable in it, and even if he could struggle through Latin texts, as an adult, it is clear that he read in English whenever he could. (Though he certainly read Ovid in Latin in school, like every other schoolboy, as an adult, he choose to read a translation--we know this from his plays.)

 

There is a reason that English poetry didn't flourish until it cut itself free from the Latin models--just as there is a reason that Greek meter had to be adapted before excellent Latin poetry could be produced. The history of excellence in literature is not one of mindless devotion to the compost but to the careful cultivation of new blooms in the best soil we can find.

 

The problem with slavish classicalism is that you get mired in compost.

 

The problem with throwing out the past is that you try to grow a fabulous garden in hardpan.

 

Neither, I think, has the answer.

 

ADDED: I will be teaching Latin, too--*after* Spanish and Mandarin. I am going to be teaching the kids to read in Latin because it is so incredibly useful in historical and philosophical studies, but I couldn't care less about writing or speaking.

Your post is absolutely by far one of my favorite posts EVER! And I've been reading the boards here for years. So in a nutshell-

1. There's great writing.

2. There's important writing.

3. Important writing is not necessarily great writing.

 

Holly

[MelissaMinNC]

I'm finding this thread incredibly informative and interesting! Of course, I am now officially terrified of teaching writing, afraid that I will make the wrong choice whichever way I go, and worried that I won't be able to spot the flaws in the program, and therefore avoid them or improve the curriculum at all. My kids will never mature in their writing, they won't get into college, they'll be completely unemployable, and they'll have to live with me forever.

 

ACK!

 

:lol:

 

Melissa

[Trivium Academy]

I'm finding this thread incredibly informative and interesting! Of course, I am now officially terrified of teaching writing, afraid that I will make the wrong choice whichever way I go, and worried that I won't be able to spot the flaws in the program, and therefore avoid them or improve the curriculum at all. My kids will never mature in their writing, they won't get into college, they'll be completely unemployable, and they'll have to live with me forever.

 

ACK!

 

:lol:

 

Melissa

 

Yep. But I'm going to put my blinders on and pretend I didn't read this thread at all and respect Reya and Beth for their thoughts but live in "la-la" land so I can keep on trucking without running off the road.

[Beth in Central TX]

The Renaissance era came about after the fall of the Byzantine Empire in 1453 which caused many of their philosophers to flee to Europe with many of the ancient Greek texts in hand. This influx of great ancient writing inspired a new way of thinking. Of course, some of the ideas, especially related to science, had evolved, but the writing itself was the inspiration to "think outside the box."

 

Andrew Campbell, in his book, The Latin Centered Curriculum, he states that "...the liberal arts in the medieval period carried on the classical heritage primarily in its Greek form," and that "The Renaissance was, in turn, in many ways a return to Roman educational ideals...Greek was taught once again, and the emphasis was on the best possible role models for thought and expression." Shakespeare has many, many classical references in his work. Therefore, his education was obviously classical in nature which would include aspects of the progymnasmata. Otherwise the debate wouldn't be between classical writing and modern writing, but between Renaissance writing and modern writing.

 

I think our differences of opinion are based upon the different philosophies we have in our approach to eduation in general. You wrote: "I am going to be teaching the kids to read in Latin because it is so incredibly useful in historical and philosophical studies, but I couldn't care less about writing or speaking."

 

I agree with Andrew Campbell's definition of a classical education: "a curriculum grounded upon--if not strictly limited to--Greek, Latin, and the study of the civilization from which they arose." Latin and Greek are foundational to our homeschool. We speak it and read it right now. My goal is to read the Latin authors from their original text and then write about their work in Latin prose. However, knowing Latin will not be enough, they will need to know how to write too. I believe that the best way to teach them is through a classical writing program that's been proven over time.

[Guest]

bump

[profmom]

We use Classical Writing here. For the OP, what I like about CW is that the program focuses on developing writing skills, step-by-step. I don't find this artificial or archaic at all -- any skill is best taught in a step-by-step fashion. With CW, we turn our attention to improving our dc's writing, without having to worry as much about original content (which will come later).

 

To me this is similar to the way coaches develop ball-handling and game skills in their players. They have them practice dribbling, passing, shooting from different places on the court, running to be in shape, etc. None of these are a real game. Many other skills are needed in a game -- multi-tasking, making split-second decisions, protecting the ball from the opposing team, etc. However, since the basic skills need to be second-nature, coaches spend a great deal of time focusing on improving specific, isolated skills.

