The Series by Subject

Resources:

Charlotte Mason's ideas are too important not to be understood and implemented in the 21st century, but her Victorian style of writing sometimes prevents parents from attempting to read her books. This is an imperfect attempt to make Charlotte's words accessible to modern parents. You may read these, print them out, share them with your local study group--but they are copyrighted to me, so please don't post or publish them without asking.
~L. N. Laurio

Government, Economics, Political Opinion, and Current Events

Volume 1, Home Education, pg 281-282

Early History of a Nation Best Suited for Children

The early history of a country is much better suited for children than more recent history because events move in a few broad, simple lines, like an adventure. If there is any statesmanship represented, it amounts to resourceful men doing their best to cope with their circumstances. Mr. Freeman [possibly E. A. Freeman, 1823-1892, who wrote William the Conqueror] wrote some interesting early history for children. Still, it's even better to get an eye-witness account if possible. When children are too young for exams and can afford to take their time, they should be allowed to get into the spirit of history. They should read at least one account written by someone who was there and knew first-hand what happened. These old books can be easier and more enjoyable to read than most modern history books, because writers didn't used to know that history was supposed to have a veneer of dignity. So they ramble along as pleasantly as a stream in the forest, telling all about what happened. They stir your heart with their telling of some great event. They give a lively version of a pageant or show, they give you personal details of famous people and introduce you to common people who never made their way into the history books. This is just right for children who are eager to find out about real people behind great events. They don't care about progress or legislation. They just want to know about the people.

Volume 2, Parents and Children, pg 266

Serving is a Promotion

Children are as vulnerable to vanity as they are to any other evil disposition that humans fall to. They need to learn to give and help without any smug concept that giving and helping makes them good. It's very easy to keep them in the right attitude, since that frame of mind comes naturally to children--the attitude that serving is like a promotion since we don't have any personal claim to be in a position to bestow benefits on others. The child's range of sympathy needs to be broadened. He needs to have love for people far away, near, rich, and poor. He should be equally touched whether the problem is overseas, or at home, and he should always provide some kind of help at real cost to himself. When he's old enough, he should read about real needs from the newspaper.

Volume 3, School Education, pg 42-43

Children Should Form Their Own Opinions

We only have room to mention one more area where we should practice 'masterly inactivity.' There are compelling issues being discussed these days, controversial opinions burning in people's minds--issues of religion, politics, science, literature, art, every kind of social project, and we all tend to have strong opinions. A person who hasn't kept abreast of the latest evolution of thought in the world about these matters should be ashamed of himself. It's our responsibility to form opinions carefully, and to hold them loyally unless facts persuade us to change our mind. But we have no right to pass these opinions on to our children. It's so easy to make strong partisan followers of our children, at least children who appear to be loyal. But with every action comes an equal and opposite reaction, and the swinging of the pendulum will probably carry our children to the totally opposite opinion of ours. The mother of the Newmans [Cardinal John Henry Newman and atheist Charles Robert Newman] was a devoted evangelical. When they were children, she passed her ready-made opinions over to her sons. Maybe she thought that the ideas they received from her on the matter was their own reasoned opinion. But when they were out from under her domineering influence, one allied himself with the Catholic Church in Rome, and another refused to have any restriction on his freedom to think and do what he wanted, so he chose to create his own creed, which was a rejection of God altogether. Perhaps this religious mother would have saved herself some grief if she had given her children the living principles of Christianity, which aren't matters of opinion. Then she could have let them accept her particular denomination as children without requiring that they believe that her evangelical opinion was the only real way of salvation.

In politics, too, children should be allowed to be proud of their country and taught what their duties are. But it's best to keep them away from the partisan conflict of elections. Children are more likely to adopt their parent's opinions when they reach the age where they're ripe for forming opinions if their parent's opinions haven't been forced on them all their lives, when they were too inexperienced and lacked knowledge to form opinions for themselves. It's only by 'masterly inactivity,' or 'wise passiveness,' or capable 'letting alone' that a child can be trained

'To respect his conscience enough to let it rule him.'

Volume 3, School Education, pg 184-185

Wordsworth tells us that, shortly after he started school at Hawkshead, the body of a suicide victim was found in Esthwaite Lake. It was a ghastly incident, but we can take comfort when we see how children are protected from shock. Wordsworth, the little boy, was there, and saw it all:

'Yet, as young as I was, not even nine years old,
No depressing fear possessed me, because, in my mind,
I had seen such sights before among silvery streams
Of fairyland in the romantic forests.
The memory of my imaginings covered the real tragedy
With an ornament of perfect grace.
It gave the incident a dignity, a smoothness, like the works
Of Greek art, or the purest poetry.'

It's reassuring to hear a child who went through it say that such a terrible scene was kept separate from him by an atmosphere of poetry, and a veil woven from fairy tales by his own fanciful imagination.

That doesn't mean that we should take unnecessary risks. We should use a calm, matter-of-fact tone when we talk about fires, car wrecks or other terrors. For some children, the thought of Joseph being in the pit is scary, and even many of us adults can't handle a horrifying tale in the news or literature. The only thing I'm suggesting is that we treat children naturally and let them have their fair share in experiencing life as it really is. We shouldn't allow too much caution, or let our own panic dictate the way we deal with them.

Volume 4, Ourselves, pg 61

Good, Sensible People Can Come to Opposite Conclusions

It's true that good laws, projects for the public good, great inventions are all the result of Reason. But you might be surprised to hear good people talk and try to convince others of something that their own Reason has told them. The Reason of equally good, intelligent people can bring them to totally opposite conclusions about war, peace, politics, religion, education, public works, fashion, diet--in fact, intelligent people can disagree on any subject you can think of. That's the reason there's controversy in the world. People think they can convince other people by using the same arguments that their own Reason used to convince them. And they could, if everyone else didn't already have arguments just as convincing on their own side. In fact, the side of an argument a person is on, generally depends on his own Will:

'Convince a man against his will.
He'll have the same opinion still.'

