The Origin and Meaning of the Motto
By Art Middlekauff
In 1932 Elsie Kitching wrote, “Our motto is our charter, for it includes all we are, all we have, and all we can be—‘I am, I can, I ought, I will’.”[1] This remarkable statement summarizes why the Parents’ Union School motto has had such a profound impact for so many years on so many persons connected with the Charlotte Mason movement. It is one of the most celebrated sentences associated with Charlotte Mason, and it is repeated almost any time the philosophy of Miss Mason is explained.
Nevertheless, despite the popularity of this familiar motto, its origin remains shrouded in mystery. It has been described and paraphrased in wildly different ways, and it is sometimes mislabeled. For example, a popular 2004 book bids us “Remember the PNEU motto: ‘I am, I can, I ought, I will,’”[2] even though “The P.N.E.U. Motto is: ‘Education is an atmosphere, a discipline, and a life.’”[3] It is perhaps surprising that such an impactful phrase is actually the motto of the Parents’ Union School, a specific work of the PNEU.
When we grasp that “I am, I can, I ought, I will” is the motto of the school program that Charlotte Mason founded, its function is brought into sharper focus. It is a motto for students. While of course it has applicability to parents and teachers, Mason emphasized that it “has had much effect in throwing children upon the possibilities, capabilities, duties and determining power belonging to them as persons”[4] (emphasis added).
But where did this student motto come from? We know that it was adapted from an earlier form that was expressed in the first edition of Mason’s book Home Education (and every edition since). In the 1886 edition we find “I am, I ought, I can, I will” in quotation marks on p. 178. (This appears on p. 330 in editions from 1906 to the present.) The second and third verbs were inverted when this phrase became the motto. But then where did the original form of this phrase come from?
While Mason does not specify a source for this phrase in quotation marks, she tells us where to look in the very first sentence of Home Education (first edition). There, in the “Introductory,” she writes:
In proposing these lectures, my original notion was to popularize and amplify the valuable educational hints contained in some two or three chapters of Dr. Carpenter’s “Mental Physiology;” but the subject is a wide one, and I have found it necessary to cover much ground untouched in that work.[5]
She is referring here to an 1874 tome by William B. Carpenter entitled Principles of Mental Physiology. A casual glance assures us that this was Mason’s source for the famous series of four verbs. Here are the relevant passages from Mason and Carpenter side-by-side:
|
Charlotte Mason |
William Carpenter |
| “I am, I ought, I can, I will”—these are the steps of that ladder of St. Augustine, whereby we—
“Rise on stepping-stones, Of our dead selves to higher things.” |
“I am, I ought, I can, I will,” are (as has been recently well said) the only firm foundation-stones on which we can base our attempt to climb into a higher sphere of existence. |
| ‘I am’—we have the power of knowing ourselves. | The first implies that we have a faculty of Introspection, which converts a simple state of consciousness into self-consciousness, and thus makes it the object of our own contemplation: |
| ‘I ought’—we have within us a moral judge, to whom we feel ourselves subject, and who points out and requires of us our duty. | —the second, that we have submitted that state of consciousness (whether Thought or Feeling) to our moral judgment, which has pronounced its verdict upon it: |
| ‘I can’—we are conscious of power to do that which we perceive we ought to do. | —the third, that we are conscious of a freedom and a power to act in accordance with that judgment, though drawn by cogent motives in some different direction; |
| ‘I will’—we determine to exercise that power with a volition which is in itself a step in the execution of that which we will. | —and the fourth, that we determinately exercise that power. |
We can be certain that Mason was quoting and adapting from Carpenter in this passage of Home Education. But then we are confronted with a new question. Who was Carpenter quoting? Again, the line is:
“I am, I ought, I can, I will,” are (as has been recently well said) …
Why did Carpenter put this phrase in quotation marks? And on what occasion was the phrase “recently said”? The answer has eluded interpreters of Charlotte Mason. But I think we have three important clues:
- Carpenter writes that the phrase was “said” — this may imply that the words were spoken rather than printed.
- Carpenter said that the words were said “recently” — this implies an occasion not long before the publication of the book in 1874.
- Carpenter does not cite the source.
Regarding the third point, I have read the 722-page Principles of Mental Physiology from cover to cover, and I can testify that Carpenter is usually careful to at least name his sources. Why would he omit his source in this case? Is it possible that he was showing the humility so characteristic of a 19th Century writer? Could it be that the words were spoken by Carpenter himself, and he was too humble to write, “as has been recently well said by me”?
We do know that Carpenter did in fact say these words out loud in a public setting. The year was 1874 and the event took place in August, so it could very well have been before his book was published. The occasion was the annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, and the setting was Ulster Hall in Belfast, Northern Ireland. On Monday, August 24 at 8.30 PM, Thomas Huxley gave a lecture entitled “The Hypothesis that Animals are Automata, and its History.”[6] By hypothesizing that animals are automata, he was proposing that animals are machines, or as we would now say, robots.
What does it mean to say that an animal is a robot? It means that all activities of the animal are entirely the result of physical causes. Every movement, every action of even the most sophisticated animal, is entirely the result of chemical reactions and the inherent properties of matter. In itself, this is not so controversial a theory; not many feel the need to argue that animals have anything other than a physical dimension.
Dr. William B. Carpenter attended Huxley’s Monday night lecture. He was no stranger to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, having served as its president for the 1872–1873 term.[7] He was also no stranger to the idea of automatism. Ever since at least 1855 he had been writing about the machine-like behavior of animals,[8] which he referred to as automatic action.[9] The word robot was not to enter the English language until 1923,[10] so Carpenter too had settled for the word automaton[11] to capture the idea of “animal-as-robot.” As far as it goes, then, Carpenter was in full agreement with Huxley’s stated thesis.