 

IMHO, CW has divided writing skills into a manageable, yet beneficial process. I'm impressed with the deeper writing instruction included, and the authors' insight in breaking each skill into a series of levels.

[Julie in GA]

You're welcome. This article was very pivotal in our decision to use the Classical Writing program. So far, I've been extremely pleased with the results, and I plan to use the program as long as the authors continue to release the different levels.

 

:iagree:

 

(I've really been wanting to use that smilie-thing!)

[Julie in GA]

Like you said, Reya, we are learning to stand on the shoulders of giants. In order to do this, we must study them. Of course we will add in what our modern writers have contributed to the process.

 

I view the CW program the same way I view piano lessons. We have to practice scales, arpeggios and the like, and learn certain foundational techniques. We also learn to play classical pieces. Then, but only after we have a foundation laid, can we break loose and vary the genre. We wouldn't have jazz without classical music, for example, but we don't study jazz first and skip classical music.

 

I agree that certain forms of implementation seem artificial and contrived. So does practicing all of those major and minor scales.

 

I hope we all understand that writing is an art form. You can only teach so much of it. Throughout history there have been artists, poets, musicians and writers of prose who have been self-taught, but have produced works of beauty because of their God-given genius and talent.

 

What we do when we use a writing program (or what I do) is attempt to hone the skill of communicating to others. The authors of CW, who, by-the-way, are writing a Shakespeare course, and who both have PhDs in their fields, stress the importance of a good command of the English language. Do we have a good vocabulary? Can we say something several ways? Do we understand the grammar of what we read and write?

 

This is why I love CW. Is it "artificial"? Maybe. I think I would use the word "synthetic." (Think of Bloom's Taxonomy). :)

 

Great discussion!

[Julie in GA]

That's a very good point, about important vs. good writers.

[Reya]

Your post is absolutely by far one of my favorite posts EVER! And I've been reading the boards here for years. So in a nutshell-

1. There's great writing.

2. There's important writing.

3. Important writing is not necessarily great writing.

 

Holly

 

YES!!! *g* And much writing that was GREAT 600 years ago and is still very, very important wouldn't be considered *great* today--not just because tastes change but because good writers build on the past. Shakespeare is still great...but Dryden's plays? Um. NO. There's a very, very good reason no one puts them on anymore.

 

Actually, that's a big reason why I'm not entirely sold on reading Great Books in high school as the single driving force for history and lit studies. I want a balance that I just can't quite see there, as influential as the books are.

[Reya]

This is fascinating but I hope no one thinks I intended to start a war!!!!

 

One question to Reya,so is Writing Tales a better option as it uses more modern stories for the child to emulate?

 

I haven't seen it yet--I haven't been to a curriculum fair in a couple of years! I'll be sure to check it out when I go, though.

[Reya]

I'm finding this thread incredibly informative and interesting! Of course, I am now officially terrified of teaching writing, afraid that I will make the wrong choice whichever way I go, and worried that I won't be able to spot the flaws in the program, and therefore avoid them or improve the curriculum at all. My kids will never mature in their writing, they won't get into college, they'll be completely unemployable, and they'll have to live with me forever.

 

Argh! I don't mean people to stress out. Writing is one of those things that can be very hard to teach. Honestly, overall, CW does look like a much better program than the vast majority. As long as you can consistently press for improvement in clarity of expression, vividness, sophistication of expression (and I mean that in the best way), and logical or dramatic continuity (depending on the type of writing), you'll be doing well with many programs.

 

The biggest pitfalls are to force a particular contrived style as the "correct" one (whether rewarding flowery writing or taking off for every adverb) or to allow yourself to be impressed by empty words. (Of course, there are also mechanical issues, but those are different.) If you avoid those, you're ahead of the game! The problem in public schools isn't that modern composition is bad--it's that very few teachers do any sort of writing instruction at all. (And don't get me started on "peer edits"....)

[Beth in SW WA]

 

In most conventional modern programs, kids are taught the five-paragraph essay, for example. NO mature writer uses a three-point, five-paragraph essay! Kids are taught to outline at awkward stages in the planning process and are asked to alternate between several contrived methods of planning--say, webbing or some other sort of diagramming, too. These are artificialities of FORM.

 

Reya, You must have a hidden camera in my home! My kids produce 5 paragraph essay -- after -- 5 paragraph essay... Webs, diagrams, outlines -- oh my!

 

Besides reading, reading and more reading -- How else are we to prepare our kiddos for future Compass, ACT and/or SAT testing, especially the written portion?