We need to remember that Reason is a personal servant to every person, and will play on his master's side. A person's Reason will work to convince him of what he was already inclined to believe in.

Volume 4, Ourselves, pg 144-146

Fairness to the Character of Others

Justice is holding court within each of us, and it demands that we think fair thoughts about everybody, whether near or far away, superior or under us.

When we make up our minds to think fairly, Justice has a group of servants ready to help. Their job is to take care of this very issue, and they're ready to serve as soon as they're called.

Impartiality

Impartiality wants to help. He offers us eyeglasses that have the power to bring faraway things into focus, and make dim things more clear. When we wear these, we can see around corners and understand the other side of an issue. We see that Mr. Jones may be cranky, but, after all, he's still trying to do what's right. The boy in the story who wrote home about his teacher, 'Mr. Temple can be difficult, but at least he's fair,' must have been wearing his Impartial eyeglasses. His Impartial schoolmate sees that Brad isn't really a sneak, he's just a shy boy who's anxious to fit in. Impartiality suggests to us that Miss Jenkins' annoying comment wasn't meant to be spiteful, she was just being awkward. Impartiality points out that even government employees are conscientious and want to do their best, that the pastor probably does try to practice what he preaches, that the often-criticized plumber really does take an interest in his work and wants to do a good job. Even in cases where the person doesn't have the best intentions and isn't trying his best, we should pity him and help him if we can. After all, in these cases, the person has probably had a tough time all his life. Impartiality shows us that people from France, Germany or Russia have good qualities that even we would do well to strive for. It reminds us that a Democrat or Republican, whichever he may be, has something to teach his opponent. But Impartiality doesn't take sides. He doesn't think to himself, 'My family (or country, or political party, or school) is pretty sure to be right about everything, and it's the best there is in the world!' He understands that the other side, whether it's family, school or country, might have something to say that's worth hearing. Fair play in everything is his motto. In the end, that makes him the most loyal supporter of whichever side he belongs to.

Prejudice

The opposite of impartiality is Prejudice. Prejudice offers you a pair of eyeglasses, too--but his eyeglasses aren't clear and they don't let daylight through. His eyeglasses are rose-colored, or black- or green- or yellow-colored, depending on the situation. We can't see people for what they really are when we're wearing these eyeglasses. Instead, all we see is that one person is black, another person is as rosy as the dawn, someone else is an evil yellow or sickly greenish, depending on the warmth, or envy, or hatred or jealousy that Prejudice puts in our minds. That's all we see, even though we don't know anything about the character of the people we're looking at. People who let Prejudice cloud their minds are unable to be impartial, whether the Prejudice is in favor of those they like, or against those they dislike. In fact, dislike itself is actually Prejudice. Real [agape] love sees the truth clearly and without bias. There's enough beauty in the people we love, and enough right in the causes we care about, that we don't need to be afraid for the light of day to show us what they truly are. We don't need the eyeglasses of Prejudice to protect us from the truth.

The love we have for our country won't be blind patriotism if we love her with impartial love. Our country is great and glorious, and can bear the harsh light of day. But what about the friend who claims to be candid by exposing the fact that the whole country is headed for ruin, or who goes on and on about one of our faults in the name of honesty? It's true that a superpower like ours needs to be gentle and careful, and it's probably true that we're guilty of the fault our friend is harping on. Maybe we are too nitpicky, or lazy, or selfish, or whatever. But our friend is wrong to magnify one part of the whole picture out of proportion and making too much of a single fault or weakness, as if that's all there is. We can learn a lesson from such a person, even though he's no fun to be around. But we need to determine to only use the spectacles of impartiality. They bring the complete picture out in accurate detail.

Respect

Impartiality never acts alone. At his right side is Lord Justice's other Servant: Respect. Nobody can be just and fair if he doesn't follow the Apostle Paul's command to 'Honor all men.' We tend to object and claim that we only honor those who are worthy of honor. But that's just another way of saying that we can pick and choose who we should think fairly about. The fact is, we should treat every person, man, woman or child, with honor. That isn't just because of the natural brotherhood of man that we have because we're all children of the same Father, but because, within every person we meet, there are the same Rulers of Mansoul--Love, Justice, Intellect, Reason, Imagination--no matter how dormant they might be. It's only when we honor all men that we see how worthy of honor they are. The stark light of impartiality may show us another person's faults, but that same stark light will also show us that one single fault, no matter how annoying, doesn't make the whole person. Even the worst-natured person has some beautiful qualities that demand our reverence. Hardly a day goes by that we don't hear about the hidden good in some unsuspecting soul. Honor means that we owe it to others to be gentle with them, to listen to what they say courteously no matter how boring or long-winded we think they are, and to respect their opinions, no matter how foolish we think they are. A person with irrational opinions will be more likely to listen and consider the other side if his own opinions are listened to respectfully.

Volume 4, Ourselves, pg 64-65 (Book II)

The Dangers of Being Ignorant

Although we in our modern era take pride in being enlightened and progressive, we seem to be less aware of how gross and dull and foul ignorance is than thinkers of the Middle Ages were. We don't seem to understand that a conscience that hasn't been educated is at the mercy of a dark, unenlightened mind. Academically intelligent people have been known to say foolish things like, 'I don't see any use in sending missionaries out,' or 'Every country and tribe has the religion that's best suited for their particular situation.' How can anything but evil come from unenlightened places where passion, prejudice and superstition conceal the natural light of the conscience?

It's alarming how much ignorance there is right in our own homes, schools and universities. Ignorance is to blame for the seventy thousand Americans that Emerson says are, 'going around looking for a religion.' Even the very 'tolerance' that we're so proud of comes from ignorance that makes us unable to recognize the difference between various things. We may not be as far gone as that country that supplies us with so many new notions and novel religions [does she mean America?], but the fact that we're so ready and willing to accept whatever new ideas come our way shows that we're guilty of having uneducated consciences.

When it comes to politics, we put all our trust on whatever our newspaper says--even though it only prints the biased information of our own political party! We don't make the effort to supplement with information from the other newspaper, or by broadening our minds with literature or history. We get all of our political education from lectures and summaries, but they can't possibly take the time to provide as much detail as what comes from our own conscientious effort to gather information.