The problem was that Huxley did not stop there. In Huxley’s pivotal lecture, he went further than this. He claimed that man is in fact an animal, and thus man, too, is a robot. If man is a robot, then all his thoughts and feelings are also the results of chemical reactions. The sense of will (or free will) is an illusion. All of one’s actions and choices are entirely determined by the current chemical and physical configuration of one’s brain; our behavior is programmed or determined by what has preceded. Huxley reportedly then said:
Undoubtedly I do believe … that the view I have taken of the relations between the physical and mental faculties of brutes applies in its fullness and entirety to man, and if it were true that the logical consequences of that belief must land me in all these terrible things [Fatalism, Materialism, and Atheism] I should not hesitate to be so landed.[12]
By fatalism, he means determinism: the denial that man has a free will. By materialism, he means the denial of the existence of the spiritual. And by atheism, of course, he means the denial of the existence of God. This was too much for Carpenter. As early as 1855 he had insisted on a distinction between human beings and even the most intelligent of animals, such as horses and dogs:
In Man, on the other hand, we observe not merely the capability of profiting by experience, but the determination to do so; which he is enabled to put into action, by the power which his Will (when properly disciplined) comes to possess, of directing and controlling his current of thought, by fixing his attention upon any subject which he desires to keep before his mental vision. This power, so far as we know, is peculiar to Man; and the presence or absence of it constitutes … the difference between a being possessed of power to determine his own course of thought and action, and a mere thinking automaton.[13]
So for Carpenter, the will is the unique faculty of man which enables him to transcend his automatic or robotic nature. But, again writing in 1855, he explained that in order to activate the will, he must first become aware that he even has such a faculty:
From the time when the Human being first becomes conscious that he has a Volitional power within himself of determining the succession of his mental states, from that time does he begin to be responsible for it; and in proportion as he exerts that power, does he emancipate himself from the domination of his constitutional or automatic tendencies, and make himself a free agent.[14]
Carpenter also in 1855 associated the will with man’s nobility, implying a moral dimension to this faculty:
And, truly, in the existence of this Power, which is capable of dominating over the very highest of those operations that we know of as connected with corporeal states, we find a better evidence than we gain from the study of any other part of our psychical nature, that there is an entity wherein Man’s nobility essentially consists, which does not depend for its existence on any play of psychical or vital forces, but which makes these subservient to its determinations. It is, in fact, the virtue of the Will, that we are not mere thinking automata, mere puppets to be pulled by suggesting-strings, capable of being played-upon by every one who shall have made himself master of our springs of action.[15]
These passages show that Carpenter saw a progression: man becomes aware that he has a volitional power; it is in this power that his nobility essentially consists; he realizes that he is not a mere thinking automaton; he exercises his will to choose. And now, on that solemn Monday evening of 1874, Carpenter was witnessing Huxley deny it all. Huxley was saying that man did not have this faculty. Man was an automaton after all.
Carpenter made his move. The September 9, 1874 issue of The Church Herald describes what happened at the end of Huxley’s lecture:
One very curious thing remains to be mentioned. A vote of thanks [to Huxley] was proposed by Lord Rosse and seconded by Dr. Carpenter, who added these words, “I accept,” he said, “all that has been said about automatic action, but I add to it the consciousness expressed in these four great words, ‘I am, I ought, I can, I will,’ that is to say, I am much obliged to you, Sir, for your amusing and interesting lecture, but I do not believe a word of it.”[16]
I suspect that this was the first time that the phrase “I am, I ought, I can, I will” was uttered, and that Carpenter was quoting his own utterance when he published his book. I cannot prove it, but I have not been able to locate any earlier reference to these words.
I have, however, been able to find an interesting subsequent reference to these words. In 1883, an Anglican clergyman named Frederick Farrar published the book My Object in Life. The volume was published as part of the “Heart Chords” series, a “series of volumes of which … has for its object the stimulating, guiding, and strengthening of the Christian life.”[17] On p. 2 Farrar wrote this remarkable passage:
It has been said with deep truth that there are four words which man can apply to himself, and the utterance of which divides him from the lower animals—four words which are the only firm foundations on which we can base our attempts to climb to a higher existence—to raise ourselves on stepping-stones of our dead selves, aye, and even of our living selves, to better things. These four words are, “I am,” “I ought,” “I can,” “I will.” Those four verbs, rightly interpreted, sum up our object in life.[18]
The parallels between this paragraph and p. 376 of Carpenter’s Principles of Mental Physiology are best seen if we examine them side-by-side:
|
William Carpenter |
Frederick Farrar |
|
| 1 | “I am, I ought, I can, I will,” are | |
| 2 | (as has been recently well said) | It has been said with deep truth |
| 3 | that there are four words which man can apply to himself, and the utterance of which divides him from the lower animals— four words which are | |
| 4 | the only firm foundation-stones on which we can base our attempt to climb into a higher sphere of existence. | the only firm foundations on which we can base our attempts to climb to a higher existence |
| 5 | —to raise ourselves on stepping-stones of our dead selves, aye, and even of our living selves, to better things. | |
| 6 | These four words are, “I am,” “I ought,” “I can,” “I will.” Those four verbs, rightly interpreted, sum up our object in life. |
Row 3 of the above table is significant because of the hypothesis that the “four words” were first spoken after Huxley’s lecture. Carpenter spoke the words as a direct rebuttal of Huxley’s thesis that animals and humans are automata; Carpenter insisted that human beings are different from animals because we possess a will. Could Farrar have been present at this Huxley lecture? It is an intriguing possibility, since at the time of the lecture, Farrar was a member in good standing of the hosting organization, the British Association for the Advancement of Science.[19]
Row 6 of the above table is significant because of an 1875 booklet by William Carpenter entitled The Doctrine of Human Automatism. The closing paragraph begins with the following advice from Carpenter:
I ask you to take as your guiding star, as it were, in the conduct of your lives, these four words—“I am,” “I ought,” “I can,” “I will.”[20]
Both Carpenter (writing in 1875) and Farrar (writing in 1883) refer to the phrase as “four words,” even though the phrase contains eight words, and both offer the phrase as a guide for life: “your guiding star … in the conduct of your lives” (Carpenter) or “our object in life” (Farrar). This evidence strongly suggests that Farrar had read Carpenter, though he does not cite him as a source.
