Cursus Scriptorum: Writing with Honors

CURSUS SCRIPTORUM: WRITING WITH HONORS

Developed by Paul Christiansen and Bruce A. McMenomy for Scholars Online

This program is both a rigorous writing program and a game, based loosely on the model of the ancient Roman cursus honorum — the progression through the social and political ranks defined by the various offices in the Roman Republic. As such, it aims at providing both motivation and a focused and flexible tool for self-assessment and drill. We are also hoping it will be a certain amount of fun and will acquaint people as well with the structure of Roman society and culture. As the student plays the game, he or she will be represented by a fictional young Roman aristocrat climbing the ladder of political and military success in Rome. The character advances through various levels of play, each representing greater degrees of advancement across a number of levels of achievement. Each new level opens up a new range of exercises and tasks that can be undertaken. Each of those tasks will provide some points on a number of different scores. To enter each level, the student needs a minimum score each of fifteen specific areas. There are, altogether, twelve levels of achievement. If a student does not complete them all, that’s really not surprising or problematic. The program has been designed to enable people to gain from it at every level, and its upper reaches are accordingly extraordinarily demanding. Few if any students will ever reach them in the course of their time at Scholars Online. To complete the last of them, the student would have to have written and published a book. The lower levels, on the other hand, are quite accessible, and the student should be able to pass through them quite quickly. In the middle, the pace will slow down somewhat, the tasks will become more challenging, and there will be a constant check on the mastery of the basic elements of writing. The goal of the whole process is to let a student find his or her level and to work on the tasks that require improvement, rather than moving through a program in lockstep with other students who may not (almost certainly do not, in fact) have the same set of writing issues. It also attempts to push each student to reach a little farther and push a little harder against his or her own limits to achieve something better all the time. The goal is to achieve a genuine substantive mastery of the writing process rather than to hit and then abandon a fixed goal. Grading for the course as a course will combine an assessment of where the student stands relative to a norm for grade level, and also the amount of progress achieved along the way. SCORING AREAS

Fifteen distinct scores are maintained for each player in the game. As we begin this operation, these will probably be collated manually by a teacher in a spreadsheet, but ultimately we hope to create a web-based reporting/scoring system accessible to both students and their teachers. The scores recognize and deal with two kinds of things. Most are general rule- or principle-based values, such as proper grammar, mechanics, sentence, paragraph and essay structure, thoroughness, logical correctness, and so on. Those are measured by the scores of the first ten categories. The second type are granular, particular things that cannot be dealt with on the same terms — specific spelling and usage issues, which are typically peculiar to individual words. The scores of the second sort measure these, and other indirect values. The next page lists these scoring areas. All the exercises in the game, whether very low-level drills or more advanced writing assignments, provide points in one or more of these categories. At the lowest levels, these will be automatic, based on performance; at the more advanced levels, they will be necessarily keyed to instructors’ assessments. Each of the scores in the first ten categories is itself a product of several decimal values ranging from zero to two. This allows arbitrarily fine gradation, of course, but the range of values hovering around one produces an interesting mathematical result. The rationale is simply that, as each curricular area is an organic whole, its parts are interdependent. Accordingly, all these scores are multiplied to create the score for the whole level, rather than merely being added. What does that mean, in practical terms? It means that you really need to achieve across-the-board mastery of each part in order to achieve the whole. If you know everything else about mechanics but still can’t manage a comma, you’re in some serious trouble. A zero in any of the sub-scores will zero the total for the simple reason that any number multiplied by zero is zero. A non-zero score below one will drag the product down. Compensatorily, a range of relatively high scores across the board (better than 1.5) will produce skyrocketing scores that will reward genuine excellence and make it conspicuous. The scores and what they mean:

• Common Sense (CS): Basic mastery of terminology. • Savoir Faire (SF): Knowing your way around a sentence. • Tactics (TA): Mastery of mechanics (capitalization, punctuation, italics, etc.) and low-level organization of sentences. • Strategy (ST): Larger-scale organization of paragraphs, overall strategies for organizing essays. • Jurisprudence (DX): Manipulation of logical categories, avoidance of logical pitfalls. • Integrity (IN): Argumentative coherence and relevance — avoidance of “cheap shots”, internal contradiction, and extraneous materials. • Mindfulness (MI): Thoroughness of coverage, thoughtful exploration of opposing positions. Completeness. • Persuasiveness (PE): The use of rhetorical techniques to engage the reader and win a fair hearing. Pathos, ethos, and logos. • Charisma (CH): The somewhat subjective issues of elegance of style, verging on the poetic. Word disposition, rhythm, sound, and so on. • Diplomacy (DI): Adaptation of the authorial voice to the perspective of the hearer/reader, as relevant.

• Denarii (DE): In the basic terms of the game, money. Used to quantify such issues as those surrounding spelling and usage. • Auctoritas (AU): In terms of the game, personal gravity and conviction. Of no critical role in the game, but reﬂects respect paid by other students in forum. • Potestas (PO): In terms of the game, raw power or might. Used to quantify power of expression. • Imperium (IM): In terms of the game, duly constituted authority. An indicator of achievement at the more advanced stages of the game, measuring tasks completed and credibility accumulated. • Clientes (CL): In terms of the game, clients. Used to measure assistance provided to other students in the process at the lower levels. SPELLING AND USAGE: DENARII

The denarius was a normal day’s wage for a worker in ancient Rome. As such, it’s also the basic unit we’re using for the “money” score in the game. Rising through the ranks was a fairly costly affair; we’re not attempting to emulate that exactly (since there really aren’t, in the current version of the game, things for you to buy with the money), but instead we’re using money here as a way of controlling those things that are too fine-grained or idiosyncratic to treat as separate scores, but which do nevertheless constitute a large part of how a student’s writing is perceived. Each level requires a certain minimum amount of money to enter. As one’s level on the ladder of achievement goes up, so also does one’s ability to earn denarii. One can also lose denarii, however — and that’s an important part of the game. Here’s how it works. Whenever a student makes a new mistake in spelling or usage, it will cost nothing, but that error will be added to the student’s spelling or usage error list , where it will remain in perpetuity. It will behoove the student to address these issues immediately; if the same error appears on a subsequent assignment, it will cost a denarius; on another after that, two; on a fourth, four, and so on — the cost doubling each time a given error is made. The point here, of course, is that while such errors are relatively minor if the student addresses them promptly, they can become monumental road-blocks if neglected. Accumulated denarii are required to move ahead in the game, so this is significant. An error made multiple times in a given paper or exercise will be charged at the prevailing rate for each time it appears, but the cost will only double for the next assignment. Hence, if one misspells “definitely” three times in a given paper after having had it corrected twice earlier, it will be charged at four denarii, three times — twelve denarii. Were the same thing to happen in the next paper, it would be eight denarii, three times — twenty-four. And so on. THE LEVELS

