Progymnasmata: Commonplace
Classical Writing Exercises in Preparation for Rhetoric
This post is part of a series on the “progymnasmata” which is an ancient approach to teaching students the art of written composition. The word itself essentially means “before exercises” because these are the necessary skills one should acquire before entering into the discipline of Rhetoric (persuasion in writing and speech). You can go HERE to access the growing list of resources for learning and teaching the various elements of the progymnasmata. Enjoy!
A “commonplace,” in this present context, refers to an idea which is commonly held by the majority of people. That is to say, this exercise works off of that which most people would already affirm as true and makes use of that common knowledge to achieve a particular end.
Distinguo: This exercise shares a similar name with two other disciplines in classical Christian education.
First, there is an aspect of classical rhetoric which we call “Commonplaces” or “Common Topics” which makes use of The Five Common Topics. These are something you will learn about when you begin to study the Five Canons of Rhetoric (Invention, Arrangement, Style, Memory, and Delivery). The Common Topics are part of the “Invention” process for speech making and they are useful for determining the various angles from which any subject may be considered.
Second, there is a practice often called “commonplacing” where one makes use of a journal or notebook, collecting great quotes or ideas for later use. These quotes and ideas are recorded over time for the purpose of becoming a source of inspiration for writing projects or for use within a paper on a particular topic. Really anything you discover which brings you joy, intrigues the mind, or which you appreciate for its beauty and eloquence, can be kept for your later use or amusement in such a journal.
Despite the wonderfulness of these other two kinds of “commonplace” it is important that you know that this present exercise is not the same as those.
Our present exercise is all about the practice of magnifying virtues and vices. Its most direct and obvious application is in the court of law in which a person is on trial. The prosecuting attorney has the responsibility to see that the defendant is found guilty whereas the defense attorney has the responsibility to see that the defendant is declared innocent. In both of their situations a skillful use of Commonplace will be of great help to them as they seek to get the result they want from the jury.
The way in which this desired effect is solicited from an audience comes by magnifying (or amplifying) some particular virtue or vice or a behavior and then closely associating that virtue or vice with the person in question. Vices such as betraying your own friends, spouse, or country or gambling away all your money so as to not be able to support your family, etc., are typically received with disgust. On the other hand, virtues such as giving time and money to care for those less fortunate or risking one’s life to save another person from danger are generally acknowledged as praiseworthy. Such being the case, the end goal of a commonplace essay (or speech) is to associate a particular individual with a universally despised vice, or universally praised virtue, so as to have a persuasive effect on the audience’s perception of the person in question.
Here is the general process:
Begin by stating the contrary position on the matter.
Refute the stated contrary position and explain what would be more ideal.
Offer a quote from a trustworthy authority, state a proverb, maxim, or general principle which strongly rebukes those who would disagree with your position.
Consider the specific person in question and highlight the decisions and actions they have made which associate them with the virtue or vice being discussed.
Condemn or defend the motives for their decisions and actions.
Anticipate the objections of the audience and respond to them.
Exhort your audience to praise or condemn the individual in question.
Whatever the topic may be there are at least six different categories which may be considered in regard to evaluating someone’s virtuous or vicious activity:
Legality: Does the action under consideration conform to the legal code recognized and enforced by the civil authorities?
Justice: Does the action under consideration conform to the good, doing what is right?
Expediency: Is the action under consideration useful or helpful to the individual who practiced it, to those around him, or to society at large?
Practicability: If all people practiced the same course of action would it be good for them or for society at large?
Decency / Decorum: Is the action under consideration fitting to the kind of person who committed it?
Consequences: What were the results of the action in question? What else did it affect?