But what of Row 5, where Farrar writes the phrase “to raise ourselves on stepping-stones of our dead selves, aye, and even of our living selves, to better things”? The syntax indicates that this clause is intended to be synonymous with “to climb to a higher existence,” which is an abridgement of Carpenter’s 1874 “to climb into a higher sphere of existence” (emphasis added). While Carpenter does use the word “stones” in the preceding noun “foundation-stones,” he never speaks of “stepping-stones,” “dead selves,” or “living selves.” I think there is a reason for this. “Dead selves” and “living selves” evokes the doctrine of regeneration. This was essential for Farrar, an Anglican, but irrelevant for Carpenter, a Unitarian.
Now of all the ways that Farrar could express regeneration as a Christian version of “climbing into a higher sphere of existence,” why did he choose this unusual expression about stepping-stones? He was doubtless quoting the poem “In Memoriam” by Alfred, Lord Tennyson, first published in 1850.[21] The opening stanza reads:
I held it truth, with him who sings
To one clear harp in divers tones,
That men may rise on stepping-stones
Of their dead selves to higher things.
Although Farrar does not cite his source, his statement is an obvious allusion to this famous poem. We can now summarize Farrar’s sources and allusions as follows:
| Source |
Frederick Farrar |
| Carpenter, Principles, p. 376: “(as has been recently well said)” |
It has been said with deep truth |
| Carpenter’s response to Huxley | that there are four words which man can apply to himself, and the utterance of which divides him from the lower animals— four words which are |
| Carpenter, Principles, p. 376: “the only firm foundation-stones on which we can base our attempt to climb into a higher sphere of existence.” |
the only firm foundations on which we can base our attempts to climb to a higher existence |
| Tennyson, “In Memoriam”: “That men may rise on stepping-stones Of their dead selves to higher things.” |
—to raise ourselves on stepping-stones of our dead selves, aye, and even of our living selves, to better things. |
| Carpenter, Doctrine, p. 32: “I ask you to take as your guiding star, as it were, in the conduct of your lives, these four words—‘I am,’ ‘I ought,’ ‘I can,’ ‘I will.’” |
These four words are, “I am,” “I ought,” “I can,” “I will.” Those four verbs, rightly interpreted, sum up our object in life. |
Recall that Carpenter published Principles of Mental Physiology in 1874 and Farrar published My Object in Life in 1883. Charlotte Mason published Home Education in 1886, after both works. We know Mason had read Carpenter’s book. Could she have read Farrar’s? We know from Home Education that she had read (or heard) something by him. In the first edition of Home Education she wrote that “Some of us may have heard Canon Farrar describe that lesson he was present at, on ‘How doth the little busy bee’”;[22] for the fourth edition she updated the text to “the late Dean Farrar.”[23] We also know that Farrar was a vice-president of the PNEU in 1892.[24]
Could she have read My Object in Life? Let’s look at the three texts side-by-side. The text is color-coded based on which text introduced the words or phrases. Content original to Principles of Mental Physiology is in green; content original to My Object in Life is in blue; content original to Home Education is in orange.
|
William Carpenter |
Charlotte Mason |
Frederick Farrar My Object in Life (1883) p. 2 |
| “I am, I ought, I can, I will,” | “I am, I ought, I can, I will”— | |
| are (as has been recently well said) the only firm foundation-stones on which we can base our attempt to climb into a higher sphere of existence. | It has been said with deep truth that there are four words which man can apply to himself, and the utterance of which divides him from the lower animals— four words which are the only firm foundations on which we can base our attempts to climb to a higher existence | |
| these are the steps of that ladder of St. Augustine, whereby we— | ||
| “Rise on stepping-stones, Of our dead selves to higher things.” |
—to raise ourselves on stepping-stones of our dead selves, aye, and even of our living selves, to better things. |
Unlike Farrar, Mason has the phrase about stepping-stones, dead selves, and higher things in quotation marks, making explicit the reference to Tennyson. Even then she does not supply the source. Nevertheless, what is the likelihood that Farrar (in 1883) and Mason (in 1886) would independently use a quotation from Tennyson to add a Christian dimension to Carpenter’s “attempt to climb into a higher sphere of existence”? It seems far more likely that Mason had come across Farrar’s book and consciously or unconsciously adopted his association.
Interestingly, Mason also completely dropped Carpenter’s language about climbing “into a higher sphere of existence.” This suggests that she felt even more strongly than Farrar that an element of regeneration was involved in the personal transformation from “I ought” to “I will.” But then Mason added a new phrase not found in Carpenter or Farrar: “these are the steps of that ladder of St. Augustine.” Why did Mason associate Augustine with the stepping-stones of Tennyson?
The answer is found in another 19th-century poem, this one by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. The poem is called “The Ladder of St. Augustine” and opens with these lines:
Saint Augustine! well hast thou said,
That of our vices we can frame
A ladder, if we will but tread
Beneath our feet each deed of shame!
In this intriguing sentence, then, Mason has evoked two separate poems, one by name (“The Ladder of St. Augustine”) and one by quotation (“Rise on stepping-stones, Of our dead selves to higher things”). But one final question still remains: where did Longfellow come up with the notion that Augustine said that we could “frame a ladder” from “our vices”?
Longfellow himself has given us the answer. In an original footnote, the poet himself wrote:
The words of St. Augustine are, ‘De vitiis nostris scalam nobis facimus, si vitia ipsa calcamus.’ Sermon III. De Ascensione.
A translation of the Latin would be, “We make a ladder for ourselves of our vices, if we trample those same vices underfoot.”
