Classical Education: Is Dorothy Sayers the Only Way?

I have received a couple emails lately {to which I haven’t had time to respond individually, so sorry!} about the relationship between Charlotte Mason and Classical Education. One of them specifically referenced “combining” the two approaches, as if Charlotte Mason were one thing, and Classical Education another. After all of my reading and thinking, I have concluded that Charlotte Mason is quite different from what I often call neoclassicism, which is the modern approach a la Dorothy Sayers essay, but as far as the long stream of the Great Conversation goes, she fits quite nicely into it.

In other words, I believe that Charlotte Mason’s educational philosophy is one expression of the tradition that is Classical Education. This is why, for instance, we see elements of Comenius, especially in her approach to schooling under the age of six, and Cicero in her practice of narration.

And so on.

So I’m going to repost my comments on this from the past, making any edits I deem necessary. {For the record, the original is here.}

But before I go on, I want to clear up a myth I have seen rearing its ugly head from a link that has been feeding to this site, and that is the idea that Charlotte Mason can be discredited on the grounds that she educated a rich elite. The person who said this obviously ought to read a basic biographical sketch of Miss Mason, such as the one found in For the Children’s Sake. Charlotte Mason organized schools in some of the toughest neighborhoods amongst the poorest of England’s poor, the mining families. She was quite proud of her results, as many in her day believed that mining families were genetically determined to be ignorant and could not be redeemed out of that situation by any means.

All of this is to say: don’t believe everything people say on a forum.

Ahem.

Moving on…below is the new version of the old post…

______________________________

[dropcap]O[/dropcap]ver on the Charlotte Mason Education Ning Network, I was asked this question:

I’m curious, where did the idea of applying the trivium to stages of a child’s life come from? I’ve heard it was Dorothy Sayers, but I’m curious what the reasoning was for it. Was there any research, historical practice, or anything else that anyone is aware of that this practice stems from? I’m thinking it must have some solid ground with followers like Doug Wilson, Sproul, etc. It is foundational in the classical approach so I wonder. Because if it is true, then it would follow that CMers are missing opportunities to implant knowledge via memorization in the early years. But then I suppose CM’s methods come only from her writings as well. Maybe it’s just my aversion to rote memorization and grammar that deters me from that part of classical ed.

This is something I’ve been thinking about myself for quite some time, and I’m going to try and offer my thoughts upon the subject, as long as we establish that I am {1} not an expert, and {2} only telling you what I know and think {which is very little in comparison with certain other people named Andrew Kern} and {3} in possession of a generous amount of angst when it comes to memory work*.

And also math.

And spelling.

And what is for dinner tonight.

Sigh.

I have developed opinions on Sayers et. al. over the last year or so which are not typical, but are also not as rare as I once thought. Personally, I think that Sayers’ speech The Lost Tools of Learning {which I understand was given at a fundraiser and was meant to get people thinking rather than be an absolute standard for classical education} appealed to the modern mind’s desire to organize, categorize, and divide the educational process. I’m not saying the speech was bad, for I find a lot of helpful ideas in it, and I try to read it once per year, but I also think there is much to be wary of.

It also helps to remember that Sayers was a Medieval Scholar and likely got her inspiration from reading the educational works of the Middle Ages.

Because of this, we can look at Comenius as reference {since that is who I’ve been studying lately — but Erasmus’ Education of a Christian Prince is pretty incredible, from what I hear, and there are many others — Martin Luther comes to mind — whose works we can read today}, to see if what Sayers wrote at all resembles what the ancients did.

Comenius did divide his students into large age ranges, each governed by a different school. For instance, from 0 to 6, he had what he called the Mother School. Charlotte would have loved this! The school focused on gaining knowledge of real things through the senses, intuition, the bond with the family — Poetic Knowledge! The child in Mother School would learn the names for many things, from colors to constellations, and rudimentary knowledge of geography, mathematics, economics, and so on. This was all done conversationally!

Beginning dialectic was taught through conversational question-and-answer sessions where adequate answers were required of the child. Likewise, early grammar was taught through conversational instruction in right articulation. Early rhetoric was taught through the introduction of the use of metaphor and proper vocal inflection. Interestingly enough, early morality was learned through … formation of proper habits.

Does Charlotte have a kindred spirit here or what?

In reading this, we see that while Sayers divided the Trivium into pieces and assigned grammar to young children, dialectic to middle-schoolers, and rhetoric to teens and above, Comenius did no such thing, expecting the Trivium to be kept intact at even preschool ages. Granted, his focus made allowances for age-appropriateness {which is why the emphasis in the younger years was on what could be grasped through use of the five external senses}, but when Sayers implied that we might save dialectic for preteens, she was saying something new.

