Fr. Francis P. Donnelly, SJ

[ElizaG]

... because I think he deserves his own thread!    Please add links to books or past discussions.  There are several in the EFL and Great Books threads.

 

I came across an unexpected entry about Fr. Donnelly in the 1963 Congressional Record (sandwiched incongruously between "Youth Opportunities" and "Red Spies Via Cuba").  The representative, Daniel J. Flood, was talking about a two-day memorial conference to be held at the University of Scranton.   This conference was to be on the linguistic method of language teaching (also called "the new English," to go with "the new Math").   How they connected this to his thinking, I don't know.    But the representative said that the professors at the conference were familiar with his work, and noted that Model English, Persuasive Speech, and other texts were "still being used at schools across the country." 

 

He also mentioned a NYT obituary, which I located on their site -- it took some searching.  The title in their database is "REV. F, P.DOHHELLY OF' FORDHA DEAD; Professor of Rhetoric and Classics, '29-52, Was 89 Jesuit for 70 Years." 

 

:001_rolleyes:   The obituary is half a column in length, plus a photo.  It mentions his devotional writings and poetry, as well as his books about education. 

 

"Father Donnelly's writings and the stand he took in defense of standards set 2,000 years before by Greek and Latin authors in the field of written and spoken literature led many of his colleagues to consider him the leading Jesuit educator of this century."

 

The news of his death was syndicated by AP, and turned up in papers as far away as Santa Cruz.  Which, as I'm sure Fr. Donnelly would note, means the same thing as "Holy Cross."   ;)

Edited May 24, 2016 by ElizaG

[ElizaG]

General works about education, literature, and writing:

 

Principles of Jesuit Education in Practice

The Art of Interesting: Its Theory and Practice for Speakers and Writers

Literary Art and Modern Education (very good; still in copyright & scarce, but a university library might have it)

Art Principles in Literature (available to be borrowed from Internet Archive Lending Library)

Literature, the Leading Educator

 

English textbooks:

 

Imitation and Analysis: English Exercises Based on Irving's "Sketch Book" (1902), also published as Model English, Book  I

Model English, Book II: The Qualities of Style

Teacher's Manual to Accompany Model English

Newman's "Second Spring"

Persuasive Speech:  An Art of Rhetoric for College (also hard to find, but Worldcat shows 99 copies in libraries)

 

Latin textbooks:

 

Cicero's Milo:  A Rhetorical Commentary

Cicero's Manilian Law:  A Rhetorical Commentary

 

Greek Textbooks:

 

The Oration of Demosthenes on the Crown:  A Rhetorical Commentary (1941)

 

The commentary on Demosthenes was Fr. Donnelly's revision of a UK textbook.  My copy actually used to belong to the UK publisher, and some of the correspondence between them was included with it.  Paper shortages were a major problem for textbook publishers; this can also be seen in the articles in the Jesuit Educational Quarterly.   (Classical studies were themselves limited because of the war.   Greek was still limping along after WWI, but WWII caused it to be dropped "temporarily" from the curriculum of most colleges, and it never came back to anywhere near the same extent.)

Edited May 26, 2016 by ElizaG

[ElizaG]

Magazine articles:

 

"The Profit and Loss of Greek," The Classical Weekly (reprinted from America, April 22, 1911)

 

"True Principles of Homeric Criticism," The Classical Weekly (reprinted from America, Sept. 22, 1911)

 

"A Function of the Classical Exordium," The Classical Weekly, May 11, 1912

 

"A Greek Schoolmaster Still Teaching," The Classical Weekly (reprinted from America, Dec. 19, 1914) - on Isocrates

 

"The Literary Study of the Classics:  Exercises in Cicero's Paragraphs," The Classical Weekly, April 1, 1916

 

"Is the Ostracism of Greek Practicable?" - booklet distributed by The American Classical League (reprinted from America, March 15, 1919); written almost entirely with words from Greek roots :001_smile:

Edited May 26, 2016 by ElizaG

[ElizaG]

Writings about Fr. Donnelly's life and work:

 

The Book of Catholic Authors, Book 6, ed. Walter Romig

 

The Sisters of the I.H.M: (...) and Their Work in the Scranton Diocese has a bit about his elementary schooling

 

"Poet-Priest of the Society of Jesus," a small booklet that was distributed by one of his publishers.  It only goes up to the early part of his career, when he was known for his poems (some of which were turned into popular songs).  I got this from an online bookseller, but have never seen a reference to it anywhere else.  Will try to scan and share it. 

 

"A Cleric's Literary Laboratories," Michael Earls, S.J., America, April 1, 1922

[ElizaG]

He's also mentioned in Philip Gleason's Contending With Modernity, and in a new book, Traditions of Eloquence: The Jesuits and Modern Rhetorical Studies -- which I just came across, and haven't read beyond a few sample pages.

 

The latter book points out that Edward P. J. Corbett, author of Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student, was educated at Jesuit institutions such as Marquette University High School and Creighton University, and wrote most of the textbook while he was at Creighton.  Another author of a popular rhetoric text, P. Albert Duhamel, was taught rhetoric by Henry Bean, S.J., at Holy Cross in the 1930s.  

 

Duhamel and Corbett both went on to the University of Chicago, though it's not clear whether or not they had much contact with one another.  Duhamel's book was published in 1962, and Corbett's in 1965.  These books, especially Corbett's, are said to have sparked the revival of the study of classical rhetoric in secular colleges. Just a few years after Fr. Donnelly died, and just as the Jesuits were dropping rhetoric, apparently.

 

Traditions of Eloquence, and several books about Richard Weaver, quote an article in which Corbett refers to Weaver's work as "the first instance of the use of the topics in a freshman rhetoric text since the appearance of Francis P. Donnelly's books in the 1930s." Note the secular way of giving his name.  T of E notes that in mid-century books about rhetoric, "often the Jesuit connection is simply tacit, often completely missing from the discourse of the era, and in fact the discourse since that time as well."

 

Hmm, Weaver was at Chicago too. 

 

Of course, right at the same time, other faculty members at the same university were campaigning to get Catholic colleges to go with the Great Books model, which didn't really bother with rhetoric.

 

Curiouser and curiouser.

Edited May 27, 2016 by ElizaG

[ElizaG]

The teacher's manual for Model English (see link above) is very interesting, and sort of a mix of theory and practice.  And it's not too long.  That might be a good place to start.   Maybe you could just print one chapter at a time, and see how it goes? 

[LostintheCosmos]

Thanks so much, ElizaG! I've been wanting to collect links for all his available books for a while. I just happened to talk to my friend yesterday, and she said she plans to procure the missing page from the Model English teacher's manual when she's on campus this summer (also that she read some of it while scanning and was intrigued, haha).

[ElizaG]

I ordered that new book -- it's arriving tomorrow.  There's also a chapter on the Jesuits' influence on Catholic girls' schools. 

 

It's interesting that there's some attention being paid to this in academic circles.  A couple of years ago, when I posted about those topics in the GB thread, there didn't seem to be anything along these lines.   There was some talk of an emphasis on "Eloquentia Perfecta" with freshman classes at Jesuit colleges, but Fr. Donnelly didn't enter into it, nor were there links to traditions of women's education. 

 

When I saw how many people had contributed to this book, I was sort of hoping that they would just do our research for us.   :laugh:  That does seem to be happening to some extent, in the sense of looking at sources, and connecting names and dates.   In general, though, the authors seem to be coming at this with a different goal.  From what I've seen, the ones with a practical interest in teaching aren't so much considering how to implement a renewed version (or versions) of the traditional Jesuit approach to rhetoric, as trying to glean bits and pieces that support their modern sensibilities and assumptions.

 

One of the editors gave a talk at Holy Cross last fall.   It included a lot of the same sort of information we've been discussing on threads here, but it was mixed with statements such as:

 

- erudition is "what we would call the disciplines," i.e., all the bodies that those in higher education would use "to act on rhetorically"

- commonplace books were like today's journals

- studying in multiple languages can be seen as a precursor to today's idea of "Global Citizenship"

 

which all seemed odd to me.  With erudition, especially, the modern pattern is the reverse of the traditional one.  This wasn't really addressed.  There's some mention here and there of the "German research model," and how the Jesuits resisted it, but when it comes to suggestions for practical application, the new system seems to be taken for granted. 

 

I'm also not seeing anything pointing to the fact that rhetoric was taught around age 15 or 16, not at today's college age.   I realize that most of these people are college professors, but surely this should be emphasized, if we're trying to understand how the system worked and why it fell apart.   And in practical terms, today's college students are coming out of high school with years of writing instruction that didn't follow anything resembling the older principles.   What special challenges does this add?   It seems important to consider.

 

But the strangest part is that, at least on partial listening and reading the slides, there don't seem to be any suggestions about using excellent literature (or other media) as models.   I'm sure it must be in there somewhere, though.   :huh:  After all, the talk was given at Holy Cross, where Model English was written.   And the speaker apparently gave a presentation on Father Donnelly at an international conference last year.    

 

I'm going to play the whole talk through from the beginning, and look at the book when it comes, and try to figure out what's going on with this "EP 2.0" business.  ;)

 

 

 

[ETA: general tidying up]

Edited May 27, 2016 by ElizaG

[ElizaG]

I've given up for now on trying to find any gems in these recent writings on Jesuit education.  So, back to square one.

 

My current goal is to figure out how to do content studies (history, geography, natural science, etc.), from preschool through pre-AP high school level, that are compatible with the overall approach Fr. Donnelly describes.   I'm not looking to integrate them completely with language arts, though we'll likely do a bit of that.   My main concern is how to keep erudition in its place -- i.e., as part of forming the person as a communicator, rather than as an end in itself.  