I have searched extensively for this Latin sentence in the sermons of Augustine and have not found it in any modern edition. However, an 1865 collection by J. P. Migne does include this sermon, “De Ascensione” (“On the Ascension”), but it is classified among the inauthentic or “suppositious” sermons: “based on assumption rather than fact.” Presumably in 1850, when Longfellow wrote his poem, he assumed it to be an authentic utterance of the saint.
The fascinating implication is that the four verbs of the motto have no intrinsic link to Augustine. This is ironic given the fact that some contemporary interpreters of Charlotte Mason have assumed that “I am, I ought, I can, I will” was first uttered by Augustine himself.[25] A moment’s reflection on the words themselves, however, are sufficient proof that Augustine could not have uttered such a phrase. Recall that Augustine was in a theological debate with Pelagius, whose views were eventually condemned in a church council. Charles Hodge wrote:
The radical principle of the Pelagian theory is, that ability limits obligation. “If I ought, I can,” is the aphorism on which the whole system rests. Augustine’s celebrated prayer, “Da quod jubes, et jube quod vis [Give what you command, and command what you will],” was pronounced by Pelagius an absurdity, because it assumed that God can demand more than man render, and what man must receive as a gift.[26]
Pelagius asserted that “the apostasy of Adam had not corrupted humanity’s nature, but had merely set a fatally bad example”;[27] therefore, “the fruits of human goodness grow almost entirely out of human free-will and effort.”[28] For Pelagius, “I ought, I can, I will” sufficed as a statement of Christian sanctification; it would never do for his opponent Augustine. The motto would have to be supplemented with an emphasis on divine grace before it could possibly be attributed to the saint.
Surprisingly, however, even Mason’s biographer Essex Cholmondeley blithely referred to “I am, I ought, I can, I will” as “St. Augustine’s words.” Writing in 1957, she was answering a query as to why the Parents’ Union School motto inverted the order of the second and third verbs. The question came in from House of Education graduate Nancy Hatch whose words have been echoed by many today:
Perhaps someone can explain why Miss Mason changed the order of the P.U.’s motto. On page 330 of Home Education C.M. says this “‘I am, I ought, I can, I will’, these are the steps of that ladder of St. Augustine whereby we ‘rise on stepping stones of our dead selves to higher things!’”.[29]
Hatch then remarkably evokes the debate between Pelagius and Augustine, suggesting that the revised ordering makes the motto Pelagian:
This change of order makes a world of difference, I believe. If there is something you ought to do it is what you owe, and the power to do it is available. The other way round suggests the Pelagian heresy. Pelagius was a monk, born in England in the middle of the 4th century, who came into conflict with St. Augustine.[30]
Next, Hatch questions the motto in terms that seem applicable regardless of the order of the second two verbs:
I believe that the Victorians were guilty of the heresy, and their correctness has been followed by a Dionysiac reaction. From a Christian point of view right action is not enough, and C.M.’s teaching on habit, I believe, is misleading. I used to think it was my salvation, but I have learnt since to see that the God Jesus came to manifest does not demand right action such as the Pharisees sought, but complete surrender, because He alone knows what is in man and the individual man’s potentialities. The idea is clearly apparent in the lives of the saints and is crystallised in the Eucharist or Communion Service, and from that point real growth begins.[31]
Hatch’s concern seems to be that the four verbs say nothing about regeneration, surrender, or the relationship of the believer to God. It is indeed true that Carpenter’s original formulation of the motto leaves out these spiritual elements; in fact, Carpenter’s message could be summarized as sanctification by will and habit. This humanistic stance is only partially modified by Farrar’s addition of “dead selves” and Mason’s reference to Augustine.
Cholmondeley responds to Hatch by side-stepping the issue of Pelagius versus Augustine, writing:
Charlotte Mason, writing on conviction of sin in Book II alludes to “the constant operation of the Holy Spirit upon the spirits of men”. With this would not both Pelagius and Augustine agree?[32]
Cholmondeley offers an explanation for the change in order by fist citing a note reportedly left by Elsie Kitching. Note Cholmondeley’s assumption that Augustine himself is responsible for the original sequence:
I, too, wonder why Charlotte Mason changed the order of St. Augustine’s words, “I am, I ought, I can, I will” to the P.U.S. motto we know so well. Miss Kitching left a note about it. In 1888, Charlotte Mason writes about the motto using St. Augustine’s sequence. A little later on there is an unfinished quotation from a notebook, “I am (human nature), I can (power), I ought (responsibility), I will (purpose)”. In 1891 this became the P.U.S. motto.[33]
Next Cholmondeley argues that the new sequence mirrors the approach taken in Mason’s volume Ourselves. She explains:
First comes the description of our human nature with its infinite possibilities: I am. Coupled with this, chapter by chapter, advice is given to show how best to use these possibilities: I can. Responsibility—I ought—follows in a section on the conscience, leading on to I will, purpose.[34]
Finally, she hypothesizes that we are the “I can, I ought” generation:
A previous generation of parents expected children to have an adult sense of responsibility. They would surely have put “I ought” before anything else. But Charlotte Mason wished to answer that cry of childhood, “How can I help doing—being this?” followed by “I can’t help it”. In “Ourselves” the answer is, “Yes, you can; try this way, try that”. When later in the book, the duties and responsibilities of life are discussed, they can be faced because the reader already stands firmly in the knowledge of “I am and I can”.[35]
If Cholmondeley is correct, then she has identified the first of many shifts in meaning for the motto from the original concept specified in Home Education and Carpenter. Let us place Cholmondeley’s interpretation based on Ourselves next to Mason’s original words to highlight the change:
| Charlotte Mason Home Education (1886) p. 178 (p. 330 in later editions) |
Essex Cholmondeley L’Umile Pianta (1957) p. 4 |
| ‘I am’—we have the power of knowing ourselves. | First comes the description of our human nature with its infinite possibilities: I am. |
| ‘I ought’—we have within us a moral judge, to whom we feel ourselves subject, and who points out and requires of us our duty. | When … the duties and responsibilities of life are discussed, they can be faced because the reader already stands firmly in the knowledge of “I am and I can”. |
| ‘I can’—we are conscious of power to do that which we perceive we ought to do. | Charlotte Mason wished to answer that cry of childhood, “How can I help doing—being this?” followed by “I can’t help it”. In “Ourselves” the answer is, “Yes, you can; try this way, try that”. |
| ‘I will’—we determine to exercise that power with a volition which is in itself a step in the execution of that which we will. | purpose |
With “I am,” Mason here sees simply what Carpenter refers to as “the faculty of introspection” — the ability to know oneself. Cholmondeley expands this to encompass the broad knowledge of human nature. It is no longer merely the ability to “convert a simple state of consciousness into self-consciousness”; it is now an awareness of the “infinite possibilities” bound up in being a human person.