Volume 4, Ourselves, pg 110 (Book II)

Ignorance

Not even religion can substitute for an educated conscience. That would be as ridiculous as expecting God's love to teach an unschooled person how to read. All of us have been born with a conscience, but we need to provide its education ourselves. It's important to remember this fact as we read history, as we make judgments about current events, as we form opinions about people we know and famous persons, and, most of all, what is acceptable to do and think ourselves.

Reflecting on this makes us more able to fine-tune our morals. We won't try to justify the things said or done by good men that don't seem right. We'll understand that even good people have areas where their consciences haven't been fully informed. We won't change our minds and say, 'He's a bad man,' because he did this or that thing that wasn't gentle or fair. Instead, we'll say, 'He's wrong in this because he hasn't bothered to inform himself.' And when we realize that even the best and wisest people are prone to make mistakes through moral ignorance, we'll be even more careful to remain teachable ourselves so we might avoid making mistakes.

Volume 4, Ourselves, pg 157 (Book II)

'Tolerance'

We admire this mindset in ourselves and call it Tolerance. It's a sort of creed that can summed up this way: 'There's a certain amount of good in everything and anybody, and a certain amount of bad in everything and anybody. Nothing or nobody is better than anyone or anything else, so one choice is as good as another.' And that results in, 'What difference does it make?' And that attitude prevails about going to church, or bothering to vote, or troubling about political issues, or bringing truth to the ignorant. 'What is truth,' as Pilate jested, and we lift our eyebrows and repeat, 'Every person's principles and opinions are undoubtedly what's best for him, and why should we interfere? We have to worry about our own affairs!'

Volume 4, Ourselves, pg 168-169 (Book II)

We all pretty much recognize that our own moral Armageddon has to be fought against an army of enemy ideas. But we may not be aware of the simple, effective weapon that we have at our fingertips. Another thing we might not be aware of is that intellectual enemy ideas have to be dealt with in the same way as moral enemy ideas that are within us. We aren't at liberty to think whatever we feel like, any more than we're allowed to do whatever we feel like. In fact, thinking is the real act. Our opinions about God, other people, our church, the government, books and events are as much under the jurisdiction of the Will as our moral judgments are. In the same way, we must not casually entertain them. In our thoughts and opinions, we need to watch and pray against the irresponsible flight of opinions that are always fluttering around. Every opinion needs to be examined at the gate. No matter how appealing it sounds, if it doesn't pass the required tests, it needs to be pushed away and some familiar diverting thought needs to take its place. It isn't a case where we need to determine beforehand to reject a whole class of intellectual concepts. But it's our duty and responsibility to examine each idea that we meet by subjecting it to the tests of Reason and Conscience. If it doesn't pass the tests, then we need to simply think of something else that's enjoyable and engaging.

Volume 5, Formation of Character, pg 72-73

In the last few years we've read stories in the newspaper about the savage abuse of power in an area that's currently free from external control--tales that, whether they're true or not, should make us all consider in our heart and be still. Because there's one thing we can be sure of: those people who did those things are no worse than we could be under similar circumstances. They had the opportunity to do evil deeds, and they did them. We haven't been left to ourselves, with no governing power over us, to that extent. But let's look ourselves in the face and recognize that the inborn trait that betrayed others to do such mad crimes is inborn within us, too, and whether that trait leads us to high and noble lives or criminal cruelty isn't something we should leave to chance circumstances. We need divine grace to guide us and follow us, and we need to be consciously seeking, and diligently using this grace to keep those of us who are in positions of authority meek and humble, remembering that Jesus, who is entrusted with the rod of iron, is meek and lowly of heart.

Volume 5, Formation of Character, pg 227-231

Mealtime Conversation

The kind of books the family reads aloud will influence the kinds of discussions they have around the table. But, considering how little parents see of their children once they start school, it seems like a good idea for me to mention that meal-time provides an ideal opportunity for parents to influence their children's opinions. Everyone agrees that lively conversation at the dinner table is necessary for good health. No one thinks it's okay for a family member to sit down to a meal in such a bad mood that he's absorbed in his own sullen thoughts and doesn't have a word to say to the others at the table. But conversation at meals isn't only something fun and refreshing. The life choices of many youths have been influenced by some chance comment at home over dinner. Just watch the eager way that youths latch onto every remark the adults make about politics, books, other people, and you'll see that they're actually trying to construct a chart to direct their lives with. They want to know what to do, yes, but they also want to know what to think about everything.

Parents sometimes forget that it's up to them to provide reasons for sound, fair opinions about lots of issues that concern us as human beings and as members of society. But these same parents who forget their duty are then shocked and dismayed when their teens express radical views that they picked up from some 'enlightened' member of their peer group. But their children will have opinions one way or the other. The right to make up his own mind and choose his own opinions is one of the points that youths insist on.

A few parents are unfair in this area. It isn't just the right of beings whose intelligence is growing to consider the facts it comes across and to come to conclusions about them--it's their duty. The assumption that parents have a right to think for their children and to pass on their own mirror opinions about literature, art, proper behavior and ethics is extremely irritating to youths. Headstrong teens resent it openly, while more easy-going, compliant youths avoid discussing it and make up their own minds about it without saying anything outright. Some people say that youths aren't wise enough to be allowed to form sound opinions because they don't have the knowledge or the experience that should guide them. That's true, and they're aware of that. That's why they hang on every word of adults they respect for anything that might help them to adjust their views about life and the world. Here's where parents have a great opportunity. Young people won't accept ready-made opinions telling them what to think, so keep yours to yourself. Instead, present the facts in their best, most complete light, and let the youths draw their own conclusions. The more you withhold your own opinions, the more eager they'll be to draw them out of you. As far as they're concerned, people are divided into two groups--good and bad. People's actions are either cold-hearted or good. Events are either blessings or misfortunes. They haven't matured enough to develop a philosophic mind. They end up being severe judges and have no concept of a middle-of-the-road perspective.