Example Commonplace (PDF Version with Color-Coding)
The Person under consideration: King David of Israel
The Vice under consideration: Adultery
(1) If anything is certain in the history of philosophy it is that all of the actions of mankind are aimed at one thing in particular, namely happiness. All of us want to be happy. It is on this pretext that some might express a certain level of sympathy toward the person who engages in an extramarital affair. People generally believe that a person has a right to be happy and, therefore, if someone is unhappy in their marriage then it is only natural that they should look for happiness outside of their marriage.
(2) Though the desire for happiness is completely understandable it is, however, foolish to seek happiness where it can never be found. Marriage is one of the many blessings which God has given to man wherein he may find much legitimate happiness. In marriage God has given a sanctified and lawful place to express and experience love and sexual intimacy. Marriage establishes a stable and secure relationship, recognized by the church and the government, with certain moral and legal obligations to one another, where a man and a woman may pursue the good life together, sharing their assets, dreams, and selves with one another apart from shame or unnecessary dangers to their wellbeing. Marriage also provides the kind of financial and emotional stability needed to meet the natural result of sexual relationships, namely the blessings of children. As such, keeping one’s sexual activity within the boundary of marriage is far more likely to result in genuine happiness than to abandon this blessed institution for that which offers no such securities. Infidelity breeds misery for all it touches, not happiness, and this vice should be condemned everywhere, and every time, it manifests itself.
(3) As God’s own word testifies about marriage, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.” Also the Lord Jesus has said, “What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” Since the object of any adulturey is to find intimacy, love and sexual fulfillment, is it not far better to seek that in the very place which was designed for that purpose?
(4) It is not fitting that any man should break fidelity to his own lawful wife, nor is it fitting that any man should violate the marriage of another, but even more it is beneath the dignity of a king to abuse his power for the sake of his own lust. King David, of all people, should have known very well what God has said about these things. As the King of the Hebrew people, through whom the world was given the commandments of God, he was in the best of positions to be properly informed as to the will of God. Though he knew that one should only partake of sexual relations within the confines of the marriage covenant he spurned Wisdom and pursued destruction. Not only did he forsake his own lawful marriage bed but he violated that of another man’s as well by sleeping with Uriah’s wife, Bathsheeba. In his pursuit of happiness he ruined the happiness of many people, himself included, even to the point that it led to the wrongful death of a good man.
(5) What motivated David to commit adultery but a misguided quest for happiness? But are there no higher duties in this life than personal happiness? What of behaving justly towards our neighbor? What of living in obedience to God? What of the practice of virtue and holiness? Indeed, how many examples of people pursuing happiness to their ruin may be given? Is not the number beyond count? Imagine if every man abandoned his responsibilities whenever they didn't seem to immediately gratify his sense of happiness, what would this do to our society? Where would any kind of stability or social trust be if it were permissible that the pursuit of happiness could justify the breaking of any contract, agreement, relationship, or rule? Chaos would ensue if all followed the behavior of David as a general maxim of life. Happiness is indeed a powerful motivator but it by no means serves as a sufficient justifier for doing what is wrong or for spreading hurt and misery to others.
(6) What could be said to offer some justification for his actions? Someone may suggest that Bathseeba was complicit, that she herself wanted to take part in this affair, and that it was not therefore an abuse of David’s power to take her to his bed. But even if this is so, what of Uriah her husband? What of the abuse of his rights? Quite clearly David used his power to deprive Uriah of his lawful wife and, in the end, his very life. Further still, supposing Bathsheba was complicit in the adultery, or even supposing that somehow Uriah was not wronged by this behavior, how would this in any way mitigate the deed being evil in the sight of God as a rejection of his commandments? In the end such defenses are clearly weak and insufficient.
(7) No person who has committed themselves to a spouse through holy matrimony should simply be allowed to disregard their vows in the pursuit of their own personal happiness. David is guilty of defying his own vows and violating the marriage of another man. Everyone should, therefore, be able to acknowledge that David has sinned against God and his fellow man and that he should be held accountable for his actions, just as any man who commits a similar deed should be. King or no king, he is guilty and should pay the penalty for his actions.