With “I ought,” Mason refers to a moral judge “within us,” probably referring primarily to the conscience. Cholmondeley expands this to include a broader knowledge of duties and responsibilities learned by reading and discussion.
Finally, with “I can,” Mason refers to a power we already perceive within us. Cholmondeley expands this to refer to a power we must learn about. We begin in childhood with a sense of “I can’t.” Through instruction gained in books such as Ourselves, we learn how to change this into “I can.”
In short, Mason initially follows Carpenter in saying that “I am, I ought, I can, I will” is the universal experience of human beings which testifies that we are not automatons; we are different from the animals. Cholmondeley transforms it into an inspiring rule of life. It is not a fact of human existence; rather, it is a rallying cry to rise to a higher level of living.
But the broadening of the motto by Cholmondeley is small in comparison to the handling of the four verbs by Farrar. We have already seen that in the opening pages of his 1883 My Object in Life, he followed Carpenter fairly closely. But in the remainder of this book, which of course preceded Mason’s Home Education, he further developed the four verbs to express Christian discipleship and theology. For example, consider this concise statement that appears about two-thirds of the way into his book:
May we, in the name and in the strength of our Lord Jesus Christ, say, “I am—I am thine, oh! save me; I ought—I ought to obey God; I can—I can do all things through Christ that strengtheneth me; I will—I will take heed to my ways, I will keep Thy statutes; I will not forget Thy word. I will run the way of Thy commandments. I have sworn, and am steadfastly purposed to keep Thy righteous judgments.”[36]
Notice how completely each verb has been reinterpreted to express Christian ideals. “I am” is no longer an expression of self-awareness or human potential, but rather a statement of identity relative to God: “I am yours.” “I ought” no longer points to an inner judge or conscience but rather to a personal relationship of submission to God. “I can” no longer refers to innate human ability but rather to what a believer can do in Christ. “I will” refers not simply to doing what I ought, but to a life fully consecrated to the Lord.
While Mason almost certainly read at least a portion of Farrar’s book, she never personally adopted his explicitly Christian restatement of the motto. In fact, outside of Home Education, the four verbs appear in her writings on only three occasions. These references are brief and vague, but all follow the revised ordering of the verbs:
1903
I should be very glad to hear what the other children think of Eric [Bishop]’s proposal. The badge should have the motto of the Patents’ Review School,—‘I am, I can, I ought, I will’[37]
1913
A sort of correspondence school was set up, the motto of which,—“I am, I can, I ought, I will,”’ has had much effect in throwing children upon the possibilities, duties, and determining power belonging to them as persons.[38]
1925
A sort of correspondence school was set up, the motto of which,—“I am, I can, I ought, I will,” has had much effect in throwing children upon the possibilities, capabilities, duties and determining power belonging to them as persons.[39]
Additionally she had two references with three of the verbs (omitting “I will”):
1896
Expectation strikes another chord, the chord of “I am, I can, I ought,” which must vibrate in every human breast, for, ’tis our nature to. The capable, dependable men and women whom we all know were reared upon this principle. (1896)[40]
1897
Expectation strikes another chord, the chord of “I am, I can, I ought,” which must vibrate in every human breast, for “’tis our nature to.” The capable, dependable men and women whom we all know were reared upon this principle. (1897)[41]
Thus the only detailed exposition of the verbs by Mason herself follows what I call the “scientific formulation” of Carpenter rather than the “theological formulation” of Farrar. It is easy to overlook just how important the scientific formulation was to Charlotte Mason. Consider, for example, her words from Parents and Children:
But so surely as we believe the laws of the spiritual life to have been revealed to us, so, not less surely, though without the same sanctity, have been revealed the laws by which body, mind and moral nature flourish or decay. These it behoves us to make ourselves acquainted with; and the Christian parent who is shy of science, and prefers to bring up his children by the light of Nature when that of authoritative revelation fails, does so to his children’s irreparable loss.[42]
In the rush to follow Farrar’s example and infuse the four verbs with spiritual meanings, it behooves us to recall that Mason was deeply inspired by the scientific laws of moral development.
Given the paucity of references to the four verbs in Mason’s writings, it is worth asking why the motto is so widely known today and is so clearly associated with the Charlotte Mason method. By contrast, the phrase “Science of Relations” appears more than a dozen times in the Home Education Series and is enshrined in Mason’s Twenty Principles. Surely the reason the four verbs are so well-known today is that they were chosen as the Parents’ Union School motto.