The twelve levels of play are as follows: I. Discipulus (Student): Here the goals are to get the basic terms of discourse onto the table. The chief game goal is the accumulation of CS points in twelve specific subject areas identified (loosely) with the Twelve Tables of Roman law. Along the way the student should also accumulate a few points in the SF area. II. Civis (Citizen): Here the goals are to master the basic moves of a sentence — nothing more. What makes a sentence work, in a strictly grammatical sense? What are the relevant parts of a sentence? How do they work? What things in sentences attach to what other things? Clauses, verb moods, pronouns and pronoun reference, and deployment of modifiers. III. Miles (Soldier): Here the main focus is on mechanics, while building up some more muscles in the area of sentence construction. Specifically these tools involve punctuation, capitalization, and italics/underlining. IV. Tribunus militum (Military tribune): Here the student will be expected to form sentences in various forms, using proper mechanics and grammar, meeting an assortment of specifications. Transformation of the forms of a sentence will be part of the process, so that students will come to understand that arranging the piece of a sentence in different ways. The points one accumulates here will largely be TA (tactics) points, though there will be a bit of a start on ST (strategy) points as well, especially with the latter exercises. V. Praefectus (Prefect): Here the student needs to choose forms of sentence most effective for his or her purposes, explore logical unfolding within a sentence, and begin on the question of organizing a sound paragraph with topic sentences, rational development, and the like. More sophisticated work with conditional sentences, sequence of tenses, and the like. The game metaphor will be military, involving single battles. Most of the points here will be in the ST (strategy) class. VI. Quaestor (Quaestor): Here the main matter is constructing robust paragraphs and putting them in sequence to form simple essays. We will consider such things as the five-paragraph essay (while acknowledging the limitations of the form) and work on targeting the proper subject for a thesis statement. Answering the right question. Simple logical fallacies. Rudimentary outlining. The game metaphor will be military, involving campaigns of multiple battles. VII. Aedilis (Aedile): Here we will proceed from the foundation of answering the right question to exploring classical and contemporary topics of invention (using or as opposed to brainstorming). Identifying the right question will expand into identifying required terms, assumptions (stated or unstated), sub-questions tributary to the main question, distinguishing fact from opinion, and the logical structures of inductive vs. deductive reasoning, more complex fallacies of reasoning. The game topic here will be putting on games for the public. This is the first step on the civil cursus honorum proper, and it’s a big one. A student should expect to spend quite some time here. Essays will generally run 200-500 words, will be graded in detail by the teacher, and will support exam-taking skills in almost any subject area. VIII. Praetor (Praetor): A return to the field with command authority, managing more substantial campaigns, through which one may accumulate provinces (and their attendant clients, riches, etc.) Pedagogically, this will involve writing on a variety of topics — these may be drawn from a topic bank or be written material from other classes. In practical terms, they will represent essays running 500-2500 words as a rule. The student will be expected to complete essays in a variety of types, including definition, explanation, narrative report, compare and contrast, system analysis, and persuasion. An introduction to a range of other argumentative options, such as the scholastic reasoning method, and the Roman oratorical model. IX. Consul (Consul): A student who reaches this stage has probably reached the practical summit of the experience, at least in terms of college preparation. The consul will have to complete at least three major campaigns, in the form of three research papers totalling at least 20,000 words, relying on a range of valid sources, with one at least running to 10,000 words, requiring full academic documentation (footnotes, bibliography, etc.). X. Propraetor (Propraetor): The range here is somewhat plastic, but entails very advanced academic writing, including the submission of at least one item for publication. XI. Proconsul (Proconsul): This takes the same kind of work as the Consul, but carried out further: it would require at least three papers of 10,000 words each, produced with meticulous attention to detail, organization, and execution, and the submission of at least one item for publication. XII. Censor (Censor): Extended work of the proconsular sort, but involving the production of a full-length book, submission for publication, and some tutorial help of other students. Scores required for entry to each level:

Level! CS! SF! TA! ST! DX! IN! MI! PE! CH! DI! DE! AU! PO! IM! CL Discipulus! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Civis 90 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 0 0 0 Miles 90 80 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 10 0 0 Trib Mil 90 90 70 30 10 0 0 0 0 0 100 30 20 0 0 Praefectus 90 90 90 70 50 30 30 10 0 0 500 40 30 0 0 Quaestor 90 90 90 90 90 45 45 20 10 10 2K 50 40 0 10 Aedilis 90 90 90 90 90 60 60 30 15 15 10K 60 45 0 20 Praetor 90 90 90 90 90 70 70 45 20 20 20K 70 50 30 40 Consul 90 90 90 90 90 80 80 60 30 30 50K 80 60 60 80 Propraetor 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 70 45 45 100K 90 70 90 160 Proconsul 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 80 60 60 500K 90 80 90 320 Censor 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 85 85 1M 90 90 90 1000