 

We could just skip formal teaching of these subjects, and let them pick up the knowledge incidentally, but I think our content studies were beneficial the last time we did them.  They were certainly enjoyable and memorable.  :001_smile:

 

For the younger children, the main purposes would be: 

 

1) general knowledge of the subject matter, learned through books, movies, discussion, and hands-on experiences

2) free expression through writing, art, or other self-chosen activities

3) keeping them out of trouble for a while, and giving them some starting points for their play (this might actually be reason #1 ;) )

 

For upper elementary through early high school age, I'm hoping for:

 

1) review of basic knowledge learned earlier

2) opportunities for more in-depth study and projects, in areas chosen by me or by them

 

I have some sense of what to do with the younger ones, but I'm not so sure about the older ones.  We'll need some structure, but I don't have much energy for planning, and there aren't any textbooks or literature-based curricula for this age group that look suitable, even as starting points.   For the study of languages and literature, we've been able to use vintage textbooks as needed, but that's not going to work for the content subjects.  

 

We have several unit study curricula, such as KONOS and FAR, that cover many of the topics.  These seem easier to adapt, since they're not so heavy on book lists and writing assignments.   I'm not sure whether to try to work with them, or just accept that I have to do it myself.

 

The Montessori primary and elementary curriculum also seems more in keeping with this approach.  For instance, the early botany, zoology, and physical geography lessons focus on nomenclature, which is ordered toward basic communication.   Later on, the lessons on "fundamental needs," and the inclusion of philosophy and technology under "History," also help to bring our knowledge into a humanistic framework. 

 

I definitely want to avoid anything resembling Bloom's, "Socratic seminars," or the vague but near-ubiquitous assignment to "pick a topic from the chapter and research it in books or on the Internet."  :001_rolleyes:   I'm sure we'll have discussions, and people will do some deeper digging, but it will be because we felt drawn that way, not because someone else instructed us to do it.   

 

But at the same time... as I said... we do need some structure.

 

So... how does this work in middle school?  

Edited July 6, 2016 by ElizaG

[LostintheCosmos]

I'm glad you brought this up - I've been thinking about it, too, although obviously my kids are in the younger age range that you have totally figured out.  ;) The questions I'm stuck on are:

 

1) How to decide what to study if we don't follow a set curriculum?

2) What kinds of materials to use? We talked about this a bit in a discussion about the EFL child's nonfiction library on some thread or the other.

3) What kind of output to expect/require/encourage or whether to worry about any output at all and rather just focus on input?

 

So, basically, all the questions.  :001_rolleyes:

 

My idea for #1 is to stick, for now, with topics that are raised either by our actual daily life or our literature studies. I also tried asking eldest if there was anything he wanted to study and he said "machines and big trucks."  :laugh:

 

For #2, my oldest kid is a bookish child, so I'd kind of like to go lightly with the book-learning and encourage other types of engagement with the content. But I'm also anxious about bring more stuff into our house, as I'm a terrible stuff-manager and I'm concerned about the spoon-feeding quality of a lot of contemporary "hands-on" educational materials. So I'm not sure how to proceed on that one. The other day I almost started printing and laminating a bunch of three-part cards, but I managed to stop myself. 

 

Lastly, I came up with a list of things the kids could produce that I would model or we would do together first and then give them access to the supplies and tools they would need to do themselves. Still not sure exactly how to execute this because it's really just my eight-year-old that is ready for this sort of thing, and I don't know if I can squeeze any more time out of our schedule for one-on-one work. 

 

Have you looked at "project-based learning" stuff much? Definitely a mixed bag, but there might be some ideas there for the "how" side of things. At the very least, part of the whole thing is that the kid rather than the adult is responsible for all the planning. 

 

Oh, here's an idea - what if you ask an older kid to plan a content study for a younger one? That would allow them to review their own previous studies and then they could dig in on a specific piece of interest to them. 

[ElizaG]

I actually figured this out more or less, and wrote it up, but apparently I forgot to post it.   And now I've forgotten what I wrote, and even part of what I figured out...  LOL

 

IIRC, it went pretty much as follows:

 

1)   The same sort of thematic studies we've been doing (Montessori natural science topics, continents, chronological history), but making extra resources available to the older ones -- some on the shelf, and others on request.   No attempt to provide equally comprehensive coverage of all topics and media types; as long as we have a few books that cover the basics, the rest can be chosen by our interest, or even just sort of random.   No required output for this part, but they'll each have a 3-ring notebook for anything they choose to write.  

 

2)   A limited amount of literature that correlates with the current theme, studied in the usual way as part of English (or other languages), with an emphasis on whatever skills need the most practice.  

 

3)   One or more enrichment/skill curricula that we'll aim to do thoroughly, not just dabble in.   For the girls, we'll probably do Pilgrims of the Holy Family and some sort of home economics (maybe from FAR and TODKAH, if I don't have a burst of energy to write my own).  I'll have them keep 3-ring notebooks for this as well, and expect them to write down records, notes, and reference information.  Maybe some oral reports and multimedia, too. 

 

I'm offloading the boys' part of #3 to DH, in line with the opinion of various authorities on this age group.   They'll likely do Pilgrims as well, and we might do some badge work together, but he'll have the overall responsibility for their progress and behavior.  This should be interesting.  :-D

[ElizaG]

BTW, the Montessori natural science topics are shown in this list from New Child Montessori.  We did most of these last time, but spread them out and substituted our own books and activities.   This time around, we might do more of the NCM activities (minus the new age bits), as I might be too busy to come up with much in the preschool department.  If we do that, the older ones can certainly help.  

 

And I just remembered that my middle schoolers are getting some science through Life of Fred.  

 

I'm also reflecting on Fr. Donnelly's remark that it's not really necessary to teach writing and rhetoric, if a young person is reading a great deal of excellent literature.   The Catholic women authors I admire from the late 1800s/early 1900s weren't classically educated, and while they often attended excellent convent schools for a time, their literary ability doesn't seem to correlate with the number of years they spent there.  On the other hand, it does tend to correlate with the father's prominence in the community, which, in those days, would have been a marker for a high level of family culture.   For instance, both Cornelius Donnelly and Daniel Lynch were highly regarded in their small towns, and wore many hats.  

 

This casts more light on an expression I've seen in some old-time advertisements for girls' schools - that they replicated "the atmosphere of the cultured Catholic home."  I don't know what that would look like these days, but I believe it's more than holing up with some book lists and a scattering of liturgical activities.  It seems to me to involve being at ease with other places and times, and finding and supporting the best cultural efforts around us today (Catholic or not).  This is a whole other topic, but I think it also relates to Father Donnelly.   He was considered an educational conservative, but he was still a Jesuit, and wouldn't have wanted our habits of mind to be frozen in 1830s France, 1930s America, or any other time or place.

 

Getting back to English, literary societies were also a very big thing in the better US secondary schools and colleges -- male and female, Catholic and Protestant.  They were optional, but it seems as if nearly everyone participated, and they formed a sort of parallel curriculum that dealt with literature, science, ethics, and current events, and allowed students to develop their oral language skills in the context of "friendly societies."   All of this ties in to the recent discussion of leisure and "group tradition" in the EFL thread.  Cultured familes and good schools were places where students were guided toward developing these habits, even if they weren't listed on the syllabus. 

 

As for our homeschool, the more things I try, and the more I get to know my children's strengths and weaknesses, the more minimalist I'm inclined to go with formal English studies.  Even the early 20th century UK textbooks we've been using, which fit with traditional classical methods, are now seeming like make-work for the most part.   I'm going to have to re-read the teacher's guide to Model English and see where that leaves us.

 

 

[Edited to clarify a few things]

Edited July 25, 2016 by ElizaG

[LostintheCosmos]

This is going back a fair bit further than Fr. Donnelly, but I just noticed this newish anthology of early Jesuit pedagogical writings - TOC available here and a slightly awkward interview with Fr. Pavur and his collaborator 

 in which they reveal that this is to be the first installment of a four-volume series that will cover the entire history of the Jesuit education. 

[ElizaG]

Corbett's is a comprehensive classical rhetoric text. The 4th edition also includes the progymnasmata. The emphasis is on rules and terminology ("rhetoric as a science," as Fr. Donnelly would say), and the exercises often contain mature content drawn from legal cases. Some homeschooling parents have had success by studying the book themselves, then making up more suitable exercises for their children.

 

Model English is a set of books for the elementary and secondary years, based on imitation ("writing as an art"). It's the same sort of thing as the progymnasmata, but the literary forms and models are drawn from English classics. Fr. Donnelly's belief -- shared by some of his fellow Jesuits -- was that this sort of study and exercise should be the core of the English course. It would be supplemented with other works of literature, which would be read for appreciation and cultural knowledge, but these wouldn't be subjected to literary analysis. The two approaches could be referred to as "intensive" and "extensive" reading. (There were older Jesuit terms for this, but they've slipped my mind.)

 

With Model English, you'd still need an actual rhetoric text, if you chose to teach it later on. Fr. Donnelly wrote one called Persuasive Speech, but it's hard to find. There's also one online by Fr. Charles Coppens SJ, from the late 1800s, that looks promising.

[ElizaG]

Here's a recent article by Fr. Pavur on "The Historiography of Jesuit Pedagogy." Fr. Donnelly is mentioned.

 

http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/jesuit-historiography-online/the-historiography-of-jesuit-pedagogy-COM_194129

 

His work also turns up in Fr. William J. McGucken's proposed plan for the "Vittorino School," a six-year elite secondary school that's described in The Catholic Way in Education (1934). This book isn't online, but you can find a brief description of the plan in the Jesuit Educational Quarterly. It was never put into practice, as far as I can tell.