Originally this quasi-correspondence school was named after the Parents’ Review magazine, and the first Parents’ Review School programme was released in 1891. In 1907, the name was changed to the Parents’ Union School.[43] The earliest reference I can find associating this motto with the school dates back to 1897, before the name change. In an article entitled “Some Reflections on the P.N.E.U. Conference” in the July Parents’ Review we read:
In the evening conversazione, Mrs. Boyd Carpenter spoke on “Links in the Home Chain,” in which, as a mother, she gave many practical suggestions as to how to carry out the Parents’ Review school motto—”I am, I can, I ought, I will.”[44]
According to Elsie Kitching[45] and Dorothea Steinthal,[46] Charlotte Mason is the one who chose this motto for the school. By doing so, the motto became separated from its original context in Home Education and opened to a wider range of interpretations. These new interpretations came from some of Mason’s most faithful followers and thus set a valid precedent for our time.
Elsie Kitching was remembered as a “Disciple of Charlotte Mason,” and her obituary recalls:
She took the intermediate examination in Arts at London University in 1893, but instead of proceeding to a degree she joined Miss Mason in the then young Parents’ National Educational Union. As private secretary to Miss Mason and secretary to the House of Education and to the Parents’ Union School, she played a part second only to Miss Mason in building up the P.N.E.U. movement.[47]
After the death of Miss Mason, Kitching was a profoundly effective steward of Mason’s ideas. H. Costley-White recalled in 1955:
… the range of her learning was immense. And her retentive memory preserved her knowledge immediately ready to command. Included in the store of her mind was an accurate knowledge of Miss Mason’s many books. It was startling to many, perhaps indeed to most, of us to hear her in any discussion quote instantly, and often verbatim, what Miss Mason’s view of the matter was. And such direct appeal to the canonical scriptures of P.N.E.U. of course settled the question. Whatever some of us may have previously thought, Miss Kitching generally proved right.[48]
This same Elsie Kitching explained the four verbs of the motto in 1932 as follows:
And each child is allowed to say “I am, because I am a child of God: I am a gift of God to my parents because of their love for each other.”
…
Now “I can” means I have the power, and in saying it we recognise that we have the power to enter into the inheritance of “I am.”
…
Then we tum aside to the King in the House of Soul, and the King calls us and shows us what He would have us to do, our Duty, and we know then what we owe to Him and can say “I ought” with understanding.
Even when we have said “I ought” we sometimes go no further; but when we remember “for Jesus Christ His sake” we can say “I will” knowing that the power to act will be given to us.[49]
This explanation by Kitching follows the theological formulation of Farrar. Rather than emphasizing self-awareness, conscience, and free will, she emphasizes the believer’s relationship with God and Christ. Though normally so careful to follow Mason in every detail, she seems comfortable departing from Mason’s scientific formulation of the motto in Home Education. Indeed, she seems to indicate that others are free to do the same:
Let us now think of the motto which Miss Mason chose for the Parents’ Union School—the school which has no building to mark its site, but which is the “blessed company” of P.U.S. children all over the world who are using the same programmes, taking the same examination papers, wearing the same badge, and most of all we hope, thinking about and acting upon the same motto. I wonder what the motto means to each one? There is so much to be said about it that it is not possible to do more than touch upon a few of the wonderful things. Indeed each one of us must keep the motto in mind and learn more about it day by day.[50]
By saying “I wonder what the motto means to each one,” she seems to suggest that each P.U.S. student may interpret the motto differently.
And some did. One example is Michael Franklin, who was the youngest son of Henrietta Franklin, a Jewish woman who co-founded the PNEU and served as its Organising Secretary. Michael’s exposition of the motto is the first I’ve seen that links explicit Bible verses to each verb. The year was 1951, and a booklet was published entitled P.U.S. Diamond Jubilee. Amidst samples of P.U.S. student work we find his “P.U.S. Jubilee Prayer”:
To every child a clarion call
Down sixty years there echoes still,
And proudly do we speak the words
‘I am, I can, I ought, I will.’
Lord, let me not unworthy be
Of these bright words that came to me.
(And God said to Moses, I AM THAT I
AM. And God said, Let us make man in our
own image, after our likeness—Genesis.)
I AM, because God gave me life,
I AM, because what man has done
Has gone to make me what I am,
The tasks achieved, the battles won.
Lord, let me not unworthy be
Of all of Thee that is in me.
(And such as had ability in them to stand in
the King’s Palace—Daniel I, 3.)
I CAN the great endeavour make,
The mountains CAN be surely moved,
The deadly giants conquered,
The stainless courage sternly proved.
Lord, let me not unworthy be
Of all the power that’s in me.
(Let us hear the conclusions of the whole
matter. Fear God and keep His Command-
ments, for this is the whole duty of man—
Ecclesiastes XII, 13.)
I OUGHT—Not frail compulsion here
Because of any man-made law,
But rather inspiration keen
Of everything worth fighting for.
Lord, let me not unworthy be
The truth and light that is in me.
(We will surely perform our vows that we
have vowed—Jeremiah XLIII, 25.)
I WILL be true to greatness now,
I WILL achieve the distant goal,
I WILL the evil things of life
Combat with mind and heart and soul.
Lord, let me not unworthy be
And do Thou bend my will to Thee.
(In the Lord do I put my trust. How say ye
to my soul, Flee as a bird to your mountain—
Psalm XI, 1.)[51]
In this poem Michael Franklin provides a theological formulation of the motto, quoting Exodus 3:14, Genesis 1:26, Daniel 1:3, Ecclesiastes 12:13, Jeremiah 44:25, and Psalm 11:1. Given Michael’s Jewish religion, it is not surprising that all of the verses he chose came from the Old Testament. Unlike Elsie Kitching, he makes no reference to the empowerment of Jesus Christ to say, “I will.”
Michael Franklin had made an earlier and much briefer reference to the motto in 1923. In In Memoriam he wrote:
“I am, I can, I ought, I will.” This was the motto she gave us. I am a human being, one of God’s children; I can do right by my fellowmen and by myself; I ought so to do and God help me, I will so do. Is this not a great message she has given us?[52]
This theological formulation anticipates the common interpolation “I am a child of God,” and invokes divine (though not Christological) aid in willing what is right.