This period of a youth's life--the time when he feels compelled to have an opinion about every subject under the sun--is a critical period. It's a turning point in the lives of many youths, for better or worse. At this point in their lives, they'll find someone who will be their confidante, and this person is the one who will mold their opinions. Many mothers can pinpoint a moment when their child came under the influence of a specific person and got into worthless or evil things. Cultivating judgment in the immature mind of a teen is one of the most delicate tasks that parents have. The parent can't be arbitrary, as we've already discussed. He can't neglect this task. He can't be preachy, because teens can't stand being preached to. The parent needs to be open-minded, gentle, fair, inclined to listen patiently, and more prone to praise than to blame. At the same time, the parent needs to remain uncompromising in matters of principle, quick to spot error, ready to forgive without excusing, and ready to accept the good points of a person who shows a fault in character.

That last thing is very important. Youths have strictly defined boundaries and, when they're with someone they thought was so wrong and discover that he's not as evil as he was led to believe, they decide that he's a decent person after all, and that all the terrible things they heard before must have been slanderous lies. This is what happens in half of the harmful friendships that teens form. But if, instead, they had heard something like, 'So-and-so is a bold girl; she's honest and easy to get along with, but the reckless, lawless things she does make her an unsuitable companion,' then they'll feel differently. In this case, the girl has had a fair assessment, so there's no temptation to seek out her friendship.

If it's the parents' role to provide reasonable grounds for rational opinions about people, trends, books and events, when does the time come to discuss these things? Any time they happen to talk, or are in the presence of their children, and especially at the dinner table. Random opportunities will come up, but mealtime is an opportunity that can be counted on. Once I spent an evening with a wise, educated man. We had lots of interesting things to talk about until he unfortunately said, 'I jotted down such-and-such as a subject we might talk about.' That spoiled it. Yet the concept isn't a bad one. Parents should make themselves available to talk with their children, and they should keep a few topics of general interest in the back of their minds to discuss--but they should never be obvious about keeping a list. If parents sit down to dinner with things on their minds so that they're too preoccupied to engage in conversation, then their teens will either remain silent, or introduce whatever topic they want--and that will usually be either the 'shop talk' of school and schoolmates, or the gossip of today's current,

'Who danced with whom, and who's likely to get married.'

It's much better to use this opportunity to inform teens about current events--who's made an important speech, whose book was just published and what its good and bad points are, political rumors, who's made news with a new work of art and what the characteristics of his style are. A daily newspaper and a good weekly or monthly news magazine will provide plenty of material so that there's something to talk about every day. The father who begins the discussion won't need to worry about having to sustain a monologue; in fact, there's more danger of him doing all the talking because he loves outlining his own opinions. Nothing is more delightful than the give and take of a lively discussion, where the children eagerly toss the ball back and forth. They want to know the details about everything. If the parent remembers something that illustrates the point, then the child will inevitably corner the subject being investigated, wanting to know, 'Is that right or wrong? Good or bad?' All the while, the parents show extreme tact in guiding the children to forming fair and just opinions without telling them what they have to think. Students will be engaged with the past in their schoolwork and in the family readaloud, so any attempt to expose them to something modern and current will be refreshing to them, like a breath of fresh air. It will add some life to whatever they're studying in school.

Volume 5, Formation of Character, pg 253-258

Opinions

Now let's consider an issue that gets overlooked too often when raising girls. It seems normal for a girl to have opinions about things like dieting, style, fashion and home furnishings, but who cares what she thinks about public figures, political issues, books and events? Yet her opinions on these things do matter to the world. Even if she isn't the mother of future fathers and mothers, her influence will be felt in some way.

Young ladies should receive some general training and special preparation to help them form fair, just opinions. For starters, a girl should be encouraged to use her common sense to weigh issues that come up. The parent might ask, 'What do you think about such-and-such?' and then tease her good-naturedly if her thinking is foolish. But the special preparation requires a little more thought and planning. What are the issues and subjects that thinking people should have an opinion about? These are the things that young ladies should know enough about to form a sensible opinion.

First of all, a girl's success depends a lot on the relationships with other people that she associates with. She needs some understanding of character and human motives. Therefore, for the sake of her own developing character as much as for guiding principles on which to choose friends, every girl should take a basic course in moral philosophy. Everyone knows how easy it is for girls to be swept away by the way things are said until they find themselves attached to an unworthy friend, or a no-good lover. If she has no defense against bad logic, how can she possibly protect herself from lines like--'That's what everyone thinks these days!' or 'That's such an old-fashioned concept of modesty', or 'A person's first responsibility is to take care of himself; if everyone did that, nobody would be a burden to other people.'

Young women should also know something about the principles of political economy. So many women are quick to remark casually that 'it would be good for business if an earthquake destroyed all the houses in London,' or 'If all the landlords in England didn't collect rent from their tenants, the price of bread would come down,' or 'England would be a richer country if there were gold mines under the ground instead of coal and iron.' In fact, women tend to fall into any one of the little traps that Mrs. Fawcett sets for the unwary in her book Political Economy for Beginners which is as interesting as it is educational. Any girl who studies it with some thought and effort will be able to form sensible opinions about some of the current issues that are used these days, not just as matters of opinion, but as reasons to justify one social class's superiority over another. It would be good for England if educated women had fair and just ideas about these kinds of issues, not just so they can have something interesting and valuable to say to their husbands and brothers, but so that they can present a different perspective to the men in their lives, and influence them to see a different side of the issue. Often, a man's own situation might incline him to only look at things from his own personal standpoint.

There might be a ministry opening up for educated women. There needs to be a mediator between working men and business owners/managers. An educated, sensible woman might be able to persuade the owner to have patience with his workers, and, at the same time, help the workers to understand the difficulties and responsibilities of running a business. A woman with tact, sympathy, and quick intuition would be perfect for the task of mediating if she made the effort to gather the information she needed to qualify herself. She wouldn't even have to leave her personal sphere of family life and meddle with public affairs--but she might be able to discuss the issues with understanding and compassion with the wife of the business owner, if not the owner himself, during her regular social calls. Even a single comment that shows a real grasp of the issue spoken to someone she knows might be the spark that turns the tide of public opinion amongst a whole community of working-class people.