 

In a footnote to an article on Latin teaching in the Classical Bulletin, Ella Frances Lynch endorsed the "Vittorino School" model, calling it the ideal classical Catholic school for our time. It looks as though my references to Fr. Donnelly in the EFL threads are now officially on-topic.

 

A question, then. Do you think that the classical humanistic approach to teaching writing is suitable for everyone, or just for the most academically capable? Fr. Donnelly seems to imply the former, especially in the teacher's guide to Model English, but I haven't found anyone, in any era, who explicitly recommended or used it on a mass scale. The regular 1940s Catholic school textbooks (e.g. VIE and the Kammer/Diebold high school series) did use some of the methods, but with much simpler contemporary models, rather than with classic literature.

 

A while back, after much digging, I came up with a recent series of UK primary composition texts that use passages from literature, mainly children's books. They're designed for "differentiated instruction," though, with the weaker students focusing on mechanics and vocabulary, and only the advanced students doing some imitation exercises.

 

Even in top US prep schools that still offer this sort of writing instruction (in English, and, more rarely, in classical languages), it's typically found only in one or two upper-year courses in the honors track, not in the standard curriculum.

 

Not sure what to make of this. I'm confident that my children can benefit from the approach, and our limited experience supports this, but is it something we should be recommending to others?

Edited November 30, 2017 by ElizaG

[ElizaG]

In the traditional Jesuit prelection, "erudition" is the background information given by the teacher, in the context of reading a piece of literature. It's a necessary part of the lesson, but it should be just enough to help the students understand the text. "Excessive erudition" is basically what we would call "rabbit trails" -- I.e., using the text as a springboard to teach all sorts of interesting but non-essential content knowledge.

 

It might help to look at Cardinal Newman's Idea of a University, in the chapter on elementary studies. The boy is being tested on a very brief passage from the Anabasis. In order to really understand it, even on a grammatical level, he has to have the geographical locations clear in his mind.

 

Coming at this from another direction, there's also the description of the "Miles Standish" lesson in EFL's "Educating the Child at Home." Since this is for a young child, the parent might have to take quite a bit of time to explain the references, perhaps with illustrations. At the same time, though, we aren't supposed to go all FIAR with it. ;-) EFL thought that we should limit ourselves to answering the child's own questions. (This is a standard Montessori approach. I don't know if it's also a traditional one.)

[ElizaG]

In the US, students would pick up some modern history from their elementary readers, from the study of oratory, and from the activities of the literary societies.

 

In England, as I understand it, the traditional classical curriculum didn't include the formal study of oratory, or of any modern material. Instead of writing speeches, the students spent their time composing prose and verse in Latin and Greek.

 

In those times and places where history was part of the curriculum, it was taught in the usual way for modern subjects, through lectures and textbooks.

 

Father Donnelly did write a bit about the teaching of history. IIRC, for those below university level, he saw it as a matter of cultural literacy, rather than as an opportunity for academic rigor. For elementary students, he suggested that teachers could make the subject more appealing through the use of pictures and even movies.

Edited December 3, 2017 by ElizaG

[ElizaG]

I haven't read this book, but it might answer some of your questions:

 

The Study of History in American Colleges and Universities, by Herbert Baxter Evans (1887)

https://books.google.com/books?id=gJSdAAAAMAAJ

[ElizaG]

I still feel a little confused as to how teaching rhetoric as an art would look concretely.

 

Just noticed that this was never answered. 

 

As I understand it, the "art" is the doing of an embodied skill, which is learned mainly through observation and imitative practice.  The "science" is the theory and terminology that enables us to talk abstractly about the art.  

 

Fr. Donnelly goes with the definition of rhetoric as "the art of using all the available means of persuasion."   Thus, the study of rhetoric as an art could include the reading, hearing, and imitative practice of well-constructed examples of persuasion.   Reading and hearing take place in the traditional grammar course, and also in the student's social and media environment.  Imitation is practiced in the progym exercises, which were given by the rhetorician as a preliminary to the formal rhetoric course.  

 

This also fits with his statement that the formal study of rhetoric isn't necessary, if the student reads widely and well enough.  As the old saying goes, "All the rhetorician's rules / Teach nothing but to name his tools."

 

Fr. Schwickerath -- or was it Fr. McGucken? -- pointed out that the Grammar course also included practical logic, via the study of classical languages.   Thus, it helped to prepare the student for the study of logic as a science, which took place in the "invention" stage of the Rhetoric course (as well as in the Philosophy course that followed, for the minority of students who kept going that far). 

 

Hope that helps a bit.  And this is casting some new light on my recent question about formal grammar, in the current EFL thread.   Still not clear on that one, though!

[ElizaG]

In trying to talk to fellow homeschoolers about Model English and so on, I've noticed a pattern.

 

"It's based on imitation."

 

"Hey, so is IEW!"

 

"It emphasizes style, not just structure."

 

"So does IEW!  Have you tried it?  I can lend you some materials!  My kids are learning it in a co-op; would you like to join?!"  <hauls out binders>

 

"..."   :leaving:

 

;)

 

In our area at least, IEW seems to have become the default writing curriculum for academically serious homeschoolers -- i.e., the ones who might otherwise be interested in Fr. Donnelly's books.    I'm going to have to come up with a not-too-wordy, not-too-polemical description of the differences between them.

 

I've looked at some of the materials in the past, but there are so many bits that I always felt I was missing the big picture.  Just came away with a general sense that it A) wasn't classical, and B) wasn't what I was looking for. 

 

Can anyone help me out?

Edited March 13, 2018 by ElizaG

[LostintheCosmos]

After taking a lot of time off reading about education to try to make myself focus on educating, I'm back in the books to try and figure out what to do with my 10yo, and I wanted to drop by here and especially recommend Fr. Donnelly's book The Art of Interesting, which, as he says somewhere else, articulates his theory of rhetoric, and in a very accessible way. Between that and studying Model English some more and also reading Donald Clark Lemen's Rhetoric in Greco-Roman Education, I'm starting to feel like I have enough of a tenuous grasp on this to try it. My 10yo is NOT ready for Model English, and I think I want to do a brief overview of grammar first anyway, so I'm wading in with some sentences pulled from books my 10yo knows very well with the Model English teacher's manual as a guide to preparing lessons. If it's progress when you try something and it doesn't go that well but immediately makes apparent some of the things you need to work on that you were never going to figure out from just reading old books, then I'd say we are making progress. 

I also wanted to share an interesting article I came across when I was poking around some Fr. Donnelly-related item: After Rhetoric - I think this might be the best brief summation that I have seen of what exactly happened to the college curriculum in the last 150 years or so.

I've also been looking a bit more at other contemporary neoclassical writing curricula that claim to follow the progymnasmata or be a variation on it. I'm just not sure what to make of these, or what exactly we should be taking from the progymnasmata at all. I think I want to read more about the Renaissance to early modern period - Lemen has a book about Milton's education and the use of the progym in that era, and the early Jesuits produced their own edition for use in their schools, so it clearly "worked" beyond the classical age, but... I don't know, I'm not sure what my question even is. I think I want to understand better how this tradition did or did not develop across time after Aphthonius? Or maybe I actually need to read more about composition in women's education? 

[Dramanut]

Hi!

I just went to the link mentioned above for the Teacher's Manual for Model English, only to find that it is now gone.  Does anyone have an updated link that they might share?  Thank you so much!

[LostintheCosmos]

I thought I would bring this thread back to talk about what a Fr. Donnelly-inspired education for the over-12 set might look like. There are several different questions that seem to come up when we think about making use of his methods, and the first two that I was mulling over were how his approach fits into a modern comprehensive high school curriculum and then, secondly, to what extent we would want to update the genres or media covered to reflect the last 100ish years of history.

As far as the first question goes, I could imagine two possible tracks - a straight up, old school, classical languages heavy track (which has all kinds of challenges that we could discuss) and then, because we know Fr. Donnelly's textbooks were used in various sorts of schools, a more conventional contemporary college prep curriculum but with Fr. Donnelly-style English courses. Although I'm sure Fr. Donnelly would have some issues with the overemphasis on "erudition" in that sort of a curriculum, it seems like it might be a workable compromise for a college-track student today. And with a little effort you could probably come up with a Fr. Donnelly-style "humanities" course that would satisfy history requirements, too, as a way to carve out a bit more space from the conventional course load. 

I suppose the other alternative would be to take Fr. Donnelly at his word that a well-read child doesn't need a formal rhetoric course and just focus on guaranteeing a truly well-read child (which I think would involve broader reading and less emphasis on children's literature then is recommended even by most rigorous homeschooling programs these days). I don't know that I've read wherever he says that, and I'm not totally sure how to interpret it - does he mean a rhetoric course very specifically and narrowly? Surely there still needs to be some formal composition program, if only to make sure a student gets some active writing practice, even if there is no explicit teaching of precepts, etc. Can anyone point me to where he discusses this?

Edited September 12, 2020 by LostCove

[ElizaG]

8 hours ago, LostCove said:

I suppose the other alternative would be to take Fr. Donnelly at his word that a well-read child doesn't need a formal rhetoric course and just focus on guaranteeing a truly well-read child (which I think would involve broader reading and less emphasis on children's literature then is recommended even by most rigorous homeschooling programs these days). I don't know that I've read wherever he says that, and I'm not totally sure how to interpret it - does he mean a rhetoric course very specifically and narrowly? Surely there still needs to be some formal composition program, if only to make sure a student gets some active writing practice, even if there is no explicit teaching of precepts, etc. Can anyone point me to where he discusses this?