In addition to P.U.S. students, House of Education students were also offering their own personal interpretations of the motto. In 1906, an anonymous graduate was leaving Charlotte Mason’s teacher training school and was going to plant her own school. She wrote a beautiful poem that was printed in the L’Umile Pianta:
I AM, I CAN, I OUGHT, I WILL.
I am a student full of fire,
And keen the youthful mind to fill,
To guide aright the young Desire,
It is my duty—and I will!
I can with never-failing tact
All furious tempers promptly still,
All evil habits counteract,
And so because I can—I will!
Dauntless and bold I start a school
With every subject freely taught,
Controlled by scientific rule,
Because I am, and can, and ought!
And when they ask the reason why
Against all odds I struggle still?
Nobly I make the proud reply,—
I am, I can, I ought, I will.[53]
One striking aspect of this inspiring poem is that it does not follow a theological formulation. Although it is not a precise recapitulation of the original formulation of William Carpenter, it nevertheless emphasizes the physiological dimension with the word habit and also mentions scientific rule.
Twelve years later another House of Education graduate offered a beautiful poem, this one featuring a theological formulation:
I AM, I OUGHT, I CAN, I WILL.
I am—what God alone doth truly know.
I pray that He will of His goodness teach
Me to myself that onward I may go
And better, higher, ways of life may reach.
I ought—He gave a gentle voice to me,
Conscience, which whispers to my wavering soul,
Helps me the wrong way and the right to see
And ever to press onward to the goal.
I can—what Conscience bids do, and I will.
He Who did unto me His warning give
And makes me right to see, doth still
Give unto me the power aright to live.
I will—God helping—always choose the right,
The old Saint’s words my guide and watchword still
And call to mind when weakening in the fight
I am, I ought, I can, I will.[54]
One surprising feature of this poem, composed by H. J. Hart, is that it follows the original order of the verbs, placing “I ought” before “I can.” The author also mentions “The old Saint’s words,” presumably referring to St. Augustine. The poem emphasizes the role of conscience in both “I ought” and “I can,” and the benevolent action of God in “I am” and “I will.” The author blends many truths in her own personalized way, and this beautiful expression shows how the motto was able to fill her with resolve and direction to do good.
Susan Schaffer McCaulay’s discovery of a Parents’ Union School and her publication of For the Children’s Sake in 1984 led to a revival of interest in the Charlotte Mason method and resulted in a movement characterized by the individualized application of Mason’s ideas independent of a centralized organization such as the PNEU. The subsequent reinterpretation and reapplication of Mason’s ideas generated new interpretations of the P.U.S. motto as well. A notable recent example is the thought-provoking paper by Joanna Stanberry entitled “I am, I can, I ought, I will: responsible leadership and the failures of ethics.”
Perhaps the most well-known modern formulation is found in the 2004 book When Children Love to Learn:
I am a child of God,
I ought to do His will.
I can do what He tells me,
And by His grace, I will.[55]
This memorable statement is of course a concise version of the original theological formulation of Farrar. Therefore, it stands in an established and celebrated tradition. However, if contemporary Charlotte Mason educators only see the motto through this theological lens, they will miss the scientific formulation that Mason originally emphasized. This is problematic not least because this original formulation can help students and educators elucidate and apply other aspects of Miss Mason’s method, such as her 17th principle:
17. The way of the will: Children should be taught, (a) to distinguish between ‘I want’ and ‘I will.’ (b) That the way to will effectively is to turn our thoughts from that which we desire but do not will. (c) That the best way to turn our thoughts is to think of or do some quite different thing, entertaining or interesting. (d) That after a little rest in this way, the will returns to its work with new vigour. [56]
The importance of this principle is highlighted by its inclusion in Mason’s 20-point Short Synopsis. To faithfully apply this principle, the child must first have sufficient self-awareness to differentiate between “I want” and “I will.” This requires the introspection that Carpenter associates with the verb “I am.” Next, the child must place a higher value on “I will” than “I want”; this requires the moral judgment that Carpenter associates with “I ought.” The child who learns this principle discovers a power — that of changing one’s thoughts — which enhances his sense of “I can.” Finally, the notion of willing “effectively” and the will returning “to its work” is reminiscent of the determinate exercise that Carpenter associates with “I will.”
This analysis reveals that the P.U.S. motto “I am, I can, I ought, I will” could be used as a shorthand reminder of Principle 17. This could be a powerful tool for the parent or teacher who is trying to teach her child to change his thoughts and employ the way of the will. This link to the way of the will, however, is severed by the theological formulation. Of course, the parent or teacher wants her child to embrace and understand his relationship with God and the motto in this formulation can help. But few tools are available besides the motto to help the child assimilate Principle 17.
It seems to me that the contemporary Charlotte Mason community can and should embrace both the scientific and the theological formulations of the motto. However, as a practical tool for daily application in the life of parent or child, I would suggest that the scientific formulation is to be preferred. Charlotte Mason’s teaching about the relationship between habit and will is insightful and powerful but can be difficult to apply. The motto in its original formulation can help unlock this aspect of the method.
The scientific formulation can also help people embrace a growth mindset, as opposed to a fixed mindset. Many of us have been conditioned with the notion that since we were born with a certain set of genes and a certain physical nature, we can never change. Sometimes people will say, “I’m not a math person, so I can’t learn math,” or “I’m not a craft person, so I can’t learn to sew.” This fixed mindset leads to an “I can’t” stance that biological, social, and spiritual determinism all reinforce.
By contrast, the scientific formulation of the motto can remind us that we are more than our genes. We are more than our cells and our organs. We have a spiritual faculty called a will. And this will operates on a brain that is plastic. The motto reminds us that we have a conscience that show us when it is time to resist our society and our circumstances. The motto reminds us that we can be more than what our instincts, our desires, and our appetites demand. The motto reminds us that “I can.”