Women have lately been demanding their rights [women's right to vote was passed in England in 1918-1928; this book was written in 1906], and men have mostly been generous and gentle in meeting their demands. Women have so many rights these days that they can no longer justifiably claim the kind of immunities that secluded harem wives can. We aren't free to say, 'Oh, these things are beyond me; I let the men worry about those kinds of issues.' It's possible that God's Providence has brought women to the forefront in this age so that they'll be ready to act as mediators in these days when there's a dangerous risk of alienation and enmity between social classes. Some thinking people are convinced that we're in the early stages of a revolution. Whether this revolution can happen peacefully without the bloodshed and horrors of other recent revolutions may depend, more than they realize, on the women of England. At any rate, it's time for women to put away the trivial attitude that 'doesn't care for these kinds of things.'

It's not just in the social arena that a revolution is brewing. There is a dread of a great darkness overseas. Christianity is being challenged, and, even worse, the most basic belief in and worship of the Almighty God is under attack. The coming judgment, physical resurrection of our human bodies, everlasting life--these fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith are being dismissed, not only by irreverent people living immoral lives, but by people who are considered good and wise!

How are young girls supposed to prepare themselves to face this kind of moral crisis? First of all, it's not a good idea to shelter them from the anxious questions being discussed. Their enthusiasm and love will be ignited even more when they realize that, once again, Christianity and paganism seem to be heading towards another agonizing conflict right at our doors. But let their zeal be guided by knowledge. Lay thorough foundations for their faith. It's not so important that they know the difference between the Church and Dissent, or between High and Low and Broad Church. It's much more important that they fully know in whom they have believed, and what grounds their faith rests on. Give them sincere intellectual work to think about. Let them feel how necessary it is to brace up every faculty of their minds to understand the width and depth of the truths they're called to believe in. Don't let them grow up thinking that Christian literature consists of nothing but sentiment and emotional appeals, and intellect and the mind belong to the secular realm on the other side. Provide them with books of real caliber to give their intellects something to grapple with. That's very important, because the risk is that youths whose spiritual lives haven't awakened yet might come to feel that they're superior to the Christian faith that seems so simple and arrogant.

One more thing: don't let young girls maintain the notion that 'no one is responsible for what he believes, he's only responsible for what he does.' Test this idea for a minute by applying it to social relationships. Try saying that a man isn't obligated to believe in his wife's faithfulness, or his child's obedience, or in the routine ethics of the people he deals with every day. If the principle was applied to real life, the whole framework of society would fall apart. The fact is, our whole system, both commercial and social, is based on a system of credit that's kept afloat because of the limitless faith that one man places in another man. The very fact that a defaulter outrages us only proves how true most men are to the trust placed in them. If a rural farmer hides his money under his mattress because he's afraid to put his faith in the banking system, he's laughed at and called a miser. A man who refuses to have anything to do with his neighbors because he's afraid to trust anyone is called a cynic, and considered fit only to live as a recluse. No matter how much a man's trust may have been abused, if he won't place due faith in his fellow man, he's treated as an outcast. What, then, can be said about a person who lifts his head towards God, his Creator, Father, Preserver, Redeemer, closest Friend and always-present Judge, and says, 'I don't believe in You because I can't see You or understand You'?

I'm not going to go out of my way to stress how strongly this attitude must be avoided. For the sake of their children who aren't born yet, make sure that girls are brought up to hate and dread this ugly sin of disbelief. When it comes to issues that aren't vital, they should be gentle and tolerant. They should have a firm grasp on why they believe that their own view is true, but they should leave it up to others to decide for themselves how to approach and serve God. But when it comes to the being, nature, and work of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and our relationship of loving and serving Him, there's no room for tolerance of adverse opinions, even from those whose opinions we respect. 'A person's doctrines must be correct if his life is going to be right,' is just the kind of fallacy that youths should learn to examine.

Volume 5, Formation of Character, pg 315-317

IV

Public events cause all people to reflect, and they had their share of influence in Goethe's education. One of the more notable events in Goethe's childhood was the unusual disaster that deeply troubled his peace of mind for the first time in his life. It was an earthquake that shook Lisbon on November 1, 1755. The news fell on the peaceful world like a terrible shock. The earth shook, opened, and a large, beautiful city, with all of its houses, towers, walls, churches, palaces, and 60,000 of its people, was swallowed up in the chasm, leaving nothing but smoke and flames around the ruins.

'Goethe [who turned 6 in August, 1755] heard everyone talking about this, and it greatly troubled him. God was supposedly the Creator and Preserver of heaven and earth--that's what the first article of the Creed so wisely and mercifully says. Yet this wasn't the way a father should act, bringing destruction on both the good and the bad. His young spirit tried to free itself from all impressions, but in vain, especially since wise men and scholars couldn't agree about what to make of this kind of phenomenon.'

Then he tells about another event the following summer that made him more acquainted with the angry God of the Old Testament. A violent hailstorm broke the windows out of the new house, flooded the rooms, and compelled the maids to shriek and beg God on their knees to have mercy on them. His faith was doubly shaken. He doubted the fatherhood of God, and the trust of men [who couldn't explain God's ways]. That attitude bore fruit in his later life.

Unexpected natural disasters that we can't prevent will naturally stir profound thoughts in the minds of thoughtful children. They think more about these things than adults, not less, because they're so new and unfamiliar to them. A child's faith can be devastated by the news of a major catastrophe and the casual way people discuss it, and he'll never say a word about it. But such disasters should be opportunities, not hindrances. Every day of our lives we're face to face with providential and unaccountable events. We can't reconcile one idea with the other. These contradictions are what the 'mystery of godliness' is for us. It might not be a bad idea to bring a child face to face with the existence of that mystery the first time his mind is troubled with some disaster, whether public or personal. We don't know everything; we're not meant to. God has made us limited beings. If we understood everything, then there'd be no place for faith in our lives. We'd only believe in whatever we could see and understand. But consider this: the sudden loss of all of those precious lives just might mean that life and death aren't as devastating and final to God as they seem to us. One thing we're sure of is that people who die go on existing. We don't know how, we have to trust God for that. After all, He's our Father--and theirs, too. These kinds of opportunities to exercise our faith should strengthen our confidence in God, not weaken it.