I think this might have been either in Literary Art and Modern Education, or the little biographical pamphlet from his publisher that I mentioned early in the thread.  I know I’ve seen the former book around here recently, but not as sure about the pamphlet.  Will try to hunt them down.  

Thanks for reviving the thread, although it‘s been difficult to read my optimistic posts from a few years ago.  Unfortunately, circumstances required us to start outsourcing high school almost as soon as we got started.  I’d like to switch back partially to more traditional methods, at least for English.  But it’s seeming unlikely that we’ll be using Fr. Donnelly’s Latin, Greek, and rhetoric books with my current high schoolers.  And unless I come up with a lot more mental energy, it’s unlikely that I’ll be able to learn enough to teach those materials myself, even to the younger ones.  

If anyone here has some understanding of Fr. Donnelly‘s approach, and knows of an all-in-one Latin *and* Greek *and* classical rhetoric tutor who might be open to teaching in this way, either one-on-one or to a small group, please send me a PM.  (With current circumstances being what they are, at least I’ve got over my qualms about video lessons!)

Edited September 13, 2020 by ElizaG

[8filltheheart]

11 hours ago, ElizaG said:

.If anyone here has some understanding of Fr. Donnelly‘s approach, and knows of an all-in-one Latin *and* Greek *and* classical rhetoric tutor who might be open to teaching in this way, either one-on-one or to a small group, please send me a PM.  (With current circumstances being what they are, at least I’ve got over my qualms about video lessons!)

This pt, plus the class interaction dynamic of recitations and competitions, is why I dont believe classical education is feasible in any homeschool environment. It relies on master teachers and student interaction. It isnt found in any classroom environment today, either, since  anything claiming to be classical is really neoclassical which has a different focus behind the whys and hows bc the goals are filtered through contemporary educational objectives.

[LostintheCosmos]

13 hours ago, ElizaG said:

I think this might have been either in Literary Art and Modern Education,

I was able to read this last summer, but don't have access to it any more - I should go back and look through my notes. 

13 hours ago, ElizaG said:

If anyone here has some understanding of Fr. Donnelly‘s approach, and knows of an all-in-one Latin *and* Greek *and* classical rhetoric tutor who might be open to teaching in this way, either one-on-one or to a small group, please send me a PM.  (With current circumstances being what they are, at least I’ve got over my qualms about video lessons!)

I know of some people very proficient in Greek and Latin who could teach it in a communicative style that would emphasize that they are languages to be used for communication and that we can develop our own ability to communicate in them, but I don't know of anyone who sees the goal of language study as the development of the student's own skill in communication the way Fr. Donnelly does. Even at places currently pushing the renaissance of "living" methods of classical language instruction, my sense is that, at best, their goals have more to do with the restoration of a tradition of humanist scholarship or a Great Books-ish idea of what it takes to live the examined life or something like that. I could be wrong - there are certainly people out there reading and modelling themselves after Renaissance educators, and there are people interested in expressing themselves with style in classical languages. And if Fr. Donnelly is right that excellent models and practice is more important than explicit instruction, maybe it doesn't matter entirely. It will be interesting to see what the next generation of Latin and Greek speakers do, though.

Oh, look, the Accademia Vivarium Novum is offering distance classes now - hmm.

36 minutes ago, 8FillTheHeart said:

This pt, plus the class interaction dynamic of recitations and competitions, is why I dont believe classical education is feasible in any homeschool environment. It relies on master teachers and student interaction. It isnt found in any classroom environment today, either, since  anything claiming to be classical is really neoclassical which has a different focus behind the whys and hows bc the goals are filtered through contemporary educational objectives.

Classical education also happened in individual households with private tutors or classically educated fathers, and not all schools relied on competitions the way the Jesuits did. I mean, obviously you are right that there probably aren't any homeschooling moms out there who could teach classical languages like Fr. Donnelly, but I'm hopeful about the growth of resources that we are seeing in classical languages. There is a renaissance happening in the classics, much of it is happening outside traditional academic institutions, and I do think homeschoolers can participate in it.

[ElizaG]

Just to clarify, while I’d prefer to have the same tutor for both languages if possible (as I think it would make things easier for everyone), Father Donnelly’s Latin and Greek texts don’t require this.  Nor do they require the teacher to have personal experience with the older methods.  They were written with the modern high school in mind, and were meant to be used as a supplement to whatever language learning approach was being used in each school. 

What they do require is the ability to teach literature with a rhetorical emphasis.  This seems to be the limiting factor, as LostCove suggests.  It’s way off the radar screen of all the teachers and tutors I’ve spoken to.  Looking around, I can see a bit of a revival of classical languages, and a bit of a revival of classical rhetoric, but the two streams aren’t joining up as they used to.

[ElizaG]

Complicating things further, I’m not even sure that some of his higher level texts were chiefly intended to be used in high school.  Persuasive Speech (1931) is subtitled “An Art of Rhetoric for College,” which I think must refer to college in the modern sense, but maybe he also envisioned it being used in secondary classical colleges.  And I can’t tell if it‘s meant to be studied before, after, or instead of his rhetorical edition of Newman’s “Second Spring” (1911).   Or if “Second Spring” is supposed to be studied after, or instead of, Model English.

The preface to the former book says that Model English is suited for the earlier grades of high schools, while “Second Spring” is more suitable for “academies and colleges.”  Does he mean that Model English is a better fit for a more academically mixed environment, and “Second Spring” for the heavily literary schools?   Or that the high schools spend more time on English and can do more exercises, vs. the classical schools which might only have time for the shorter book?  Or perhaps this is just a way of saying that the excerpts from Irving are secular, while Newman’s sermon has Catholic content. 

It would be very helpful to see some examples of sequences in which these books were used.

Edited September 13, 2020 by ElizaG

[ElizaG]

Okay, here’s a Fordham catalog from 1932, when Father Donnelly was teaching there.  By that time, the prep school was separate from the college, which offered three different bachelor’s degrees. The catalog doesn’t give the curriculum for the prep school, just the college.

In freshman year, everyone studied book II of Model English, as well as poetry, Newman’s essays, oral expression, and an overview of the history of English Literature.

In sophomore year, they all studied rhetoric using Persuasive Speech, along with Coppens and Kleutgen.  “Second Spring,” Shakespeare, and various classical speeches were used as exemplars.

That was the end of the required English studies.  Students on the classical track also took Latin and Greek during both years (for details, see the link).  In junior and senior year, everyone was required to take philosophy.  

This is obviously similar to the traditional plan of the Ratio, but with the whole sequence pushed forward a few years.  On the one hand, it’s kind of a relief to know that even Fordham wasn’t up to teaching all of this material at the same time as the standard 1930s high school course.  It’s also good to know that all of the rhetorical texts were meant to be studied in the same year.  On the other hand, this doesn’t help us much in planning, unless our children are working three years ahead of the norm.  Which mine are not.  And if they don’t get this sort of education during high school, there’s no liberal arts college at present that’s going to provide it. 

I’m pretty sure I read this listing (or similar ones) a few years ago, but I guess my hope was that we could overcome any issues with a combination of advanced work and, IDK, maybe warping of the space-time continuum.  😄

 

[8filltheheart]

8 hours ago, mms said:

 It is all very utilitarian in the sense that they see these methods as the best way to teach these subjects, but no understanding of how they used to fit together in a cohesive whole. 

Yes.  We live in an educational world of subject isolationism.  (and absent cultural philosophy)  

If you want to move from hypotheticals to possible resources that are doable in a homeschool environment with mom as teacher and for avg high school students, a couple of easy to implement books you might want to look at are Sister Miriam Joseph's The Trivium: The Liberal Arts of Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric  and Horner's Rhetoric in the Classical Tradition. (I like Horner's book and have used it several times now.)  Both books are accessible to high school students. (FWIW, Corbett endorsed Horner's text.)

mms, you might appreciate this review: https://www.conservativebookclub.com/book/the-trivium

Quote

In the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, students studied and mastered language in the integrated way taught by this book. Modern education, by contrast, suffers from separating the parts from the vision of the whole. That’s why Sister Miriam Joseph designed and taught an introductory course on the classical trivium: to help students “acquire mastery over the tools of learning.” This book is the fruit of that course.

 

Edited September 14, 2020 by 8FillTheHeart

[LostintheCosmos]

That's interesting, ElizaG, thanks for digging it up. Maybe what we need is a rhetorical gap year program to send our kids to before they head off to more conventional college, like this kind of thing except Fr. Donnelly-style. So if someone could get to work on that, that would be great, lol. 

An acquaintance who teaches English looked at Model English and her assessment was "maybe" an advanced high schooler could do it. But Fr. Donnelly seems to have seen it as appropriate work for high school (Persuasive Speech, on the other hand, sounds like it was always intended for use in college). I wondered if part of what made it seem so advanced is that the authors he includes are largely not read in high school (or anywhere) any more - Washington Irving, Macaulay, Ruskin, Hazlitt - who reads those guys any more? 

Another thing I've been thinking about is the role of extensive vs. intensive reading. I still have lists of recommended reading that my high school English and science departments distributed, and I have one from my European history teacher - we weren't encouraged that strongly to be reading beyond what we were assigned in class - my sense was that these lists were remnants of a time when that had been more the case - but there was still conveyed the idea that to be truly educated, you'd have to be doing all this other reading on your own time. I've also been thinking about the need for extensive reading in foreign language acquisition. 