In 2009 my wife was diagnosed with Stage IV cancer. I was working full-time and we were homeschooling. She had to undergo many months of chemotherapy. Many voices and forces around me suggested that it was time to give up my dream of homeschooling and put my kids in school. It seemed I would be justified in saying “I can’t.” But here’s what I wrote that year:
Though each day is filled with hope, I also carry a sorrow and a grief with me wherever I go. I face the demands of my job. I see the faces of my 9-year old, my 6-year-old, and my 1-year-old. I see their needs. Many times I think I have nothing left to give. I start to say in my heart, “I can’t.” But every time that word crosses my mind, I remember the motto. “I can.” Not only this, but “I ought.” And “I will.” Thank you, Miss Mason, for showing me the way of the will. Yes … I will.[57]
Yes, I am a child of God, and yes, I ought to do His will. Yes, I can do what He tells me, and by His grace, perhaps I will. But how? The theological formulation points to a potential but not to a pattern. I needed Carpenter’s and Mason’s practical insight into how to put the will into action. I needed to learn to turn my thoughts from that which I desire but do not will. I needed the scientific formulation to guide me and remind me. And so my dream came true. My children were all homeschooled, and thanks be to God, my wife has lived to see it too.
Endnotes
[1] Kitching, E. (1932). “Notes on the Badge and the Motto of the Parents’ Union School,” in The Parents’ Review, vol. 43, p. 666.
[2] Cooper, E. (2004). When Children Love to Learn, p. 202.
[3] Mason, C. (1925). An Essay Towards a Philosophy of Education, p. xxix.
[5] Mason, C. (1886). Home Education (first edition), p. v.
[6] Report of the Forty-Fourth Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (1875), p. lxv.
[7] Ibid., p. xliv.
[8] Carpenter, W. (1855). Principles of Human Theology, (New American Edition), pp. 433–434: “… these actions are invariably performed in the same manner by all the individuals of a species, when the conditions are the same; and thus are obviously to be attributed rather to a uniform impulse, than to a free choice; the most remarkable examples of this being furnished by the economy of Bees, Wasps, and other ‘social’ Insects, in which every individual of the community performs its appropriate part, with the exactitude and method of a perfect machine.”
[9] Ibid., p. 435: “Thus, then, the type of psychical perfection among Invertebrated animals, which is manifested in the highest degree in the Social Insects, consists in the exclusive development of the Instinctive faculty; that is, of automatic powers of a very simple kind; in virtue of which, each individual performs those actions to which it is directly prompted by the impulses arising out of impressions made upon its afferent nerves, without any self-control or self-direction; so that it must be regarded as entirely a creature of necessity, performing its instrumental part in the economy of Nature from no design or will of its own, but in accordance with the plan originally devised by its Creator.”
[10] Merriam-Webster (2003). Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, (Eleventh Edition).
[11] Carpenter, W. (1855). See pages 45, 602, and 709.
[12] The Church Herald (1874), vol. 5, no. 371, p. 497.
[13] Carpenter, W. (1855), p. 45.
[14] Ibid., p. 608.
[15] Ibid., p. 543.
[16] The Church Herald (1874), p. 497.
[17] Farrar, F. (1883). My Object in Life, front matter.
[18] Ibid., p. 2.
[19] Report of the Forty-Fourth Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (1875), “List of Members,” p. 25. Farrar was elected to the membership in 1866 and in the 1875 report, he was listed as one of the “Life Members entitled to the Annual Report.”
[20] Carpenter, W. (1875). The Doctrine of Human Automatism, p. 32.
[21] Encyclopedia Britannica, “In Memoriam.”
[22] Mason, C. (1886). Home Education (first edition), p. 42.
[23] Mason, C. (1905). Home Education (fourth edition), p. 56.
[24] Parents’ National Educational Union: The Report for 1892, p. 2.
[25] See for example When Children Love to Learn (2004), p. 88, and Lessons to Learn (2003), p. 125.
[26] Hodge, C. (1997). Systematic Theology, vol. 2, p. 152.
[27] Needham, N. (2016). 2000 Years of Christ’s Power: The Age of the Early Church Fathers, Newly revised edition., vol. 1, p. 276.
[28] Ibid.
[29] L’Umile Pianta, April 1957, p. 2.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Ibid., pp. 2–3.
[32] Ibid., p. 4.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Ibid.
[35] Ibid.
[36] Farrar, F. (1883). My Object in Life, p. 83.
[37] The Parents’ Review, vol. 14, p. 638.
[38] The Parents’ Review, vol. 24, p. 503.
[39] Mason, C. (1925). An Essay Towards a Philosophy of Education, p. 29.
[40] The Parents’ Review, vol. 6, p. 851.
[41] Mason, C. (1897). Parents and Children (first edition), p. 244 (third edition p. 251).
[42] Ibid., p. 71 (third edition p. 74).
[43] Coombs, M. (2015). Charlotte Mason: Hidden Heritage and Educational Influence, pp.xiii– xix.
[44] The Parents’ Review, vol. 8, p. 411.
[45] The Parents’ Review, vol. 43, p. 667.
[46] P.U.S. Diamond Jubilee (1951), p. 21.
[47] The Times (1955), as quoted by Elsie Kitching, 1870-1955 — Recollections (1956), p. 3.
[48] Elsie Kitching, 1870-1955 — Recollections (1956), p. 7.
[49] The Parents’ Review, vol. 43, p. 667–669.
[50] Ibid., p. 667.
[51] P.U.S. Diamond Jubilee (1951), p. 106.
[52] In Memoriam (1923), p. 99.
[53] L’Umile Pianta, July 1906, p. 45.
[54] L’Umile Pianta, November, 1918, p. 16.
[55] Cooper, E. (2004). When Children Love to Learn, p. 68.
[56] Mason, C. (1925). An Essay Towards a Philosophy of Education, p. xxxi.
[57] Middlekauff, A. (2009). Email to cmseries Yahoo! group.