Volume 5, Formation of Character, pg 319-322

V

In October 1756, when he was seven, a public event caught Goethe's interest. A war [the Seven Years' War] started that was to influence his life for the next seven years. Frederick the Great [Frederick II], the king of Prussia, attacked Saxony with 60,000 men, and instead of leaving the war to account for itself, he had issued a manifesto explaining why he had invaded Saxony. This clever move polarized people into two groups, and the Goethe family was divided just like everyone else. The grandfather had assisted at Francis I's coronation and received a gold chain from the Empress, so he and some of the family sided with Austria. [Austria, under von Browne, aided Saxony.]

The father had been loyal to the unfortunate Charles VII, and he sided with Prussia. The family which had been united before erupted into endless feuds, because every subject brought to mind their passionate opinions that the war had stirred up. Goethe says, 'I was also Prussian--or, to be more exact, I was Fritzisch. That's what made us Prussians--the personality of the great king that had worked on all of our minds. I rejoiced over our victories with my father, gladly wrote some songs of triumph, and, even more gladly, wrote songs that taunted the enemy, although the rhymes were pretty bad.

'I was the oldest grandson and godson, and I had dined with my grandparents on Sundays during my entire childhood. The times I spent with them were the happiest hours of my week. But now even their food disgusted me, because I had to listen to them slander my hero. There was a different opinion here, another kind of talk than I heard at home. My affection and even my respect for my grandparents decreased. I couldn't tell any of this to my parents--my own instinct, as well as warnings from my mother, told me that I couldn't repeat any of it. So, I had to rely on myself. At this time, just like when I was seven after the earthquake in Lisbon, and I became a bit doubtful about God's goodness, now, because of the events surrounding Frederick the Second, I began to doubt whether public opinion could be counted on to be fair. I tended to be reverent by nature, and it took a lot of shaking to make my faith waver in areas regarding reverence.'

This makes us wonder how much children should be allowed to share the opinionated spirit and controversy about religion and politics that impassion their parents. I think everyone agrees that young children should be excluded from this kind of turmoil. We like to keep the youngest children sheltered in the innocence of heaven, and political animosity and bitterness certainly have no place there. But there's another reason why we should reserve our opinions about these urgent issues in front of our children. It's only natural for us to want them to share our opinion, but if we put too much pressure on them to embrace our perspective, then they'll be more likely to adopt the opposite view when they're older. Where they were biased and dogmatic allies at first, they can become indifferent or even hostile. This might be why we sometimes hear of children raised by Unitarian parents becoming Roman Catholics, or a liberal father having a conservative son, and things like that. For all of these reasons, we need to restrain ourselves in front of our children. In fact, moderating ourselves because of their influence might be good for us. But, eventually, a child will have to choose one side or the other, and decide for himself, whether he's right or wrong. Making up his own mind is part of his initiation into adulthood.

It's surprising that young Goethe, with his poetic sensitivity, didn't side with Maria Theresa, the good, kind empress, who was obviously entitled to his chivalric loyalty. But this is another case where we can read between the lines. He didn't take Frederick's side just because his father did--he also took his side because the clever king had stated his case, and, by its very nature, the stated case is convincing to a logical mind like Goethe's. We tend to miss that in dealing with matters of religion and the philosophy of life. We let those who disagree state the case, but it's a fact that the first statement almost always carries conviction. Maybe this is why atheistic teaching spreads so rapidly among intelligent creative types. For the first time, they've heard a logical statement that doesn't insult their intellect. Evidence can be found to back almost any statement, and the novice student whose mind constructs the reasonable argument to prove the idea is stirred with sudden joy at his own logic. 'I have thought!' he thinks to himself, for perhaps the first time in his life. His reason enjoys the satisfaction of demonstrating logic. That's why it's so difficult to shake such opinions--in this case, they're primal convictions. It's especially difficult to reach such a person through emotional sentiment. There's nothing wrong with pride of intellect. The mistake we make is in failing to use our intellect to justify right thinking and right living. We rarely bother to offer youths the intellectual logic for any opinions we offer them. Everything is done casually. And then we're distressed when youths show themselves to be wiser than we are and make an appeal to the mind to justify opinions that repulse us because they're so wrong.

Another thing to notice is the bold self-confidence of young people. All youths are confident about their opinions--not because they're foolish and arrogant, but because they haven't yet realized that equally reasonable, intelligent people have opposite opinions about any given subject. In this area, like so many others, I sense that a rational foundation of sensible education is lacking--in other words, a methodical study of human nature [like that presented in CM's 4th volume, 'Ourselves.']

We can learn a lot from some of Goethe's comments: 'Reflecting carefully on the matter, I can see now where there was a seed of indifference in me, even contempt, of the public that influenced a portion of my life. It wasn't until recently that I was able to control it through greater insight and cultivation. The awareness of injustice in my preferred political party was unsettling for me even then--in fact, it hurt me because it got me used to having a barrier between me and those I loved and valued.

'The endlessly rapid succession of battles and events left both sides without much rest or peace. We took mean-spirited pleasure in rehashing every imagined evil and magnifying every trick of the opposite side. We went on tormenting each other for a few years, until the French took over Frankfurt--and then we found out what real discomfort was.'

Volume 5, Formation of Character, pg 411

Many different kinds of knowledge, and lots of it, the habit of studying and learning started early and continued throughout a person's life, some familiarity with the principles of a well-managed moral life, and some knowledge of economics, should help to develop well-managed, balanced people who are able to live without boredom, without a desire to have other people notice them. But if giving bright, impulsive children knowledge, motivation and work can prevent them from turning into erratic adults, what about slower, more narrow-minded people who might be prone to turning into smug prigs with a little bit of culture?