 

I want my kids well-thought, well-read and well-written and our homeschool is focused on those goals. But the looming written portion of the SAT's is what drives our writing program here. I know that sounds terrible. I wish I had more high and lofty writing ideals. Would you suggest we ditch the 5 paragraph essay and move toward a classical or neo-classical approach?

[Reya]

Shakespeare has many, many classical references in his work. Therefore, his education was obviously classical in nature which would include aspects of the progymnasmata. Otherwise the debate wouldn't be between classical writing and modern writing, but between Renaissance writing and modern writing.

 

Shakespeare's classical references come from ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS of works like Ovid. That was my point before! :-) That's why no one's sure whether he managed to remember any of his Latin at all--and why we know sometimes not only the classical source but the exact English translation Shakespeare referenced in his plays!

 

You go from classical references...to "classical" instruction...to the progymnasmata. There isn't a logical flow here! I have dozens of classical references in my novels, but I can't read a word of Greek, and I only have a smattering of Latin. You can't say that I had a classical education because my books have lots of classical references, much less that I learned from the progymnasmata. Since we know very well what WAS taught in the grammar schools of the 1500s and how it was taught, I can't say how you can claim it was connected closely to the progymnasmata. It wasn't. The "composition" program remained largely unchanged in grammar/Latin schools from the, oh, late 1300s up through the mid-1800s. (Since you like the Teaching Co, there's a really good series on the Renaissance that includes a lecture on the developments in education of the times that is, I think, worth listening to--and much of it will sound very familiar.) You can find many, many textbooks from the 1700s through the 1850s online and elsewhere that are the same as what would have taken place in such a school in the 1500s. The instruction was, of course, dominated by translation above everything else--Latin to English, English to Latin, Latin to Greek, Greek to Latin, and sometimes through all three languages in different orders. Secondarily came other exercises in rhetoric and composition, and yes, most of these were performed in Latin or Greek, too.

 

If modern "classical" education really made much sense, we WOULD be talking about Renaissance writing versus classical writing. The trivium is essential medieval, for goodness sakes! And it has nothing in the world to do with Piaget's discredited theory of child development.

 

But things don't have to make sense for people to get in a stir about it. All you have to do is impress people with the idea that this is the right way that people have been using for X years before foolish modern educators turned their backs on it, and people will buy it. You don't even have to tell the truth when you say it--or, alternatively, you can *sound* like you're saying something other than you really are. (For example, you can say, "We have possessed this wonderful program for 2,000 years..." All that means is that it's 2,000 years old, but is SOUNDS like you're saying that it's been in use for 2,000 years, which would be a lie.) I can lie about Latin, too--we get our English grammar from Latin! Latin is a more logical language!--and as long as it is appealing to people, many will accept it without analysis. Emotional appeal works far better than logic--even when promoting "classical" curricula!

 

BTW, the theory that the Renaissance was sparked by the fall of the Byzantine Empire has been discredited for a number of years. It's an intriguing myth and an oft repeated myth (particularly by Byzantine scholars, who know nothing of the Italian Renaissance but like the idea!), but it is still a myth. The influx of Greek texts was taken in eagerly by the Italian literati, however.

 

Anyhow, I'm not saying that deciding to center one's studies around education of 2000, 2500 years ago--reinterpreted for today, of course--is BAD, period. I just think that there should always be an examination of goals versus methods--continuous and constant--and that one should try to avoid one's own emotional weaknesses when trying to evaluate programs. If you want to have a certain brand of "classical" education because you just like it (an emotional goal as well as a method), then great. But if you want to learn "the way Thomas Jefferson did" or "the way people 100 years ago did" or even "to create the most rigorous and logical program of thought," well, that's another issue entirely!

[Reya]

Besides reading, reading and more reading -- How else are we to prepare our kiddos for future Compass, ACT and/or SAT testing, especially the written portion?

 

I want my kids well-thought, well-read and well-written and our homeschool is focused on those goals. But the looming written portion of the SAT's is what drives our writing program here. I know that sounds terrible. I wish I had more high and lofty writing ideals. Would you suggest we ditch the 5 paragraph essay and move toward a classical or neo-classical approach?

 

You can't use the 5-para essay on the SAT! Not enough time. You can see samples of 800, 700, 600, etc. - point essays on the college board site. They are VERY short--1-2 VERY brief para.

 

I don't think classical programs--well, particularly the original classical model--are a bad place at all to go for inspiration. They just need flexibility and extension. *g* So look at them with a view toward how you could adapt them for your kids and your current topics of study.

