"Multum, non Multa" or a "Broad and Generous Feast"? Yes please!
(Nota bene: this is not a scholarly article. I'm a homeschooling mom. These are the ramblings of my mind as I'm processing the things I'm reading, listening to, and being changed by. Please forgive me for not citing sources or attributing quotes properly. I'm summarizing. If you think I'm getting it wrong, please comment and let me know!)
There has been much and lively debate about whether Charlotte Mason deserves to be considered part of the larger classical tradition of education. Having first discovered the classical tradition, and through that being introduced to the ideas of Charlotte Mason, I have always been curious about the differences and similarities between the two. Last year I chose Charlotte to be my educational mentor for the year and set a goal to read as many of her volumes as possible in one year. I made it through four: Home Education, School Education, Formation of Character, and Towards a Philosophy of Education. I found myself nodding in agreement with much of what she said, and encouraged and affirmed with the study on classical education I had done. It seemed to me, uneducated as I am, they were much in agreement.
Since then, in reading and interacting with others who strongly disagree that Charlotte Mason is in any way part of classical education, two main differences between her method and the classical tradition have risen to the surface. The first is the role of the teacher. The second is the contradiction of a broad and generous feast with the classical principle of "multum, non multa." Charlotte proposes the implementation of a broad and generous feast, and uses the analogy of a broad and varied diet for the mind, just as for the body. In classical education, a main principle is multum, non multa: much, not many.
In all the curricula I've looked at based on Charlotte Mason's writings, there are lots and lots of subjects. Most have at least twelve, some up to fifteen or more. Each subject or area of study has one or two books assigned to be read over the whole year. Often times, the books are read very slowly over a long period of time. A student may read one chapter a week in nature lore, one chapter a week in history, one chapter a week in science. Different subjects are studied everyday, or, lessons are kept very short and every subject is read every day.
The idea of multum, non multa, would seem to be in contrast to this. Dr. Christopher Perrin likens it to digging deep wells with our students. When you are digging a deep well, you inevitably can only dig so many at a time, so you must focus and think deeply on a handful of things at any given time. I have heard some strong Charlotte Mason proponents criticize this idea by saying it is like starving your child. I rather think that the way most curricula spread a broad and generous feast could be doing that instead.
C.S. Lewis talks about treating books as if they were people. (I think.... it could have been Mortimer Adler. Or maybe Angelina Stanford. I know she talks about this in her lecture on the Nourishing Your Soul Circe Conference audio CD.) But this idea has gotten me thinking. We all know that we can only handle so many relationships at a time. Trying to juggle too many friendships can leave them each neglected and prevent them from deepening as much as they could otherwise. What's an ideal number of friends to have? Isn't this a relative question? For some people, it's one. For others it might be 7 or 8. For others, 3-5 good friends is a healthy number.
Charlotte Mason also talks about education as the science of relations. I think this is a really important idea. We want our kids to develop relationships with their areas of study. To care about them. To make friends with them. We also want them to notice the relationships between one subject and another. We want them to see the connection between one author and another. But in order for our kids to develop good relationships with their studies and to love them each, shouldn't we bear in mind how many relationships they can handle at any given time? Is it realistic to think that any child could really develop a deep love, relationship with, and understanding of 15 or more friends at a time?
It is possible that digging a little each day in lots of wells will achieve the same results over the course of the year as digging deeply in a few for a time, followed by digging deeply in a few more wells for a time. But what is going to be more rewarding and healthy for the child? Many children will do much better with a more focused, long gaze at a few things. It will enable them to focus their interest and think deeply about things. Over the course of a year, if we spend a twelve-week term digging 2-6 deep wells, and the next 12 week term, pick 2-6 new wells, and so on, by the end of the year, we could have even more deeply dug wells than digging 15 a little each week! Not only is this good for the students, but it's so much more manageable for moms!
I put this theory to the test this year. I had been attempting to follow the Ambleside Online recommended reading lists and schedule for a handful of subjects. I used these mostly as read-alouds for our Morning Time. Last year, it just felt like slogging through waist-deep water; it was a lot of effort, and very little progress to show for it. Reading 8-10 books at a time was just wearing me out. None of us enjoyed it. It just felt like so long between meeting each character or entering each story, and it felt like starting all over each time (much like seeing friends infrequently for brief encounters).
This year, I decided we'd focus on only 2-3 topics each term, and we'd change them up from term to term. (This is in addition to our core studies). We are reading a something historical (historical fiction, biography, or a narrative history), and a literature title for pleasure at all times. Then we have one other thing we're reading. It could be a science classic like The Storybook of Science or Parables from Nature. It could be a life of Plutarch, or a Shakespeare play. But, it's only one thing. And we'll read it until we are finished with it. We'll read it everyday. I have been so surprised and pleased with how this has worked out in our school this year. Far from starving my children, they have loved the books we've read. We read through (almost) the entire Parables from Nature the first term, and my daughter did a lovely drawn narration of each chapter. We moved through it much more quickly than Ambleside schedules it, and we still loved it. We spent eight weeks reading Swiss Family Robinson. We read it everyday for about 20-30 minutes. We LIVED in that story. We knew the family. We could picture their homes and the entire island. It became a regular topic of conversation.
The best benefit of all has been the amazing finished book stack we have as we are approaching the end of this year. It is the biggest and best shelf of finished books we've ever had.