Okay, to wrap up this random assortment of not-terribly developed thoughts, here's a quotation from Literary Art and Modern Education I found in my notes: 

Quote

Necessity governs the first and last stages of our educational system; freedom is the prerogative of the intermediate secondary stage. In the first and last stage educational attention is centered upon subjecting man either to his common environment or to his vocation in life. Secondary education, therefore, should be truly liberal. At that stage man is not the subject of education; he is the object of education. He is not developed for something else to which he is made subservient; he is developed for himself. He is the center upon which the instruments of education are focused so that their converging rays may warm his soul to knowledge and set it aflame with wisdom. 

 

Edited September 15, 2020 by LostCove

[ElizaG]

4 hours ago, LostCove said:

An acquaintance who teaches English looked at Model English and her assessment was "maybe" an advanced high schooler could do it. But Fr. Donnelly seems to have seen it as appropriate work for high school (Persuasive Speech, on the other hand, sounds like it was always intended for use in college). I wondered if part of what made it seem so advanced is that the authors he includes are largely not read in high school (or anywhere) any more - Washington Irving, Macaulay, Ruskin, Hazlitt - who reads those guys any more? 

Another thing I've been thinking about is the roll of extensive vs. intensive reading. I still have lists of recommended reading that my high school English and science departments distributed, and I have one from my European history teacher - we weren't encouraged that strongly to be reading beyond what we were assigned in class - my sense was that these lists were remnants of a time when that had been more the case - but there was still conveyed the idea that to be truly educated, you'd have to be doing all this other reading on your own time.

I think these are very good points.  In my previous attempt at using Model English, my less enthusiastic reader (who was also on the younger side) did struggle a bit with Irving.  And everyone, myself included, often had difficulty finding one of the “suggested topics” that we could actually write about.   The topics tend to be either about some typical high school activity from 100 years ago, or about some classic author(s) that, as you say, we’re just supposed to know all about.  

I guess I could simply add more topics based around, say, Tolkien and certain Internet sites... yikes... but I can’t think of anything else my high schoolers and I are all very familiar with.  Even within our household, my older children don’t seem to have that much of a shared cultural base.  Not to the depth that would be needed to write about it.  

Or maybe the problem is more that we’re not used to writing about things based on our limited knowledge, without doing a lot of research first?  Children in the late 19th and early 20th centuries used to do many on-the-spot descriptive writing exercises, just not necessarily using imitation.  My mother and I were just talking about this.  They started with ones that were very simple and creative, and worked their way up to more challenging ones in high school.  So maybe that also provided some of the necessary background.  

I do think that the majority of us will need either an adaptation, or some kind of a “bridge.”  My current plan is to get my more reluctant reader doing some vintage middle or high school composition exercises from Commonwealth countries, which also used imitation.  They tend to have more varied models, with less of a Ciceronian emphasis.  The topics still tend to be obscure to present-day readers, though.

Maybe I can post some links to some of these books that are available online.  Then we can all “write two paragraphs comparing Donnelly and [unnamed textbook author],” in the style of a passage from Irving.  😁

[ElizaG]

Here’s one from archive.org.  This was written for use in middle school or early high school.  

Composition From English Models, Book II by Ernest J. Kenny (Longmans, circa 1920)

 

A few more random thoughts.

We have some children’s books that were written around 1930 by Aline Kilmer, Joyce Kilmer’s wife and a poet herself.  They’re humorous stories about a family, and the children seem to be based on her own.  In one story, a boy of about ten years old is depicted as being in stitches while reading The Pickwick Papers.  Similarly, in the big Great Books thread, I mentioned a British composition textbook for 5th-6th graders (circa 1940), which assumes that they‘ve all read Goldsmith’s The Vicar of Wakefield.

So far, only one of my children has been strongly drawn to this sort of leisure reading in the elementary years.  Another child read many challenging books at that age, but tended more toward non-fiction and fantasy.  This has me wondering if perhaps one difference is that there weren’t so many choices for mentally stimulating occupations in the days when these textbooks were written.  

And here‘s a rather amusing paper, given at an English teachers’ conference in 1914.  It’s by the principal of a Detroit high school.  He starts out sounding like an opponent of the Model English approach, but by the end, it’s clear that he sees it (or something like it) as an important part of the solution to “the English question.”   

Separating Composition From Literature in the High School

(Note that the current norm for high school English courses is to do the complete reverse of what this teacher recommends.)

Edited September 16, 2020 by ElizaG

[ElizaG]

The author of that paper, Edwin Miller, went on to write a high school textbook series titled Practical English Composition.  Archive.org has Book I, Book II, and Book IV, and HathiTrust has all four books.  (ETA:  Google has Book III in downloadable form.)

Father Donnelly mentioned that there was a spate of imitation-based writing texts in the US, following the publication of Model English.  This must have been one of the series he was thinking of.  It seems rather good to me at first glance, with an interesting blend of classic literature and practical speaking and writing exercises, and I might add it to the list of possible alternative or transitional resources.  The lessons assume that the class sets itself up as a “literary society,” though, which might make it difficult to adapt to homeschooling.

Early in the first book, he says that “most boys and girls of fourteen” are familiar with Macaulay’s “Lays of Ancient Rome.”  I sense a pattern in these expectations.  😄 (And those are indeed beloved by my most eager reader of classics.)

Edited September 16, 2020 by ElizaG

[8filltheheart]

I looked through volume 1. Its heavy concentration on composing letters is not an approach I would want to take.  Maxwell's high school Writing in English text incorporates excellent examples with imitation exercises.  His School Composition text incorporates a wide variety of examples to model that are engaging, whether letters, narratives, or even how-to directions (though some of the examples make you cringe today--like the learning how to swim example or a 6 yr old being in charge of a little sister and the near calamity.)

Edited September 16, 2020 by 8FillTheHeart

[ElizaG]

Maxwell’s books include literary models, but they also use late 19th century schoolhouse methods, with their heavy emphasis on structure and outlining.  Many popular homeschool writing curricula, such as WWS and IEW, follow some variation on this approach.  

Model English is based on the classical pedagogy described in Father Donnelly’s Principles of Jesuit Education in Practice.  If you’re familiar with at least one of those books, the differences with the above will be apparent.  For those who are new to the subject, while I don’t have the time (or probably even the ability) to post a concise yet thorough explanation, the books, especially PJEP, are a great place to start.  Of course, if someone has already read them and disagrees with some aspect of this way of teaching, we can discuss that.

In the U.K. and Commonwealth countries, the teaching of English composition was influenced by French methods that date back to the Renaissance, and derive pretty directly from the classical model.  There are some differences from one country to another, which might be interesting to discuss; e.g., the Canadian texts tend to make fewer explicit connections between the analysis of models and the composition exercises.  But the greater value placed e.g. on style and learning by example, and the lesser emphasis on structure and rule-based teaching, are still quite apparent.  

Miller’s series is different from any of the above, but from what I’ve seen so far, I think it’s closer to the classical approach.  Beyond that, though, I think he’s brilliantly creative (though, again, his ideas might not all translate well to homeschooling).  The emphasis on letter-writing at the beginning of Book I is one example.  He suggests asking the administration to require students to provide a correctly written letter of explanation for each absence or tardiness.  This increases the students’ motivation both to write well, and to show up on time.  Then he uses these first two very simple letters as an opportunity to work on skills that many 9th graders might need help with, such as mechanics.  

The next few letters are much longer, and more literary in both style and content.  After working with all of the letter types, the students will have experience with descriptive, narrative, expository, and argumentative writing, although the author doesn’t point this out until those terms are introduced and defined in chapter 13.  It seems like a great way to handle all the usual topics covered in the beginning of a composition course, with a new class of probably somewhat reluctant or uncertain students.

To me, it’s a very neat book. 

Edited September 16, 2020 by ElizaG

[ElizaG]

On 9/15/2020 at 11:11 AM, ElizaG said:

And everyone, myself included, often had difficulty finding one of the “suggested topics” that we could actually write about.   The topics tend to be either about some typical high school activity from 100 years ago, or about some classic author(s) that, as you say, we’re just supposed to know all about.

(...) 

Or maybe the problem is more that we’re not used to writing about things based on our limited knowledge, without doing a lot of research first?  Children in the late 19th and early 20th centuries used to do many on-the-spot descriptive writing exercises, just not necessarily using imitation.  My mother and I were just talking about this.  They started with ones that were very simple and creative, and worked their way up to more challenging ones in high school.  So maybe that also provided some of the necessary background.  

On looking through both books of Model English, I realized that the problem of outdated topics isn’t nearly as bad as I was remembering.  I must have been mixing them up with some other series.  The topics are mostly taken from everyday experiences that would still take place today, and from sports, literature, history, and nature.  

We have difficulty with the “everyday” topics too, so I guess we’re just not great at coming up with ideas quickly, especially when we’re supposed to be fitting them into a specific form.  Not sure how normal this is!  Maybe the point is just to work through it.  I need to take another look at the suggestions for scheduling and lesson structure.

Also, it’s occurred to me that maybe my assumptions are wrong, and students sometimes did do research for these compositions.  🤔  Or maybe the teacher sometimes chose a single topic for everyone to use, and they discussed it in class before writing.  What do you all think?

Edited September 16, 2020 by ElizaG

[LostintheCosmos]

Doesn't Fr. Donnelly have some outlining in Model English? 

Did you see this piece by Edwin Miller, ElizaG? A Week's Work in English. Students came up with their own specific topics within a general theme, so in that case, presumably they picked things they were already familiar enough with to write about. But in his third book, I also noticed that some of the themes included a day for "study of subject and materials" on the suggested schedule, so where needed, it sounds like some time was allotted for research.