 

I don't think the 5-para essay is bad for middle school, either. But it should be replaced by something more sophisticated in high school. Not everything has 3 points. And not every point is equal in weight! Rather than thinking in bullet points, older students should develop a line of argument that flows logically from one paragraph to the next. Analyzing the logic of good essays is really a great way to figure out how to do this oneself.

 

The most difficult thing about packaged composition programs is, I think, how they *must* be divorced from other topics of study when an ideal writing program would be fully integrated. It just adds so much overhead to the process by introducing texts and positions for the mere purpose on writing about them when it would be ideal to make it an extension of all other activities across the curriculum. And, NO, I don't have a band-aid for this! I do wish I did! *g*

[Reya]

I view the CW program the same way I view piano lessons. We have to practice scales, arpeggios and the like, and learn certain foundational techniques. We also learn to play classical pieces. Then, but only after we have a foundation laid, can we break loose and vary the genre. We wouldn't have jazz without classical music, for example, but we don't study jazz first and skip classical music.

 

Oh, certainly. I just feel that many of the programs have you doing too much of just a couple of exercises and not enough of others. Say, all arpeggios and no counterpoint when the goal is to become a composer! *g* Arpeggios are good. They should be done in many keys. But there are higher order exercises in harmony and composition (yes, often just as "dry"), too!

 

But I really don't think that CW, in particular, is a bad program! I like it pretty well, overall. Greater variety would just be very nice.

[Julie in GA]

Thanks for the clarification -- and yes -- I know all about those higher-order exercises in music, being a music major. Good point.

[Sarah CB]

Reya,

I think you have failed to look deeply at the classical model. Or perhaps you just haven't seen Classical Writing's implementation of that model. You said that classical writing was arficial and stifling. That students would be shaped towards writing in an antiquated style. Not so. What sold me on CW was their goal of developing copia:

 

“To develop proper style, a writer needs copia. Copia is variation, abundance, and eloquence of expression. Its chief use is the enrichment of language. A classical write seeks a copious supply of thoughts and words. Developing copia can be likened to a muscle toning exercise; you exercise specific muscles to build up their tone. The more flexibility we have with words the easier it is for us to write and say precisely what we wish to say. Just as possession of a large vocabulary enables us to write with ease, so copia generally allows us to be graceful and expressive writers. . . .

 

In teaching writing classically we aim, then, first of all to develop “raw†flexibility (copia) with words and sentences. Copia, abundance of words, phrases, figures, and sentence patterns, allows us to choose liberally from a variety of ways of expressing ourselves. Combine copia with taste and a good judgement of style, and a superior write will emerge, unhampered by narrow conventions and rules, ready to compose for any audience, occasion, and purpose.â€

 

- Classical Writing Homer, pg. 11

 

The whole "ready to compose for any audience, occasion, and purpose" is what I want from a writing program. I want my kids to be good writers. I want them to have the flexibility - the copia - to reach different audiences.

 

Going through Aristotle's ten categories to find synonyms blew me away. I'm pretty good at coming up with synonyms myself, but to actually go through and think about something from ten different angles, writing every description that comes to mind, well, let's just say that we never end up with antiquated descriptions nor do we feel hampered or stifled in any way. If anything CW has blown the lid off of our writing.

 

Sarah

[HollyinNNV]

Reya,

I think you have failed to look deeply at the classical model. Or perhaps you just haven't seen Classical Writing's implementation of that model. You said that classical writing was arficial and stifling. That students would be shaped towards writing in an antiquated style. Not so. What sold me on CW was their goal of developing copia:

Sarah

 

I know that you wrote this to Reya. I am replying as myself-not Reya.:D

 

First, there are those of us who have looked deeply at the classical model and like it, but don't like the way in which it is implemented-at least in some of the popular programs. In other words, I like the idea of copia, but I find CW's presentation burdensome and pedantic. I find that I can present the classical writing concepts much more enjoyably in a different manner.

 

I'd also submit that I find some of the classical writing procedures rather lengthy for what they eventually produce. I find that there are more efficient means to an end.

 

Finally, I find that some of the models are just so far from anything anyone actually writes now-I question the time spent on them. I can't remember the name of this particular model-but it is a lengthy tribute to a person. When I've read the samples I just have to laugh! They are totally silly and ridiculous. Nobody writes like this except maybe as an over the top joke for a roast. KWIM?:D Now, I think students should be able to write anything! But, we only have so many hours in the day and I think some of these models are IMHO a (whispering-waste of my child's time).