These are the minimum scores required to enter each level. Upon achievement of a qualifying score, the student is advanced automatically to the next level. In other words, advancement is not optional when it is possible. The student must maintain at least a score of 80% of the entry-level scores in order to continue working at the level of his or her rank, however. If the score in any of these categories drops below 80% of the entry level, the student does not drop back in rank, but must go back and concentrate on raising that score to the required level before resuming work in the relevant area. Often this will entail doing tasks at several levels prior to the current one (for example, a Quaestor who persistently makes comma usage errors will probably have to ameliorate the score by means of exercises normally offered to the Miles). Continuing to do work correctly, without incurring penalties for errors in a given class, will replenish the scores so that one will not be mired down in remediation for the occasional typographical error. COMMON SENSE

This level is about getting the basic grammatical terms of discussion on the table in terms we all understand the same way. We talk about the pieces that are put together into written English. The model here is the Twelve Tables of Roman law. (In fact they were not much like these, but let that go.) You need to master each of the twelve before you’re suited to become a citizen — a Civis Romanus. At any time your CS score drops below 80% of the entry level for your current rank (which will in all cases be 72), you’ll need to bring it back up before you can go on. The CS score is the product of the scores for each of the “Twelve Tables” — mastery of twelve points you need to know, in broad terms, in order for us to be able to talk about language effectively — and hence also before we can really talk about anything else. Each of those scores is assessed on a range between zero and two. Consequently, the highest you could theoretically achieve would be 212, which is 4096. On the other hand, in order to achieve a score of 90, you need to have an average of about 1.455 in each of the categories. You will note that a zero in any category will zero out the total, and a very low score in any category will make it very hard to achieve outstanding scores across the board. A score of 1 in every category will only get you a total score of 1. In order to cross the threshold of 90, you’ll need an average score of 1.455 in every category without a great deal of deviation on the lower side. The elements in this section will be tested by self-scoring Moodle quizzes; most prepared students will probably come in knowing most of this material already, and can move through it very quickly. It will get them well launched into the game, and build a stockpile of at least a few denarii. The Twelve Tables

• I. Parts of speech • II. Types of sentence • III. Subject and predicate • IV. Subject-verb agreement • V. Modifiers (adjectives and adverbs) • VI. Cases (subjects and objects) • VII. Predicate nominative and adjective • VIII. Independent clauses • IX. Dependent clauses • X. Simple sentence (definition and identification) • XI. Compound sentence (definition and identification) • XII. Complex sentence (definition and identification) SAVOIR FAIRE

This score is about knowing your way around. It will drill, test, and validate basic grammatical forms from the simple to the complex sentence. Specifically it will address all kinds of independent and dependent clauses, and the verb usage proper to each, as well as correct use of pronouns, conjunctions, and modifiers. As previously, one needs to have a mastery of all these categories in order to proceed. Accordingly, the SF score is also rooted in a product of four sub-scores, which are quantified as S, P, Q, and R. That final product is cubed, so that once again the highest possible score is 4096, but that is only achievable by consistently high level work. Because these categories are so enormously important in writing, we believe that it is essential to have them very solidly under control. In order to reach the level of 90 here, one has to have a score of 1.46 in each, on average, with very little deviation to the low end in any of them. Any significant drop in any of them will acutely reduce the score; a zero in any of them will return a score of zero overall. Some Savoir Faire points are awarded for exercises at the Discipulus level. Most are accumulated from things only available to the Cives. As with the previous level, most of these will be scored with self-scoring Moodle quizzes, and the student can move through these without being limited by response times. SPQR — Senatus Populusque Romanus

• S. Types of subordinate clause and moods of the verb. • P. Pronouns and pronoun reference. • Q. Coordinating and subordinating conjunctions. • R. Modiﬁers: adverbs and adjectives. Dangling modiﬁers. TACTICS