Zooming out for a minute, here are some of my big-picture takeaways from recent thinking about this and how I could imagine applying them in the homeschool setting. 

1. Read more broadly. Emphasize "general classics" for read alouds (eg, I'm reading some of Hawthorne's short stories right now, and everyone is enjoying them, but no one was going to pull this off the shelf on their own). Assign more high-quality extensive reading with no expectations of output beyond checking in to make sure they are actually reading it.

2. The family literary society. This seems quite practical to me, actually; they exist in several fictional families and the real-life families of the author on which they were based (like the March sisters and the Alcotts). A family newspaper or journal is a time-honored homeschool family activity. We haven't undertaken one of those, yet, but last year we did two family language arts studies that were very successful, at least as far as stirring everyone's enthusiasm for the work. For the first, we all wrote fables on a given moral. For the second, we read a bunch of Teddy Roosevelt's letters to his children, which largely involved stories about his encounters with various animals while hunting, and then everyone wrote letters to friends and family relating a story about some animal encounter of their own. The littlest ones dictated to me, some children also included illustrations, everyone had a good time. 

3. Preparation of the adult: I think I need to spend some more time studying some precept-filled rhetoric textbooks so I have a better grasp on the big picture - even in Model English somewhere Fr. Donnelly says something that suggests the teacher should have reference to a standard textbook, although the students don't work from one. I do have a copy of Fr. Coppens already on my shelf, so maybe I will start there. 

I think I've mentioned before the Aldine Language Books, which I like and come in three volumes for grades 3-8, and also have helpful teacher's manuals. When I was looking at them this summer, I finally realized just how much the books involved the same kinds of skills and that topics were being repeated at more advanced levels, which also lends itself to a family-style study. It's less for me to keep track of if I can have everyone working on, say, writing descriptions at the same time, even if I have students working off of different models. So one idea I started to work on was a cycle of topics that we just move through (annually?) - a unit on grammar and mechanics, a unit on description, one on narrative, etc, etc. Or maybe I'd organize it word level, sentence level, paragraph level, composition level. Some kind of scope and sequence or syllabus along those lines would be helpful.

[8filltheheart]

3 hours ago, mms said:

I have not yet looked at the links ElizaG shared, but I somehow ended up with a copy of Understanding Writing, a K-12 composition curriculum from the nineties. I don't know if you've ever come across it, but the whole curriculum revolves around the premise that a writer needs an audience and therefore there is a heavy focus on letter writing.  I actually found it a rather useful pedagogical insight even though I do not plan to use the program and should probably just declutter it. This is just conjecture, but I suspect that someone who is able to write a letter well can probably easily learn to write other forms of composition, much in the same way that your DD was able to write in Russian because she was already a proficient writer of English.

DH is a free-lance writer in his spare time, yet the majority of his writing is correspondence.  Letter writing is still the most common use of composition skills that people use in their daily lives - though email has replaced snail mail.  Surely learning how to write an effective letter would not be time wasted even at the high school level?

I wrote this paragraph last, but I am going to insert it here.  To simply respond to the bolded, no, I do not believe in any way that spending an entire yr in high school on writing letters is beneficial.  Yes, I absolutely believe that would be a waste of time. Some of the skills he has incorporated into his text (like his alphabet of skills) are worthwhile objectives, but they are far from unique and are incorporated into almost any decent writing program. Writing letters might be the skill that some people spend most of their time composing, but equally, people who know how to write well can easily write letters simply bc they know how to write well.  I value completely different writing objectives for high school.  I want my children to be able to express themselves well for what they face as college-bound students. 

FWIW, I didn't respond to Eliza bc I wasn't going to engage with you all in this conversation any more. It is a counterproductive use of my time bc I do not believe that classical education, as in authentically classical, is feasible in a homeschooling environment and even if it were, I am not sure that is what I would pursue with my children if a program like CLAA represents the methodology.  He used to post on these forums and the examples that were shared were completely 100% counter to how I want to educate my children.  I am a homeschooler at heart.  I huge, puffy heart LOVE homeschooling and the relationship I have with my children bc of it.  I wouldn't sacrifice what we have and are able to achieve to embrace an ideology.

I am also firmly convinced that the education I provide my children at home, both academically and spiritually, far exceeds almost any outsourced option that exists for meeting the objectives that I have for my children.  I would much rather focus on what I know is feasible in achieving with my children than expending energy focusing on something that I know can't achieve without handing over their educations to an outsourced provider at the high school level.  Homeschooling during the high school yrs has been such an incredible blessing.  I view the interactions we have had during those courses as incredibly vital in their formation as young adults. Educating them to have the interior mental freedom to pursue the end for which they were created--that Ignatian objective sums up what I value from a liberal arts education.  I do not believe that the sole path to that objective resides outside of modernity.  We can do both.  I can educate them for the goals they want to pursue as adults within modern society with modern university requirements and modern careers while forming them philosophically and theologically.

Honestly, the fact that a conversation exists in 2020 espousing the value of spending an entire yr in high school teaching writing through composing letters is a sign that this is not a conversation I can engage in positively bc it is so far removed from my personal views.

Edited September 17, 2020 by 8FillTheHeart

[ElizaG]

5 minutes ago, mms said:

Now that I have had a chance to look at the link, I do not see that freshman book as being as strong as Fr. Donnelly's Model English.  I also would not spend a year of high school just on letter writing.  Maybe in middle school (the book was meant for 7-9th grade), but not high school.

I think Edwin Miller would be as surprised as anyone to hear that he advised spending a whole year just on writing letters.  In the first book, letters are taught in 8 of 21 chapters.  Even in those weeks, there are a number of unrelated or loosely related activities, including oral composition on various subjects.  

Connecting this back to Father Donnelly, while I don’t recall him saying much about letters, they were certainly a part of the traditional Jesuit curriculum.  The letters of Cicero were studied, translated, and imitated, in a variety of ways, in the upper Grammar classes.

[ElizaG]

5 hours ago, LostCove said:

Doesn't Fr. Donnelly have some outlining in Model English? 

Yes, there are formal outlining exercises in the second half of Book I, and in chapter X of Book II.  He refers to this as “analysis,” or, more specifically, “tabular analysis.”  By the time these exercises are begun, though, the students have already written many imitation exercises.  I suppose this is why the original title of Book I is Imitation and Analysis, rather than vice versa.

From the beginning of the course, the teacher is supposed to help the students understand the structure of each of the models studied, both as an aid to comprehension and as a guide to composition.  This can be done through oral discussion (my 1941 edition of Book I has an example lesson in the appendix), and also, where the divisions are regular and orderly, by the teacher doing a tabular analysis on the board (suggested in chapter VI of the Teacher’s Manual for Book II).  Throughout each lesson, the workings of style and structure are taught together, with “excellences” pointed out by the teacher and students.  As the TM says, “These benefits may partly atone for the violence done to literature by shredding it in this fashion.”  😄  

So there is certainly plenty of outlining, as we would call it.  It just has quite a different feel from the many textbooks that have the students do their own outlining almost from the beginning, and then use those outlines to write their compositions.  They tend to give the impression that the study and imitation of models is an aid to the teaching of outlining, rather than vice versa.

I can’t post much more for the next few days, as I still need to firm up my own high school English plans for the year.  But thank you for the interesting and relevant Edwin Miller link, and I think you’re on the right track with the big-picture ideas.  

mms, sorry to hear that your little ones aren’t well.  I hope your family is feeling better soon!

Edited September 18, 2020 by ElizaG

[8filltheheart]

3 hours ago, mms said:

8, I'm not trying to suck you back into the discussion and totally understand if you want to bow out.  But, I'm not sure how CLAA comes into this because it most certainly does not represent what we are talking about here.  The founder would say that Fr. Donnelly's work is as much of a degradation of Catholic education as Seton and none of us are in any way shape or form William Michael fan girls - quite the opposite, I would think.

Could I ask you to charitably assume that all of us who are exploring these questions would like to prepare our children for the life they will lead as adults in the modern day world while forming them philosophically and theologically?  We're not denim jumper wearing rad trads who want to keep our children under a rock.  We're interested in the methods of the past because some us feel that they were bulldozed out of existence without much reflection and some of those methods are worth preserving and implementing - even if imperfectly. I love a pious Novus Ordo, I do not believe that the TLM needs to become universal again, but I am really grateful to the FSSP for making TLM an option in our modern world. I view historical classical education in the home much the same way.

I think everyone here would agree with you that a historical classical education is not reproducible in the home and that is why we are here, discussing these resources - to see what can be preserved and what is worth preserving and what can be implemented in the home. Also, I agree with your assessment of home schooling.  We actually have the option of sending our children to DH's school, but I 100% value what we do at home more.

Now that I have had a chance to look at the link, I do not see that freshman book as being as strong as Fr. Donnelly's Model English.  I also would not spend a year of high school just on letter writing.  Maybe in middle school (the book was meant for 7-9th grade), but not high school.  The other book ElizaG linked to, Composition from English Models, spends only a chapter on letter writing - which would be something I am far more comfortable with.

BTW, one of the books I mentioned, Literary Reading and Composition by Lewis Marsh (which unfortunately is not available in the public domain to link to) reminds me of Treasured Conversations.  It teaches grammar and sentence writing in much the same way as you do in TC, just using classic literature. This book is very much in the Commonwealth countries composition tradition that ElizaG was discussing.

You are misreading my post as implying that I am saying that I have those goals and that you don't.  That is not what I am saying. I am explicitly stating that those are my goals and that I believe they can be achieved at home and with materials that are, simply put, modern. That the objectives are embodied in a wide range of books. Sister's book does.  Horner's book is not at all equivalent to Sister's book, but Horner's book is still a great book on developing rhetorical skills.  Different approaches but with similar objectives.

