The beginning of all discourse is a topic, a question, a problem, an issue. This topic or question or problem or issue can be said to be the subject of the discourse. Obviously, we can’t make any sensible decisions abou t the expression or style of our discourse (i.e. our written work) until we have clearly and firmly defined the subject-matter. Frequently, and certainly in many of your history and English course, the subject-matter has been assigned to you and this will most often be the case in a professional setting as well. However, this year you have the opportunity to chose your own topic.

But the designation of a subject is only a beginning; in fact, it can be a dead-end if something further is not done to define the subject. It is not enough to decide that we are going to write on ‘Athenian democracy’. Before ‘democracy’ can become a real subject for a discourse, something must be predicted of it. The subject must be converted into a thesis. It must, to use a term from Classical logic, be stated in the form of a PROPOSITION, a complete sentence that asserts or denies something about the subject. So our vague subject ‘Athenian democracy’ must be turned into a sentence like ‘Athenian democracy created the unstable political environment which ultimate doomed it to destruction’ or ‘Athenian democracy was only tenable in a state which abided by the political advice of Pericles’. Now we have a real theme or thesis — a precise notion of what we are going to say about the subject of ‘Athenian democracy’ — to guide our writing.

Roman rheoricians used a formula, refered to as STASIS, for determining the point at issue in a court trial, a formula which can be used to help decide on a thesis. The formular consisted of three questions that are asked about the subject of the discussionor dispute:

An sit (whether a things is) — a question of fact

Quid sit (what is it?) — a question of definition

Quale sit (what kind is it?) — a question of quality

In a murder trail, for instance, the case for the prosecution and the defense turn on one of three issues:

1.. Did Brutus kill Caesar?

2.. Was the act murder , an accident, or self-defense?

3.. Was Brutus justified in the killing?

These questions suggest the topics that lawyers resort to in arguing the case. The case will turn on how they are answered.

The use of this formula will not establish the thesis of the discourse, but it can help determine what aspect of the subject you are going to treat in your writing. So, for example, if we apply STASIS to the broad issue of ‘democracy’, we just might discover soem interesting topics for discussion. Did democracy doom Athens to ruin in the Peloponnesian War? (An sit) What was the political regime of Athens under Pericles, a democracy or a tryanny? (Quid sit) Were the Athenians virtuous in their dealings with the Melians? (Quale sit)   Apply each of the questions, gives us a different aspect from which to address the broader topic.

Once the aspect of the topic has been determined, you are ready to formulate a thesis. Once the subject has been narrowed down, what exactly do you wish to say about the subject ?

The cardinal principle is to STATE THE THESIS IN A SINGLE DECLARATIVE SENTENCE. Making use of the second sentence to state the thesis is likely to introduce foreign or subsidiary matter and thereby to violate the unity of the thesis. Your thesis will be claerly and firmly stated if the predicate ASSERTS or DENIES something about the subject: ‘Athenian democracy, Thucydides wants us to know, had already devolved into a tyranny by the time open war commenced with Sparta.’

The thesis sentence is a good starting-point in the writing process (not, however, the research process which precedes it) because it forces the writer to determine from the outset just what it is that he wants to say about a chosen subject. It lays the foundation for a unified, coherent discourse. It also suggests some of the topics that can be used to develop the subject.

NOTE: when conducting serious and prolonged research on a subject, your thesis can and probably will change. We continue researching and reading during the writing process and new discoveries and an expanded view of the topic will alter our thinking. This is normal. This is good. You should never think that you are confined by the first articulation of a thesis.

As simply as the ‘single-sentence thesis’ principle is, some writers have difficulty framing their thesis in a single declarative sentence. Part of their difficulty stems from the fact that they do not have a firm grasp on their ideas before they sit down to compose a thesis sentence. Thought and language interact. The 18th-century Scottish rhetorician Hugh Blair put it this way: “For we may rest assured that whenever we express ourselves ill, there is, besides the mismanagement of language, for the most part, some mistake in our manner of conceiving the subject. Embarrassed, obscure, and feeble thought.”

Of course, writing a thesis is a skill and one that takes considerable practice. Make it a habit to write a thesis sentence for all formal prose you read, yes READ (this is why a reading journal is important if you are serious about thinking clearly). As serious readers, we must learn to to abstract an author’s central idea. The ability to generalize in this way is often the last skill we acquire in learning how to read. If we cannot abstract a theis from what we read, it is not likely that we will have much success in formulating our own thesis sentences.

Vague beginnings invite chaotic endings. Failure to define a subject is the chief cause of fuzzy, broad discourse. Of course there are many times when it may strike us to begin writing before we have a firm, clear idea of what our theis is. In such cases, the act of writing some unfocused thoughts can become part of the creative process which leads to discovering what we want to say. The articulation of a thesis may not come until after we have written a rough draft. But even in these cases, the thesis, when it comes, will be the starting point for the rewrite.

---

Adapted and edited by R.M.Shurmer from ‘Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student’ by Edward P.J. Corbett (1965)