This score is devoted to mechanics and to the tactics of combination. The six mechanics topics deal with capitalization, italics/underline, and punctuation of all sorts, while the second deals with managing the combination of smaller units into larger ones. The tactics/mechanics score is computed as the product of the twelve variable subscores. Again, they can have values from zero to two, and a two in all scores will once again produce a total tactics score of 4096, but a one in all categories will produce a score of one. Comma usage will be the most sensitive of these categories. The rules of the ﬁrst part are all fairly simple, with the possible exception of the comma. (For the record and as a matter of uniform policy, we will expect the serial or “Oxford” comma whenever applicable. There seems little point in getting into a debate on the subject, and people are bitterly entrenched on both sides of the issue, but we’ve determined that it’s the best option here, and that’s the policy we will uniformly enforce.) The exercises involving equipment will, like the previous ones, be tested by self-scoring Moodle quizzes. The second part deals with various transformations of the forms of a sentence to create different emphases and patterns of unfolding information; from there we move on to combining sentences into paragraphs and then paragraphs into sequences of paragraphs with effective transitions. These will be scored by teachers. Equipment and Tactical Maneuvers

• Sword: Commas. • Javelin: Colons, semicolons, dashes, hyphens, and other separative punct. • Breastplate: Enclosing punctuation (parentheses, brackets, braces, etc.). • Shield: Closing punctuation. • Eagle: Capitalization. • Tuba: Italics, underline, and other character modiﬁcations.

• Line formation: Permutations on a sentence • Advance: Frame a single-sentence answer that addresses a question • Retreat: Question terms, clarify ambiguities • Testudo: Constructing a complete single paragraph • Cohort placement: combining paragraphs • Order of march: transitions STRATEGY

Here we continue moving from the technical areas of writing to more and more complex questions involving judgment, and, inevitably, more particular involvement of the teacher. Some of these questions are subjective, but the teachers will attempt to be as fair as possible. The most important thing for any writer of academic prose to deal with is the matter of identifying the right question. Without this, no amount of expertise, elegance, or other reﬁnement will be of any use. Following are the perhaps conventional processes (doubtless known by most students even before they get here) of brainstorming, positing a thesis, outlining, and other such aspects of what (in classical rhetoric) used to be called inventio (or discovery) and dispositio (arrangement). As with the Tactics score, this is computed asymmetrically as a product of twelve sub-scores ranging from zero to two. Strategies

• Target: Identifying the right question. • Terrain: Deﬁnition. • Scouting: Querying the topic — brainstorming and beyond. • Objective: Positing a thesis. • Positioning the cohorts: Structure — outlining and patterns of reason. • Attacking: Making a strong opening. • Triumph: Making a strong closing. • Supply lines: Rational sequence and process. • Fortifying: Supporting evidence and arguments. • Bridges: Identifying and addressing critical points of failure. • Crossroads: Compare and contrast • Weather: Cause and effect. JURISPRUDENCE

This is dexterity of mind — the capacity for avoiding pitfalls and thinking one’s way around roadblocks and obstacles. The main tools here are tools of thought and interpretation, and they could in some contexts be viewed as higher-order strategic skills. We’ve separated them out because they make practical sense to us that way. There are twelve subscores here, again scored from zero to two, and the total jurisprudence score is the product of all of them equally. The possible range is 0-4096. Crimes and punishments

• Due process: Subjects and predicates as categories of meaning; syllogisms. • Theft: Fallacies of reasoning — circular reasoning • Robbery: Fallacies of reasoning — begging the question. • Kidnapping: Fallacies of reasoning — false dichotomy. • Proscription: Fallacies of reasoning — guilt by association. • Breach of contract: Fallacies of reasoning — bad syllogisms. • Vis (violence): Fallacies of discourse — ad hominem and ad baculam arguments. • Riot: Fallacies of discourse — in-crowd, bandwagon, ﬂattery. • Treason: Fallacies of discourse — hidden threat, blackmail, etc. • Ambitus: Grey-area fallacies in inductive reasoning (post hoc, etc.) • Precedent: Parallelism. • The barber: Paradoxes and self-reference. INTEGRITY