To be fair, when I read these conversations, no, it is not clear to me that homeschooling with mom as the primary teacher is a long-term goal.  For example, you mentioned wishing you could pull different people together in hopes of their envisioning the benefits of integration instead of teaching in isolation. (I read that as implying that if it happened, that would be an educational environment you would send your children to attend.)  My point was that even if something "perfect" did exist, I am not sure I would send my children simply bc the benefits from our lifestyle would no longer exist in any other scenario.  (The same goes for outsourcing.  Obviously it is easy to outsource, but academics and family life are intertwined in our home in way that I want to preserve.)

FWIW, I like Maxwell's School Composition and have used selections with my kids. (Have never used the other book.  But portions of Maxwell's book in 4th or 5th grade have been a good fit for a couple.) I don't honestly know what the writing assignments in the book actually are (same with Horner, etc) bc I don't ever use prefab writing assignments.  I discuss writing style and use models to teach my kids and then we do what we want with them.  So, my assessment of Maxwell is based more the teaching discussions and on the models than anything else.  

Anyway, these conversations are too narrowly focused for me to engage in any real way bc that is just not how I approach teaching.  Instead of finding resources that fit a philosophy and using those to teach my kids, I determine the needs of my kids and then find resources that fit their needs and then I teach accordingly to meet mine.  It is approaching things from a completely different perspective. 

One final thought, if you want great lit selections for kids to read in easily accessible form, I highly recommend Journeys through Bookland.  The selections progressively become more complex.  Poetry, biographies, fiction, plays are all incorporated.  Many of the types of works you are discussing are included.  Here is the TOC from vol 5 (out of 9) and my kids have read this vol in late elementary/middle school (depends on the student).  My kids have loved the books so much that 2 purchased their own volumes to put away for their kids.  Vol 10 is the parent's guide and it contains excellent teaching nuggets. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/24857/24857-h/24857-h.htm  (Actually, looking at the link has encouraged me to go back and reread parts of the parent's guide for a boost.)

Quote

JONATHAN SWIFT.
GULLIVER'S TRAVELS Jonathan Swift
THE BALLAD OF AGINCOURT Michael Drayton
SOME CHILDREN'S BOOKS OF THE PAST Grace E Sellon
LEAD, KINDLY LIGHT Cardinal Veuman
LET SOMETHING GOOD BE SAID James Whitcomb Riley
POLONIUS' ADVICE Shakespeare
KING ARTHUR
BALIN AND BALAN
GERAINT AND ENID Alfred Tennyson
THE HOLY GRAIL Adapted from Thomas Malory
DISSENSIONS AT KING ARTHUR'S COURT
THE PASSING OF ARTHUR Alfred Tennyson
HENRY HUDSON'S FOURTH VOYAGE Henry R Cleveland
THE RISE OF ROBERT BRUCE Walter Scott
BRUCE AND THE SPIDER Bernard Arton
THE HEART OF BRUCE William E Aytoun
THE SKELETON IN ARMOR Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
HOW THEY BROUGHT THE GOOD NEWS FROM GHENT TO AIX
                                   Robert Browning
REMINISCENCES OF A PIONEER Edwin D. Coe
THE BUCCANEERS
CAPTAIN MORGAN AT MARACAIBO
BRADDOCK'S DEFEAT Benjamin Franklin
READING HISTORY
THE AMERICAN FLAG Joseph Rodman Drake
BATTLE HYMN OF THE REPUBLIC Julia Ward Howe
"STONEWALL" JACKSON'S WAY J.W. Palmer
BARON MUNCHAUSEN
THE FIDDLING PARSON Davy Crockett
WE PLAN A RIVER TRIP Jerome K Jerome
ON COMIC SONGS Jerome K Jerome
THE INCHCAPE ROCK Robert Southey
TOM BROWN AT RUBGY Thomas Hughes

 

 

Edited September 18, 2020 by 8FillTheHeart

[LostintheCosmos]

59 minutes ago, ElizaG said:

So there is certainly plenty of outlining, as we would call it.  It just has quite a different feel from the many textbooks that have the students do their own outlining almost from the beginning, and then use those outlines to write their compositions.  They tend to give the impression that the study and imitation of models is an aid to the teaching of outlining, rather than vice versa.

Yes, this makes sense and speaks to some issues I was puzzling about over the summer as I was trying to figure out what writing my 7th grader should be doing. 

2 hours ago, mms said:

One way I implemented extensive reading a couple of years ago was by having a school shelf of books from which eldest was allowed to pick books on school days.  She still had free range on weekends and vacation, but leisure reading on school days had to be from that shelf. 

Hmm, I already have a basket of books my independent readers have to pick from during quiet time, but this would definitely take things up a notch. Hope your little ones are on the mend soon! 

[8filltheheart]

47 minutes ago, mms said:

We have already gone through two sets of Journeys Through Bookland and I am currently looking for a third (our house is too moist and antique books tend to mold 😟).

Now that is a tragedy!  

This thread and JtB make me think about the Mock Turtle's Story. (First story in vol 3)  So many puns that you can't stop laughing:

Quote

 

Ah! then yours wasn't a really good school,' said the Mock Turtle in a tone of great relief. 'Now at ours they had at the end of the bill, "French, music, and washing — extra."'

'You couldn't have wanted it much,' said Alice; 'living at the bottom of the sea.'

'I couldn't afford to learn it.' said the Mock Turtle with a sigh. 'I only took the regular course.'

'What was that?' inquired Alice.

'Reeling and Writhing, of course, to begin with,' the Mock Turtle replied; 'and then the different branches of Arithmetic — Ambition, Distraction, Uglification, and Derision.'

'I never heard of "Uglification," Alice ventured to say. 'What is it?'

The Gryphon lifted up both its paws in surprise. 'What! Never heard of uglifying!' it exclaimed. 'You know what to beautify is, I suppose?'

'Yes,' said Alice doubtfully: 'it means — to — make — anything — prettier.'

'Well, then,' the Gryphon went on, 'if you don't know what to uglify is, you are a simpleton.'

Alice did not feel encouraged to ask any more questions about it, so she turned to the Mock Turtle, and said 'What else had you to learn?'

'Well, there was Mystery,' the Mock Turtle replied, counting off the subjects on his flappers, ' — Mystery, ancient and modern, with Seaography: then Drawling — the Drawling-master was an old conger-eel, that used to come once a week: he taught us Drawling, Stretching, and Fainting in Coils.'

'What was that like?' said Alice.

'Well, I can't show it you myself,' the Mock Turtle said: 'I'm too stiff. And the Gryphon never learnt it.'

'Hadn't time,' said the Gryphon: 'I went to the Classics master, though. He was an old crab, HE was.'

'I never went to him,' the Mock Turtle said with a sigh: 'he taught Laughing and Grief, they used to say.'

'So he did, so he did,' said the Gryphon, sighing in his turn; and both creatures hid their faces in their paws.

'And how many hours a day did you do lessons?' said Alice, in a hurry to change the subject.

'Ten hours the first day,' said the Mock Turtle: 'nine the next, and so on.'

'What a curious plan!' exclaimed Alice.

'That's the reason they're called lessons,' the Gryphon remarked: 'because they lessen from day to day.'

 

 

Edited September 18, 2020 by 8FillTheHeart

[ElizaG]

It turns out that my largest planning problem has kind of solved itself.  I decided to start with the easier part:  choosing the “extensive reading” for my less enthusiastic high schooler.  This resulted in some good possibilities from the Prose & Poetry series, from suggestions online, and (after some prodding) from my own memory.   

After that, I decided to just take the models from what was being read, but otherwise stay more or less with the Model English plan.  I realize that this is embarrassingly obvious, and very likely what Father Donnelly would recommend in our situation, but apparently I had to take the long way around.  

So, on the up side, no need to keep looking for a hand-holding textbook.  But on the down side, no hand-holding textbook. 😬 Ora pro nobis!

[ElizaG]

On 9/12/2020 at 12:07 PM, LostCove said:

I thought I would bring this thread back to talk about what a Fr. Donnelly-inspired education for the over-12 set might look like. There are several different questions that seem to come up when we think about making use of his methods, and the first two that I was mulling over were how his approach fits into a modern comprehensive high school curriculum and then, secondly, to what extent we would want to update the genres or media covered to reflect the last 100ish years of history.

As far as the first question goes, I could imagine two possible tracks - a straight up, old school, classical languages heavy track (which has all kinds of challenges that we could discuss) and then, because we know Fr. Donnelly's textbooks were used in various sorts of schools, a more conventional contemporary college prep curriculum but with Fr. Donnelly-style English courses. Although I'm sure Fr. Donnelly would have some issues with the overemphasis on "erudition" in that sort of a curriculum, it seems like it might be a workable compromise for a college-track student today. And with a little effort you could probably come up with a Fr. Donnelly-style "humanities" course that would satisfy history requirements, too, as a way to carve out a bit more space from the conventional course load. 

I suppose the other alternative would be to take Fr. Donnelly at his word that a well-read child doesn't need a formal rhetoric course and just focus on guaranteeing a truly well-read child (which I think would involve broader reading and less emphasis on children's literature then is recommended even by most rigorous homeschooling programs these days). I don't know that I've read wherever he says that, and I'm not totally sure how to interpret it - does he mean a rhetoric course very specifically and narrowly? Surely there still needs to be some formal composition program, if only to make sure a student gets some active writing practice, even if there is no explicit teaching of precepts, etc. Can anyone point me to where he discusses this?