Volume 6, Philosophy of Education, pg 147

These ten maxims give us plenty of material--not for lectures, but for discussion. This gives an example of how current events should be used as opportunities to talk with our children. This kind of thing should be a part of the school curriculum. Students need to know how to follow an argument and detect fallacies for themselves [rather than accepting our opinions and arguments.] Just like every other function of the mind, reason needs raw material to work on, whether it comes in history or literature, or news of a strike or revolution. It's crazy to send youths out to face a confusing world with nothing but one specialized skill, such as the ability to solve math problems.

Volume 6, Philosophy of Education, pg 143-147

Recognizing what Reason's job is should be a tremendous help to all of us in these days when fallacy is everywhere, and when our desire to be agreeable makes us willing to buy into public opinion about things, especially when those opinions are shared by people we respect. It's also good to remember that no wrong has ever been done, no crime has ever been committed that wasn't justified in the mind of the perpetrator with so many sound arguments from his own reason in such numbers that he couldn't oppose them. Has Shakespeare ever been wrong? Perhaps, in the case of Richard III, who recognized his own villainy and not only accepted it, but gloated over it. That's hardly human nature. But at least he wasn't a hypocrite! Richard may be the only exception to the rule--most men, when finally confronted with their own villainy, go out and hang themselves. Even Richard says at the end, 'I myself can't even find pity for myself.' It's enough for us and our children to know that reason will make any matter we propose look good and acceptable. Just because we're convinced that we're right doesn't justify anything, because there's no theory or action we can contemplate that our reason can't affirm. We can convince ourselves with many 'proofs' that Bacon really wrote the Shakespeare plays, and some ingenious person has devised an elaborate string of arguments that prove that Dr. [Samuel] Johnson wrote the Bible! And why shouldn't that be a valid opinion? Considering that France is known as a nation of logical thinkers, they made a curious blunder when they elected to give divine honors to the Goddess of Reason. But maybe they did it because they're a nation of logical thinkers. After all, logic is very close to reason, and just because something can be proved by logic, that doesn't make it true or right. It's no wonder that two equally honorable and virtuous men from any place will hold opposite opinions on almost any issue, and each will support his views with logical arguments. So we have people who cling to dogma in religion, and politicians who sway voters with emotional sentiments, and those whose understanding of science is nothing but dreams, and those who hope to stay one step ahead by keeping current with the latest popular opinions. But that won't happen to us if we've been raised to understand that reason is beautiful and a marvel, but that it has its limits.

We need to be able to counter popular current opinion, not with logical counter-arguments, but by exposing fallacy and then proving the merit of the correct position. For example, Karl Marx, who has been described as 'a very lovable, very exasperating, sincere but misguided zealot,' dominates today's socialist thinking. Point by point, for better or worse, his Marxian Manifesto of 1848 is gaining popularity. We are told that, 'the following measures might become general practice in the most advanced countries:'

1. 'Property and rent income will pass to the State.' We don't have time to examine this proposition in detail, but let's consider a single fallacy. It's assumed that rent income lines the pockets of property owners. But the records of the Duke of Bedford, to name just one example, shows that rent from his park property is barely enough to maintain the property and pay property taxes.

Landowners generally employ many workers with fair pay and benefits, and most provide a public service by making their property a beautiful park for public use, maintained out of their own pocket.

2. 'Heavy progressive taxes.' The fallacy is this: the poorest working class citizens who are supposed to be helped by the Manifesto will have to pay taxes because they make up the bulk of society. In other words, the ones who will be most burdened by heavy progressive taxes will be the poor working class, whose very existence will be threatened as a result, as has happened in Russia.

3. 'Abolish all inheritance.' This is supposed to reduce everyone to the same economic level. Of course, eliminating class is the main aim of socialism. But the fallacy is the assumption that class is a permanent, stable thing. But, in truth, classes fluctuate like particles in ocean waves moving upward and downward with the tides. The man at the bottom of society may be at the top tomorrow, as we see in Soviet Russia and all other civilized countries. Trying to control this natural fluctuation of classes is like Canute trying to tell the tide not to rise. [Read "King Canute on the Seashore" in James Baldwin's Fifty Famous Stories Retold.]

4. 'Confiscate property of rebels and emigrants.' It takes tyranny to maintain assumed authority. And the worst tyranny of all is penalizing people to intimidate them into powerlessness, as they do in the Soviet state. The fallacy here is in underestimating human nature. There is nothing that men won't sacrifice for an idea. Threat of losing property won't keep men from taking a stand for a grand idea, like freedom to think and move with liberty.

5, 6, and 7. deal with transferring factories and tools for producing things into the hands of the State. Since the Proletariat [the working class] makes up the government in a communist society, it's a way for Everyman to control all the wealth and means of getting wealth.

This is actually a logically thought-out similarity to a government of the people, by the people, for the people. But the fallacy here is that it results in a revolution that doesn't really bring any changes. It just results in a change of rulers, who might end up being better or worse. In the Soviet Republic, according to the law of perpetual social flux, new tyrants would work their way in because there are no longer precedents and customs in place to hinder them. And the children will have a great example of how the last stage of their country is worse than it was before.

8. 'All will be forced to work.' The original idea was to grant equal freedom and living conditions to everyone. But in reality, it means that everyone will have to serve in the army.

9. 'Agriculture and manufacture will be combined into one group.' The goal was to take away the difference and inequalities between towns and rural areas. It's a good idea, one we'd all like to see happen. But is it really possible?

10. 'Free public education for all children.' We are happy to see that this has come to pass with the added condition, 'for those who need or want it.' The downside is that the Soviet's concept of education is brainwashing the next generation in revolutionary propaganda.

To continue our examination of point number 10., the next clause (b) gets rid of child labor in factories 'in its present form.' We are glad to see child labor ended, but that clause could leave a loophole for something just as sinister. But, on the surface, everyone seems happy with this point.