This score is devoted to the unity and coherence of content, pure and simple. That means getting your facts right, not contradicting yourself, making sure that everything there is both relevant and that your argument is sufﬁcient to demonstrate the thesis. The rules here are deceptively simple, and necessarily somewhat subjective. Here the teacher has nearly total control over how the points are awarded. The main issue here is that one needs to dig — deep and hard — for content, factual matter, veriﬁcation, and logical rigor, and one needs to dispose what one has found in a rational and self-consistent way. There are really only four aspects here (as with Savoir Faire above), and the score is computed as the cube of the product of those four. Unities and Integrities

• Honestas. Factual correctness. • Disciplina: Relevance • Ofﬁcium: Completeness. • Honor: Self-consistency and acknowledgment of sources. MINDFULNESS

This score is devoted to something much like the previous one, but has more to do with the surrounding factors. It is computed from four sub-scores having to do with the matters hovering at or just beyond the boundary of the work. What are other positions that one might take (not necessarily contradictory, but sometimes at skew relationships to the main thesis)? What are some counterexamples, and how might they be explained? What are some unexplored avenues of investigation? What are the implications beyond this matter? Here again we have four categories, and the score is computed as the cube of the product of the four. The four scores here are modeled on processes of the Roman Senate. Consule was a call for the solicitation of the opinions of all the Senate on a given matter. Veto was the interposition of a block (much like our presidential veto), usually by the Tribune of the People (for complex reasons, not an actual stage on the cursus here). Numera (imperative of the verb numerare) was a call for a count, and the establishment of a quorum. The Acta diurna (somewhat anachronistic here, since we’re envisioning this as occurring in the late Republic around 100 B.C.) was the public daily record of the transactions and proceedings of the Senate mandated by Julius Caesar. These were published abroad in the Forum Romanum, and were also sent out to the provinces to keep them apprised. Senate proceedings

• Consule: Other perspectives • Veto: Counter-examples • Numera: exploration of internal matters • Acta diurna: implications beyond PERSUASIVENESS

In a perhaps oddly self-referential way, these scores are rooted in ideas of ancient Roman rhetorical practice. They address both the Aristotelian forms of appeal (ethos, pathos, and logos), and the handling of the various Roman parts of the typical senatorial or juridical oratio. The meanings here are somewhat indirect — the latter in particular, since most (if not all) the actual writing assignments will not correspond to the format of the Roman oration. Nevertheless, each of the parts represents a particular aspect of the persuasive process, and that’s what these categories are meant to measure. Artes rhetoricae

• Ethos (weighted double) • Pathos (weighted double) • Logos (weighted double) • Exordium • Narration • Partitio/Divisio • Conﬁrmation • Refutation (of opposing points) • Peroration CHARISMA

This section is about stylistic polish — the pieces of the process that are more concerned with elegance of presentation than with substance. Obviously all the elegance in the world will not do the job if the substance is not there, but just as obviously, something presented elegantly will be more readable, more persuasive, and more informative than the same material presented clumsily. Under this heading, we include twelve categories: analogy, parallelism of phrasing, rhythm, euphony, concision, musical devices (alliteration, rhyme, vowel color, etc.), allusion, simile/metaphor, Irony, personal appeal, humor, and insight. The overall score is computed as the product of those twelve. The writer working chieﬂy on these matters will already be quite advanced as a rule, capable of making sound expository discussion of all manner of things. Rhetorical polish

• Analogy (general) • Parallelism of phrasing • Rhythm • Euphony • Concision • Musical devices (alliteration, rhyme, vowel color, etc.) • Allusion • Simile/metaphor • Irony (incl. under/overstatement) • Personal appeal (folksiness, self-deprecation, etc.) • Humor • Insight DIPLOMACY

The Diplomacy category is about adaptiveness. The exercises focusing on this category speciﬁcally will require permuting a given body of written material for a range of audiences, purposes, media, and other constraints. Most of them will require the student to work over the same text to meet varying demands, and to account for the changes deliberately and intentionally. Diplomacy points will also be awarded to a lesser degree for other assignments that require similar processes along the way. Embassies

• Ad populos: Adapting to different audience/readers • Ad rem: Adapting to different purposes. • Ad modum: Adapting to different media. • Varia: Adapting to different constraints.