By serving a few dishes at a time and savoring them each for their intricacies, we have feasted royally this year. There's more than one way to serve a broad and generous feast to our children.
There has been much and lively debate about whether Charlotte Mason deserves to be considered part of the larger classical tradition of education. Having first discovered the classical tradition, and through that being introduced to the ideas of Charlotte Mason, I have always been curious about the differences and similarities between the two. Last year I chose Charlotte to be my educational mentor for the year and set a goal to read as many of her volumes as possible in one year. I made it through four: Home Education, School Education, Formation of Character, and Towards a Philosophy of Education. I found myself nodding in agreement with much of what she said, and encouraged and affirmed with the study on classical education I had done. It seemed to me, uneducated as I am, they were much in agreement.
Since then, in reading and interacting with others who strongly disagree that Charlotte Mason is in any way part of classical education, two main differences between her method and the classical tradition have risen to the surface. The first is the role of the teacher. The second is the contradiction of a broad and generous feast with the classical principle of "multum, non multa." Charlotte proposes the implementation of a broad and generous feast, and uses the analogy of a broad and varied diet for the mind, just as for the body. In classical education, a main principle is multum, non multa: much, not many.
In all the curricula I've looked at based on Charlotte Mason's writings, there are lots and lots of subjects. Most have at least twelve, some up to fifteen or more. Each subject or area of study has one or two books assigned to be read over the whole year. Often times, the books are read very slowly over a long period of time. A student may read one chapter a week in nature lore, one chapter a week in history, one chapter a week in science. Different subjects are studied everyday, or, lessons are kept very short and every subject is read every day.
The idea of multum, non multa, would seem to be in contrast to this. Dr. Christopher Perrin likens it to digging deep wells with our students. When you are digging a deep well, you inevitably can only dig so many at a time, so you must focus and think deeply on a handful of things at any given time. I have heard some strong Charlotte Mason proponents criticize this idea by saying it is like starving your child. I rather think that the way most curricula spread a broad and generous feast could be doing that instead.
C.S. Lewis talks about treating books as if they were people. (I think.... it could have been Mortimer Adler. Or maybe Angelina Stanford. I know she talks about this in her lecture on the Nourishing Your Soul Circe Conference audio CD.) But this idea has gotten me thinking. We all know that we can only handle so many relationships at a time. Trying to juggle too many friendships can leave them each neglected and prevent them from deepening as much as they could otherwise. What's an ideal number of friends to have? Isn't this a relative question? For some people, it's one. For others it might be 7 or 8. For others, 3-5 good friends is a healthy number.
Charlotte Mason also talks about education as the science of relations. I think this is a really important idea. We want our kids to develop relationships with their areas of study. To care about them. To make friends with them. We also want them to notice the relationships between one subject and another. We want them to see the connection between one author and another. But in order for our kids to develop good relationships with their studies and to love them each, shouldn't we bear in mind how many relationships they can handle at any given time? Is it realistic to think that any child could really develop a deep love, relationship with, and understanding of 15 or more friends at a time?
It is possible that digging a little each day in lots of wells will achieve the same results over the course of the year as digging deeply in a few for a time, followed by digging deeply in a few more wells for a time. But what is going to be more rewarding and healthy for the child? Many children will do much better with a more focused, long gaze at a few things. It will enable them to focus their interest and think deeply about things. Over the course of a year, if we spend a twelve-week term digging 2-6 deep wells, and the next 12 week term, pick 2-6 new wells, and so on, by the end of the year, we could have even more deeply dug wells than digging 15 a little each week! Not only is this good for the students, but it's so much more manageable for moms!
I put this theory to the test this year. I had been attempting to follow the Ambleside Online recommended reading lists and schedule for a handful of subjects. I used these mostly as read-alouds for our Morning Time. Last year, it just felt like slogging through waist-deep water; it was a lot of effort, and very little progress to show for it. Reading 8-10 books at a time was just wearing me out. None of us enjoyed it. It just felt like so long between meeting each character or entering each story, and it felt like starting all over each time (much like seeing friends infrequently for brief encounters).
This year, I decided we'd focus on only 2-3 topics each term, and we'd change them up from term to term. (This is in addition to our core studies). We are reading a something historical (historical fiction, biography, or a narrative history), and a literature title for pleasure at all times. Then we have one other thing we're reading. It could be a science classic like The Storybook of Science or Parables from Nature. It could be a life of Plutarch, or a Shakespeare play. But, it's only one thing. And we'll read it until we are finished with it. We'll read it everyday. I have been so surprised and pleased with how this has worked out in our school this year. Far from starving my children, they have loved the books we've read. We read through (almost) the entire Parables from Nature the first term, and my daughter did a lovely drawn narration of each chapter. We moved through it much more quickly than Ambleside schedules it, and we still loved it. We spent eight weeks reading Swiss Family Robinson. We read it everyday for about 20-30 minutes. We LIVED in that story. We knew the family. We could picture their homes and the entire island. It became a regular topic of conversation.
The best benefit of all has been the amazing finished book stack we have as we are approaching the end of this year. It is the biggest and best shelf of finished books we've ever had.
By serving a few dishes at a time and savoring them each for their intricacies, we have feasted royally this year. There's more than one way to serve a broad and generous feast to our children.
This is great. All of it. Thanks for sharing. You articulated some tension I've had in our days but couldn't quite put a finger on... thanks!
ReplyDelete