An imaginary interview with Dorothy Sayers
(based on The Lost Tools of Learning essay)

In the medieval scheme of education, what was the main goal in Rhetoric?
The pupil learned to express himself in language – how to say what he had to say elegantly and persuasively.

Is there any particular syllabus you could recommend?
For the study of Rhetoric, a certain freedom is demanded.  Any child who already shows a disposition to specialize should be given his head.  At the same time, those who are likely never to have any great use or aptitude for mathematics, for example, might also be allowed to rest, more or less, upon their oars.  Generally speaking, when the Trivium is completed, the trained mind should be perfectly well equipped to tackle specialized “subjects” on its own.

How did the medieval student prove he hadn’t been resting on his oars ever since getting in the boat?
At the end of his course, he was required to compose a thesis upon some theme set by his masters or chosen by himself, and afterwards, to defend his thesis against the criticism of the faculty.  By this time he would have learned – or woe betide him – not merely to write an essay on paper, but to speak audibly and intelligibly from a platform, and to use his wits quickly when heckled.  There would also be questions, cogent and shrewd, from those who had already run the gauntlet of debate.

The final synthesis of the Trivium should be restored in some form; perhaps as a kind of “leaving examination” during the last term at school.

How can you keep speaking of “synthesis” given our culture’s scattered view of knowledge?  Isn’t it more exciting to take the modern school’s buckshot approach?
This reminds me of Theology.  I shall add it to the curriculum, because Theology of the Mistress-science, without which he whole educational structure will necessarily lack its final synthesis.  Those who disagree about this will remain content to leave their pupils’ education still full of loose ends.