(c) 'Education and production of goods will be united.' Motivated by motives of economy, England is copying this communist trend with its Continuation Schools. The fallacy affects us as well as them in our efforts to better educate the people. It assumes that a child who learns a specific trade at the expense of his overall academic education will do better in the future than a child who spends all his school time on educating his whole person. But employers themselves don't confirm this. On the contrary, if a child is fairly bright and willing, an employer will be happy to have him and can teach him the specific skills he needs on the job. The purpose of education isn't to train for a technical skill, it's to develop the whole person. The more fully a person meets his potential, the better his work will be, no matter what that work is. Like I said before, the concept of British Continuation Schools should be teaching humanities. By that, I don't mean a traditional classical education. Whether ancient classics are the best really isn't the issue. But our English language has a wealth of its own rich humanities to offer.

Volume 6, Philosophy of Education, pg 148

I've shown why students' reading and current events need to be wide enough to provide opportunities for them to enjoy the kind of logical, methodical reasoning they need. When they find fallacies in one instance, it will sharpen their ability to detect them somewhere else.

Volume 6, Philosophy of Education, pg 183-184

In Forms III and IV [grades 7-9], students begin a History of English Literature, which was carefully chosen because it gives students a kind-hearted interest and enjoyment of literature without giving stereotyped opinions and outdated information. They read about fifty pages per term, and the portion they read corresponds with the historical period they're studying. That book is a special favorite with the students. They love Shakespeare, whether the term's assignment is King Lear, Twelfth Night, Henry V, or another play. The Waverley Novels provide a story from the time period. There was some discussion in our Elementary Schools about whether abridged editions of Scott might make it easier to finish the book in a term, but teachers at a meeting in Gloucester presented strong reasons for using the unabridged version. Students enjoy the dry parts, the descriptions and such. This is proved by how beautifully they narrate those parts. Students in Form IV [grade 8/9] have a varied booklist. For instance, if they're learning about the part of history that includes the Commonwealth, they might read L'Allegro, Il Penseroso, Milton's Lycidas, and an anthology of various poets from that time period. If they're studying a later period, they might read Pope's Rape of the Lock, or Gray's poems. Form III [grades 7 and 8] might read poems of Goldsmith and Burns. The purpose of the literature selections isn't so they'll know who wrote what during which king's reign, but to instill a sense of the vastness of the era, not just the Elizabethan era, but all the historical periods that poets, journallers and storytellers have left living pictures of. This way, children get more than the kind of facts that have no cultural value. They gain wide spaces in their minds where their imaginations can go for vacation journeys that prevent life from becoming dreary. Also, as they make judgments, their minds will go over these memory files they have stored and they'll have a broader base of knowledge to draw from when considering decisions about a particular strike, or issues of country rights, or political unrest. Every individual is called on to be a statesman since each person has a say in how the government is run. But being a good statesman requires a mind alive with the kind of imaginative impressions that come from wide reading and some familiarity with historic precedents.

Volume 6, Philosophy of Education, pg 193-195

Forms V and VI [grades 10-12] should have a little teaching about writing compositions, but not too much. Too much teaching might encourage a pretentious, artificial style that might encumber them for the rest of their lives. Maybe the methods that University tutors use is the best one. What they do is, they take one or two points from a composition and talk about corrections or suggestions. Since students have read so much great literature from skilled authors, they will have picked up a certain amount of style. Since they've been exposed to so many great minds in books, they'll be less likely to copy a single author. Instead, they'll be more likely to find their own individual style from the wealth of voices they've been reading. And since they've received all kinds of interesting ideas from their lessons, they'll have important things to write about and won't be unnecessarily wordy without having something to say. Here's an example of a term's assignments for Form V: A concise summary of a book, a letter to the editor about some current event, subject taken from the term's reading, notes from a picture study, dialogs between characters from the term's reading, poetic ballads about current events. Form VI's assignments might also include essays on current events and issues, and a patriotic play. Here are some assignments from another term: A praise song, either rhyming or blank verse, about the Prince of Wales' tour of British-occupied regions, an essay dated 10 years in the future about the League of Nation's accomplishments. Form V might write a sad poetic ballad about conditions in Ireland, a poem about the King's garden party with his Vice Chancellors, an essay about the current condition of England, or US President Wilson.

The students' response to these assignments is very encouraging and fun to read. Their work has literary, or even poetic value, but the fact that they can write well isn't the most important accomplishment. Even more importantly, they can read, appreciating every nuance of the author's thoughts. They can consider current events and political concerns with educated minds. In other words, their education is relevant to the issues and interests of the real world they live in, and they are making real progress in becoming broad-minded citizens and future leaders.

Volume 6, Philosophy of Education, pg 230

Forms V and VI (grades 10-12) also have to keep up with current events by reading the newspaper and finding out what's happening in the country they're studying.

Volume 6, Philosophy of Education, pg 265

Education for those living in a democracy needs to have certain features. We all need to be able to speak well, representing the concerns of groups of people and relating their sentiments and joys. Then we'll stop being motivated by self-interest and personal advantage in our political activism. We'll be able to touch sentiments of poetry and heroism, which most hearts will rise to. And, as a result, we'll be able to build 'a new Jerusalem right here in England's green, pleasant land.' To accomplish this, we all need to read the same books--in English, not in Latin or Greek. Most people, including the average student at a classical school, will never have the time to become fluent in Latin or Greek. Perhaps we'll still want an exclusive class of ivy-league students, and this seems like a good idea to me, since the one thing we've always done well at is instilling character and proper behavior in the top-notch schools. But we should broaden its base at the bottom, and narrow it as it gets to the top. In the earlier years, there should be a whole lot of books that everybody has to read. In the high school years, we need to cover less dead language classics and less higher math, to make room for more history and literature in our own language. I know I'm not an authority, but it seems to me that there's a lot of overlap from prep school to public boarding school, and from one Form [grade] to another, and from high school to the university [eliminating redundant overlaps and review could free up some time for more learning.] We could probably find a way to instill the same high-quality, character-building education, but we could make it inclusive rather than exclusive.