 

So, I would guess that as Beth in C TX mentioned, maybe these are variations in what individual moms have as goals and how to get to those goals.

 

By the way Beth, I lived in Temple for 4 years!

 

Anyways-I've found this a great conversation.

Holly in N NV

[pixelroper]

Isn't it really all about not wasting time reinventing the wheel?? We still use wheels, they are rarely wood anymore. The basic shape has still not let us down and plenty of talented people have used this wheel, over the ages, to expand on and integrate w/other wheels and gadgets in new and useful ways. Yet the wheel remains.

 

The progymnasmata is like the wheel, and CW is an excellent tool to assist me in laying a solid foundation (my goal as a hser). Whether the life built on it is a modest yurt or 100 floor skyscraper, it is my job to make sure the strong foundation is there. Dd can do as she wishes when it comes to what the foundation will serve for. I did not make this decision based on an emotions, I made it based on its structure, its content, the ability to customize (I believe it is far more varied than some may realize).

 

I believe Reya is making a good point, what I see her saying is... writing is hard to teach/evaluate and some can get trapped in a formulaic approach which in the end will not make them good writers... I can't argue w/that. [Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.]

 

Writing should be cross curriculum- CW addresses that, and leaves it up to the parent to guide. They also encourage, repeatedly, finding your own models. I haven't done that b/c they did a good job of it. CW Aesop might be titled Aesop but it includes/suggests several other authors & works from different times. I'm not in Homer yet but I'm confident that there will be plenty of customizing available.

 

It really depends on the individual and their inclinations/capabilities, more than the program, IMO.

 

This discussion (and a good one IMO) should really not make any of the readers question their programs, especially if they appear to be working for them and the program coincides w/their approach/philosophies/learning styles. :)

[Beth in Central TX]

I'd appreciate the common courtesy of not yelling in your post directed at me; all capital letters implies yelling. It's common on-line etiquette, and you can find this rule listed under Board Rules at the top of the page.

 

I didn't say that the Renaissance was caused by the fall of the Byzantine empire; I'm fully aware of the controversy around that statement. I wrote, "The Renaissance era came about after the fall of the Byzantine Empire in 1453." If you look at a timeline, that statement is true. I do think that the ancient Greek texts did influence the writings of that time, but that's far from saying the Byzantine fall caused the Renaissance.

 

I'm not sure what "composition program" you are talking about that existed during the Middle Ages/Renaissance time frame. In Shakespeare's Use of the Arts of Language, Sister Miriam Joseph supports the idea that his education included the study of Aphthonius' Progymnasmata. Here's a link to the portion of the book on-line: http://books.google.com/books?id=r1LHIgg5ox0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Shakespeare%27s+Use+of+the+Arts+of+Language&ei=FIb9R8mxEI7iiwGL4aWNDA&sig=fY3vhw1PBAA4Xf-4KJ-O3LwmETk#PPA10,M1

The specific reference is on page 10.

 

I never judged how you want to teach your children, so I don't appreciate the insinuation that the route I'm taking is purely emotional rather than logical. I've chosen what I consider to be the best route based upon the goals I have set for our homeschool and the current writing programs available. My point was that the classical writing process is not artificial, but that it has been well tested over time. If it's a process you don't prefer, I'm fine with that, I'm just defending the position that it is a viable way to teach children how to write.

[cajun.classical]

Where is the 18th-century essay? The Great Dialogue moves on. And so must we.

 

Reya,

 

You might be interested to know that the later levels of CW *do* include more modern writing. The models for the Diogenes level include: Ben Franklin, Joseph Addison, Richard Steele, and Winston Churchill.

[pixelroper]

I'm so excited to check out/do Diogenes.:D

[MelissaMinNC]

Argh! I don't mean people to stress out. Writing is one of those things that can be very hard to teach. Honestly, overall, CW does look like a much better program than the vast majority. As long as you can consistently press for improvement in clarity of expression, vividness, sophistication of expression (and I mean that in the best way), and logical or dramatic continuity (depending on the type of writing), you'll be doing well with many programs.

 

The biggest pitfalls are to force a particular contrived style as the "correct" one (whether rewarding flowery writing or taking off for every adverb) or to allow yourself to be impressed by empty words. (Of course, there are also mechanical issues, but those are different.) If you avoid those, you're ahead of the game! The problem in public schools isn't that modern composition is bad--it's that very few teachers do any sort of writing instruction at all. (And don't get me started on "peer edits"....)