I don't think we ever really addressed these questions.  Sad to say, we've lost at least one long-time poster in these threads due to the recent privacy issues.  😢  I hope there are still some of Father Donnelly's readers on the boards who'd like to discuss how this could actually work. 

My thoughts for now are limited to history, as it's the subject I've been trying to figure out for my own family.  There's an excerpt from a speech by  Father Donnelly about teaching history here, in the Catholic Historical Review (circa 1924).  He says that the goals for history at the high school level are:

1) the mastery of essential facts, in an interesting and truthful way (without filling the students' heads with scandalous or unsavory information, which is best left for the college or university)

2) the development of skill in narrative composition, through the close study and imitation of models.  

The traditional classical course included many Greek and Roman historical narratives, which served the latter purpose.  For the modern high school student, we can use equivalent English models.  This is going to be more challenging than simply finding a reasonably well-written "living book."   On the other hand, he doesn't expect the teacher to use these classic books to teach all of the facts.   A good textbook, or some other general overview, is necessary as well.   For the early high school years (if I'm understanding correctly), he also recommends using historical fiction, "stirring biographies," films, and other activities to make history more enjoyable. 

With this in mind, I had a look at some Catholic homeschool providers to see if they assigned any suitable narrative history books.  Several programs do use works by Herodotus et al., but these are translations, so I'm not sure they're ideal from a literary standpoint.  For non-fiction written in English (other than primary documents), the pickings are slim.

 

MODG is probably the closest.  They use narrative history books by Warren Carroll, Winston Churchill, and others.

Kolbe uses Paul Johnson's Modern Times. 

Angelicum's "Great Books" curriculum looks to me to have no history books in the early modern and modern years, other than Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley, which is listed as an optional extra.  They do include a lot of history in middle school, with Catholic Textbook Project's Light to the Nations in 6th and 7th grade, and Lands of Hope and Promise in 8th.  This seems very inappropriate to me. 

RC History seems inappropriate in the opposite direction.  They assign historical fiction all through high school, and put The Boys' and Girls' Herodotus in the 10th-12th grade level. 

And Seton's entire history curriculum is textbooks, mostly Anne Carroll.  But then, they don't claim to be "classical." 

 

My impression, after looking at all these lists, is that there isn't a standard "modern" and "rigorous" way of teaching high school history.  People from all of these programs have gone on to be successful in various college majors, likely including history.  And this is just the book selection.  It's not even getting into what they actually do with the books.   I think the mysterious formula for a high school history credit probably comes down to "reading some sort of books to do with history" and "writing some sort of essay."  I'm sure we can pull this off while sticking mostly to Father Donnelly methods. 

I'm going to submit this post now, lest it get eaten (as happened to my previous attempts).  Will post more later, if there's anyone out there.   🙂

[ElizaG]

A few more notes:

- In a past thread, we talked a bit about the transitional years between high school and university, somewhere in the range of ages 15-18, which still constitute a definite stage in many systems (e.g. sixth form college, Leaving Certificate, lycee, CEGEP, IB).   This corresponds more or less to the latter part of the traditional college course.  I don't think we can avoid introducing university methods in this age range, unless our children are planning on doing something "out of the box" for post-secondary education.   Perhaps we can avoid putting those methods front and center, though. 

- For early modern world history, our core text for this year is The Modern World by Frs. Betten and Kaufman, SJ (1919).  It seems like an adequate overview, and it also lists many supplemental books, all of which are in the public domain.  Even if these aren't recognized classics, some of them do seem worthy of imitation.  I've found some possibilities among newer books as well, though this is proving to be a large investment of time and mental energy. 

- I'm also looking at mainstream early 20th century recommendations for teaching history, to get some context for Father Donnelly's advice.  There are many references to "special reports," which are mentioned in The Modern World as well.  I wonder:  were these oral or written reports?  Were they mainly factual, or more analytical?   Did all students do them, or were they a form of differentiation?  How often were they usually done?  And, of course, what role would Father Donnelly have given them in the curriculum?  

It seems to me that a well-done oral report could provide additional interest for the class, and a written report could develop the student's writing skills, both of which would be in line with the goals he describes.  In this way, the supplemental books could do double duty.  We could assign shorter passages for close study and writing exercises, and larger sections, or even the whole book, for reports.

- They did a lot of geography along with the history.  One teacher suggested that, instead of having each student make their own tiny maps, individual students with some drawing ability could make large maps to display in the classroom.  Another author (or maybe the same one?) also recommended using a sand table in the junior high history classroom, to act out battles, etc.  (The use of sand tables in education will be a familiar subject to those who were following the EFL threads a few years ago.  🙂)

[LostintheCosmos]

Hey, Eliza! Thanks for all the history thoughts. Coincidentally, I was just in a IRL discussion of a particular recently-published book on the trivium and the author had a whole extra section to discuss how to add history to the curriculum, which suggested to me that he didn't have a great grasp on the actual content of the trivium... 

Anyway, I really appreciated the Fr. Donnelly speech you posted. One thing that I was thinking about while considering the various history courses I've taken l is the difference between narrative or history texts of great literary merit and then specifically primary sources that might also be of literary merit but are perhaps not examples of "narrative" as Fr. Donnelly means it. I've taken many classes that involve reading and discussing mostly primary sources with a textbook spine to cover all the facts, but that is not what we're really after here. While there are some methods that are common to any kind of textual interpretation, I think that approach partakes more of "university methods," in that the goal is to teach specifically the historical interpretation of texts for the purpose of answering historical questions. So that was just a good thing to clarify for myself.

Unless I missed it, Fr. Donnelly did not here give any examples of English authors that would be suitable, but I recall him elsewhere mentioning, at least, Macaulay and Irving for teaching narrative. I would be very interested if you would be willing to share some of the books you've come up with, particularly the modern ones. One of my favorites that I plan to have us read in (late) high school is Lytton Strachey - he is problematic from a Catholic perspective, of course, but the man could write! 

This topic prompted a trip down memory lane to my favorite history class in all the classes I ever took in high school, college, and grad school, my high school Modern European History class, which was taught by a lovely women (truly, she had been a model before she became a teacher) who did many of the things Fr. Donnelly talks about, including assigning some historical novels and occasionally screening movies for us (Dangerous Liaisons being the most memorable - it definitely cemented in my mind forever a certain picture of Ancien Regime decadence. She did very much mean for all of us young women - this was an all-girls school - to take a moral lesson from the fate of Michelle Pfeiffer's character, but nonetheless, I don't think it would pass Fr. Donnelly's standards for avoiding the "unsavory facts" of the past). She was a master of the "telling anecdote " (I will forever think of Bismark as an insomniac who would lie awake all night and hate), and hers was the only history class I have ever taken in which we were examined on points of geography. I don't remember very much about the writing we did in that class, with the exception of a final research paper along university methods. I still have the list of supplementary reading and films she gave us somewhere - I should dig that up and see if there is anything useful on there.

[ElizaG]

Good to see you that aren't among the lost, Cove! 🙂

A couple of possible books I've found are Cardinal Newman's Historical Sketches (Church history; has some narrative parts), and Paul Horgan's The Great River: The Rio Grande in North American History.  Churchill's History of the English-Speaking Peoples also looks good for style, although I haven't read enough to decide about the content. 

I agree that we can use suitable excerpts from many works, though, even if they have other parts that we find inappropriate.  This is one of the delights of traditional classical methods.  (Plunder those Egyptians!)

Father Donnelly's speech raises a lot of questions about what the student is supposed to do with a given passage.  Is he suggesting that they do a close imitation of the structure and style, as in Model English, but writing about a different historical event?  In that case, I'm doubly unqualified.  I could perhaps manage it if we only used a sentence or two at a time.  Or made the history part up.  😄  It would help to have examples of this method being followed in practice, or even evidence that it was followed somewhere.  We have several early 20th century anthologies of prose models for composition courses, including two with SJ connections (one from Boston College, and one from Fr. Husslein's series), and while they contain many examples of narrative writing, none of those are from history books.  

One Canadian anthology does have a narrative excerpt from Sandburg's biography of Lincoln, which would seem to qualify on grounds of literary recognition, but this raises larger questions about style.  Would Father Donnelly have recommended sticking with "classical" English models, or using more contemporary examples as well?  I'm inclined to think the former.  I'm also not sure if Sandburg, however brilliant, was really someone to copy.  Is the whole idea of "imitation" even compatible with modern literature, with its emphasis on distinctive voices and innovative techniques?   In elementary and early high school, we were sometimes told to imitate poems by Sandburg and other modern poets, but that usually meant just writing free verse on a similar theme.

Here's something I found in a book of criticism online:  "When other writers try to imitate Hemingway's dialogue, the result is a poor parody: his discovery was not a key to a new method, but something deeply individual and inimitable."

These questions are getting too big and making my head hurt, so I'll probably just stick with the authors listed at the top for now.  Especially since I'm not even sure what to do with them.

[ElizaG]

It turns out that some of our high school literature textbooks have more varied non-fiction selections.  One 9th grade book from the 1960s (edited by Fr. Maline, SJ) includes excerpts from George Bancroft on the Battle of Bunker Hill, Bruce Catton on the Battle of Spotsylvania, and Churchill on the Bismarck.  The corresponding exercises don't include imitation, or even close analysis of style, but at least we can be sure that they were studying all of these passages as literature.  

Some excerpts from Catton's histories will certainly go on our "intensive reading" list, although we might not get to the Civil War this year.  

As for what to do with this list, I've decided that unless any other information turns up, I'll just look for short passages that could work with some other narrative topics, as Father Donnelly does with Irving in Model English.   This would be more for English credit than for history, though.