The next level of Comenius’ model was called Vernacular School and it was for ages 6-12 {vernacular, because the instruction was in the child’s native tongue}. At this age, they moved to internal senses {intuition in regard to causes, development of the will}, began reading, writing, drawing, making music, measuring, weighing, and memorizing.

I did a little research on this memorizing portion — the medievals were very big on memorizing, and if I could afford it I’d buy The Book of Memory by Carruthers to try and figure all of this out — but it seems that our idea of rote memory is a little different than what Comenius was doing at the time. For instance, in the book on Comenius I am now reading, it says “let the understanding of things first be formed.” This is why there was little to no memory work {other than that which happens almost accidently between mother and child} in Mother School. This point alone tells us that their memory system was not rote, if by rote we mean memorizing disconnected facts we do not understand.

Like Charlotte, an appeal is made to Nature. So, for instance, in Nature, matter precedes form. School books, it is argued, do not do this. The example is given {not unlike an example given in Mason’s volumes} of grammar study:

Then in the study of a language they teach form before things, because they teach rules before words and sentences. They give rules and then examples, whereas the light ought to precede that which it is intended to light up.

Hence the emphasis on the senses in the younger years. Children must be intimately acquainted with the things about which they will learn in books in later years.

Here is a wonderful paragraph:

As to Memory: To this there is necessary, first, a clear, firm, and true impression on the senses; secondly, the understanding of what is presented. Words by themselves, if capable of no order or coherence that can engage the understanding, are not to be committed to memory, e.g. the vocables anima, esse, res, ordo, difficult to remember if so learned, are easily remembered thus, Ordo est anima rerum. Writing is a great aid to memory.

Whatever Comenius was doing, we can see {again} that his memory work was not rote. There are so many similarities between this old classicist and Charlotte Mason, but if you read Mason’s works, you know that she quoted him, and so we know that she knew him, read him, and, like she did with everything else of value she read, incorporated some of his ideas into her own attempt at a philosophy and practice.

Later, in regard to the Vernacular School, it is mentioned that the students memorize whatever the Teacher is reading aloud to them. This certainly reminded me of Charlotte’s recitation trick.

Granted, there were differences between Comenius and Charlotte. For instance, Comenius used a lot of review, the afternoon lessons essentially reviewing the morning lessons, while Charlotte preferred to train the mind to pay attention, and in such a way that students came to know after a single reading. {Certainly, I prefer Charlotte in this regard!}

There are still two more levels of school for Comenius. The next level is the Gymnasium, and that covers ages 12 to 18. The subjects in Gymnasium were to be the Trivium (grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric), the Quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy) as well as physics, geography, chronology, history, ethic and theology.

It is not presumed that a thorough knowledge of all these subjects can be attained in the Gymnasium; but only that a solid foundation may be laid in them all.

Again we see that while Sayers’ essay seems to imply that grammar was for little children, dialectic for preteens, and rhetoric for teens and older, the case of actual classical education was quite different–a “solid foundation” for all seven liberal arts, as well as many of the sciences, was to be given to preteens and teens.

There is yet another level: University. University was to cover “every department of knowledge.” University, unlike the other levels, was for the few rather than the many. Only the exceptional student ought to go, for this was a labor fit only for truly great minds. Some of the activities of a student at University included reading broadly {including the Greeks–this is interesting because I once read that grammar began with rules but was considered to include all of a culture’s written work, so that this could rightly be said to be grammar}, and public student debates and discussions {a combination of dialectic and rhetoric}.

In my reading, I cannot escape the idea that though there was specific, formal training in the Trivium, and that, truly, grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric, were separated formally (i.e., a student’s grammar lesson was separated from his dialectic lesson). But the lines dividing them do not appear to be drawn in the way that Sayers drew them in her essay. Likewise, the memorization, which we often think of as being rote upon reading Sayers, was always based upon understanding.

All of this is to say, though I personally have found Sayers to be inspiring and informative, I think we do great damage to allow her to speak as the sole authority on classicism, or to define a methodology of classical education.

In fact, when we consider her audience, it is doubtful that she meant herself to be taken quite so seriously.

When I read about the classical educator Comenius, I see far greater similarity between Comenius and Charlotte Mason than I do Comenius and Sayers.

Let everything which is presented to the pupil,

and rightly understood be fixed in the memory.

–S. S. Laurie in John Amos Comenius: Bishop of the Moravians

---

*I left this in because it worked, style-wise, but my angst in regard to memory work has since cleared up, and it is actually the subject of a talk I gave at our local conference. I do, however, still have angst over things like dinner menus.