Hey, no worries. I was joking. Well, mostly joking, but I like to stress out about things; if I don't have something new to worry about every week....well, I'd worry that everything was going too well. ;)

 

I am curious to know if you're familiar with the writing assignments/writing aids in Tapestry of Grace, and what you think of them, but I'm not actually terrified of teaching writing. A little nervous maybe, but not terrified.

 

:)

Melissa

[Beth in Central TX]

I'm so excited to check out/do Diogenes.:D

 

I almost bought Diogenes when Beth's Bookshop (no affiliation) was closing. However, I have plenty of other things to do right now, so I'll wait and get it next year in preparation for our 2009-10 school year. That sounds so far away, but it will be here before I know it.

[Rhondabee]

my oldest is only in 7th grade (and I'm NOT a professional writer!)...

 

But, last year I got very, very nervous about writing - where we were, where we were headed. So, I checked out the Rhetoric and Writing recommendations in WTM for high school. They will take you through not only a 5-paragraph essay, but also help you learn how to apply logic to your arguments, and even do the pro-gym exercises. I didn't buy the books, just looked through them on amazon. That might be enough to give you an idea of where you are and where you're going.

 

It seems to me like the best of both worlds. We can learn our grammar while working on cross-curricular writing; and then later, once grammar is finished, have some fun working on the "polish" - the transitions, exact phrases and rhetorical techniques, using imaginative descriptions and analogies, etc.

 

I think what *is* hard about teaching writing is that it is hard to improve your own writing. It's kind of like exercise - anyone can exercise by themselves, but in order to really train efficiently for a certain task, it certainly helps to have a coach. It's really hard to feel confident as a writing "coach" when/if you've never really been mentored in your own writing.

 

I haven't yet seen the need for one of the online writing services, but the one thing that really stood out to me was how positively they phrased their constructive criticisms. This is where I *really* fall short!!!!!!!! I am thankful that my AP English teacher taught me *so* much, but it certainly wasn't diplomatically phrased - ;)

 

I think it's Cindy Marsh's site (the one rec. by WTM) that even has a pro-gym class - or, you can have her grade whatever papers you choose to assign as well. I've thought about taking some of her classes myself - the old "iron sharpens iron" thought.

 

Best Wishes!

Rhonda

[Kathie in VA]

I've so wanted to join in but life's been so busy (well, mainly when I pick up the computer to post).

 

Anyway I also love the idea of the progymnamata and especially appreciate how CW is walking us thru it.

 

Reya:

I do think you made some interesting comments. Somewhere you commented on the check box approach. To some extent, I think this is needed so we know what to teach, what to check for, and they know what is expected. It's part of the learning process. As they progress the contents of the check boxes change and advance thru levels/abilities. I think they are more a tool for anyone teaching in a field they are not very well versed or educated in. I agree with you that students need to move past the check boxes or at least be able to internalize what their options are for the current writing assignment. I do think CW does help the students move beyond the need for checkboxes to do their papers.

 

You also seem concerned with the choice of models. The main CW program was written for any model. The choice of the model is not restricted. Modern writing is perfectly fine. The workbooks are optional but even if you choose the workbooks you are not restricted. You may still swap out any model for one of your choice. But more imporant I'd like to point out something you may not be aware of with the CW program. They really do encourage using the skills learned across the curriculum. In fact, the CW Aesop B workbook calls for two papers for each lesson. One is based on the model, the other is to be based on something from the students history lesson, or science lesson, or current literature being read. We are only up to Homer A but someone pointed out that the later levels do use more modern models of well written works. So the CW program seems to agree with you that the models should be from a variety of well written works (not just well known works).

 

You also mentioned avoiding a specific style or way of writing... or taking a specific way of writing (lots of modifiers or infrequent modifiers but strong nouns and verbs, etc.). I have to agree with you there. There is another writing program that seems to take itself pretty seriously on this idea. But then again that may just be their beginning levels. Anyway one of the things that I like about CW is that they don't just teach the various styles of writing but they also have the students learn that it matters which one is chosen for each paper. ie: how something should be written depends on a few things like who the audience is, what the purpose of the paper is, etc. So the CW students will have lots of tools to work with when they write their papers.

 

Reya, thanks again for sharing your ideas. They did make me stop and think about my choices again... which I find a good thing once in awhile.

 

I think another reason that some dislike CW is due to more to its teaching method then to the progymnasmata itself. Some say that they or their kids just feel like they are just doing the same thing week after week; they would prefer more variety in their writing assignments. This reminds me of math programs where some use a spiral or incremental approach and others use a mastery approach. I think CW uses more of a mastery approach, which works well for me. We have a co-op nearby that teaches the progymnasmata in 2 years. So it can be done faster and maybe repeated for more depth I guess.

[Oak Knoll Mom]

I'd appreciate the common courtesy of not yelling in your post directed at me; all capital letters implies yelling. It's common on-line etiquette, and you can find this rule listed under Board Rules at the top of the page.

 

I don't think Reya was yelling at you. I think capitalizing words or short phrases is just a way to emphasize what it being said. If someone wrote a whole post to you in caps, then yes, I would agree that you were being yelled at, but in this case I think it was for emphasis. Even the Board Rules you reference use all capital words for emphasis in at least two places. :001_smile:

[profmom]

I don't think Reya was yelling at you. I think capitalizing words or short phrases is just a way to emphasize what it being said. If someone wrote a whole post to you in caps, then yes, I would agree that you were being yelled at, but in this case I think it was for emphasis. Even the Board Rules you reference use all capital words for emphasis in at least two places. :001_smile:

 

I understand what you're saying, but I can also understand why Beth could be sensitive to the capital letters given the tone that Reya has used in her responses in this thread. (And, yes, Reya may not have meant to be offensive -- let's hope not, but without the benefit of facial expressions and tone of voice, her posts could easily be taken that way.)

 

Back to writing...dd had a writing class where the teacher gave a checklist to be used with her assignments that went something like: "Use 3 sentences openers, 3 -ly words, 4 strong verbs..." That seems much more artificial to me than working on applying the specific skills taught in CW.

 

I appreciate the way Kathie, Beth, and others have taken the time to clarify aspects of CW. Obviously a person's educational philosophy will influence her choice of writing curricula. CW isn't for everyone, but I personally think very highly of it.

[Reya]

I know that you wrote this to Reya. I am replying as myself-not Reya.:D

 

First, there are those of us who have looked deeply at the classical model and like it, but don't like the way in which it is implemented-at least in some of the popular programs. In other words, I like the idea of copia, but I find CW's presentation burdensome and pedantic. I find that I can present the classical writing concepts much more enjoyably in a different manner.

 

I'd also submit that I find some of the classical writing procedures rather lengthy for what they eventually produce. I find that there are more efficient means to an end.

 

Finally, I find that some of the models are just so far from anything anyone actually writes now-I question the time spent on them. I can't remember the name of this particular model-but it is a lengthy tribute to a person. When I've read the samples I just have to laugh! They are totally silly and ridiculous. Nobody writes like this except maybe as an over the top joke for a roast. KWIM?:D Now, I think students should be able to write anything! But, we only have so many hours in the day and I think some of these models are IMHO a (whispering-waste of my child's time).

 

 

Hey, if you're going to say that, you can go ahead and reply as me because you were reading my mind! *g* That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Perhaps it's that I like the idea of the goals of the progymnasmata but that the actual 14 steps just don't *work* for me in a modern context, even updated to some degree. It needs a more profound overhaul than what I've seen to make it really, really work. So yes, I really like the idea of copia and it sounds just like what I've done with some students and will do with the kiddos I'm teaching, but there's a gap between the ideal and the implementation that's to wide to allow for enthusiasm.

 

I'm especially concerned with time invested versus outcome. I want activities to have a high return on investment, and a lot of the classical programs have such high overhead that I can't see myself clear to using them.

[Reya]

I'd appreciate the common courtesy of not yelling in your post directed at me; all capital letters implies yelling. It's common on-line etiquette, and you can find this rule listed under Board Rules at the top of the page.

 

I didn't say that the Renaissance was caused by the fall of the Byzantine empire; I'm fully aware of the controversy around that statement. I wrote, "The Renaissance era came about after the fall of the Byzantine Empire in 1453." If you look at a timeline, that statement is true. I do think that the ancient Greek texts did influence the writings of that time, but that's far from saying the Byzantine fall caused the Renaissance.

 

I'm not sure what "composition program" you are talking about that existed during the Middle Ages/Renaissance time frame. In Shakespeare's Use of the Arts of Language, Sister Miriam Joseph supports the idea that his education included the study of Aphthonius' Progymnasmata. Here's a link to the portion of the book on-line: http://books.google.com/books?id=r1LHIgg5ox0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Shakespeare%27s+Use+of+the+Arts+of+Language&ei=FIb9R8mxEI7iiwGL4aWNDA&sig=fY3vhw1PBAA4Xf-4KJ-O3LwmETk#PPA10,M1

The specific reference is on page 10.

 

I never judged how you want to teach your children, so I don't appreciate the insinuation that the route I'm taking is purely emotional rather than logical. I've chosen what I consider to be the best route based upon the goals I have set for our homeschool and the current writing programs available. My point was that the classical writing process is not artificial, but that it has been well tested over time. If it's a process you don't prefer, I'm fine with that, I'm just defending the position that it is a viable way to teach children how to write.

 

I wasn't yelling at you anymore than I was yelling when I wrote VERY--caps also mean emphasis with a sentence. They mean yelling only when an entire sentence is capitalized--or a command.

 

BTW, the Italian Renaissance is generally dated from 1420. So no, the Renaissance didn't begin after the fall of Constantinople but before. But I don't think that's your major concern. And Sister Miriam Joseph's position on Shakespeare is that of a distant, distant minority of Shakespearean scholars and that has no substantiation within his works but can only be made through speculation. (I took a grad class on Shakespeare and read mounds of research by numerous critics--some tedious, some fascinating, most somewhere in between.) When there isn't any evidence that he felt comfortable enough in Latin to read in the language as an adult--and when there is a great deal of evidence that he did read lots of Latin translations--it makes one really question whether he, in particular, attended school frequently enough to have memorized large portions of Ovid in the original language. (Either that, or his so-called grammar school was somewhat like Dickens' experiences in dame school!) If he had, why then would he buy and quote from a translation?

 

That aside, there is a big difference between what was in circulation and what was really *used* as a primary educational vehicle. The ancient progymnasmata *drove* the composition program of ancient students. If it was covered in some grammar schools, it would have been with a glancing nod, not a major portion of the program, which was, after all, centered around translation. It made sense for there to be such an emphasis on Latin translation, particularly, back then because that's what all writings intended for an international audience were made in--everything scientific and philosophical. It was also the language that someone from Germany would use to speak with someone from England.

 

When I speak of the composition "programs," I am talking about the typical instruction in Latin/Greek/rhetoric from the 1400s to the 1850s or so. (Some places continued these methods well into the 20th century with a similar model, but they became more and more unusual, of course.) "Translation" as a foundation makes it sound much more mechanical than it was. You were meant to write in the most excellent version of each language. So it was really a creative process and a process that required true "artistic" skill, so to speak.

 

My comment about analyzing both goals and methods was in response to your own declaration of what a classical education is to you and why you think it's important. You said:

 

>I agree with Andrew Campbell's definition of a classical education: "a curriculum grounded upon--if not strictly limited to--Greek, Latin, and the study of the civilization from which they arose." Latin and Greek are foundational to our homeschool. We speak it and read it right now. My goal is to read the Latin authors from their original text and then write about their work in Latin prose. However, knowing Latin will not be enough, they will need to know how to write too. I believe that the best way to teach them is through a classical writing program that's been proven over time.

 

Part of my argument all along is that there's a difference between something that's old and something that's proven, and there's also a profound difference between the kinds of writing needed for a literate life 2,000 years ago and one today. Goals versus methods. I understand more or less what you feel a real classical education is--and I make no pretense that I give one fig for a conservative interpretation of classical education--but I'm still rather mystified as to *why* you feel many parts of it are important except that they are really old. I could use that same argument for proposing that every child do arithmetic using Roman numerals, despite the fact that this made it so hard that multiplication and division strategies were taught at universities. I'm not saying you have no point. I assume that you do. I'm just saying that I don't see it from any of your posts. I couldn't say why you feel it is important for your children to write in Latin and use the progymnasmata but why you're using the Hindu-Arabic numeral system. So the end of my post was really a muddled invitation for you to elucidate why you feel that these things are part of a classical education and how using Roman numerals, in contrast, is not. I'm just not getting the rubric that you are using to judge things as proper or not.

 

For me, I don't care about "classical" so much as, well, "Renaissance" in the "Renaissance man" sense. I feel that the contemporary Renaissance man--that is, a Renaissance man that is living in today's world--must have excellent comprehension of mathematics, a deep understanding of science, a solid grounding in logic and philosophy, an ability to speak at least two modern languages well, great ability and flexibility in composition, a firm grasp of history, a familiarity with a wide body of literature, and the capacity to research subjects and to understand the research. I listed those in the reverse order (except the last, which is the "crown," so to speak) of that which I feel that most so-called "classical" educational programs handle well. So am I after a classical education? No, not by most standards, even though we will certainly teach Latin and probably Greek, as well. You can accuse me of being unfaithful to any given classical model, and I certainly won't argue. But my goal never has been to find any brand of education and follow it.