Towards an Authentic Interpretation
At Charlotte Mason Poetry, our goal is to promote an authentic interpretation of Charlotte Mason’s writings. What do we mean by an “authentic interpretation,” and why is it so important? Today we are delighted to partner with A Delectable Education in a joint release of the audio version of our defining 2017 article “Towards an Authentic Interpretation.” We hope you take a moment to listen on your favorite audio player, on both the CMP and the ADE podcast.
– The Charlotte Mason Poetry team
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music
2 Replies to “Towards an Authentic Interpretation”
Dear Mr. Middlekauff,
Some questions came to mind as I listened to your podcast on Authentic Interpretation. Your initial question asks, “Why do we promote an authentic interpretation of CM’s writings?” You answered by saying that she says that there is a danger in applying her principles without acknowledgement of God in the picture. She sought to develop a method of education which conformed to God’s divine laws in every way. These divine laws could be discerned through Scripture or through natural methods of observation.
Next, you say, “CM claimed to develop a method of education which conforms to divine law (aka: The Way Things Are).” Could you give a reference for that claim by her?
From there, you state: divine law cannot be changed or improved upon. I completely agree.
I found it helpful in my mind to set up your arguments as follows:
We should follow any educational method which conforms to God’s laws.
All natural and divine laws are equally true, and cannot be changed or improved upon.
CM used natural and divine law to develop a method of education which conforms to this divine law.
Therefore, her system of education should be used without change or improvement.
Would you agree that this accurately represents what you’ve presented here?
In conclusion, my final questions are:
How can one evaluate how/whether something conforms to natural or divine law? Your discussion did not address this, but rather assumed this to be true for CM’s method on the basis that she claimed it did.
And lastly:
Does CM’s claim (which I have asked for a reference on) “to develop a method of education which conforms to divine law” imply or necessitate that it PERFECTLY conforms to divine law? In other words while the laws of nature and divine revelation cannot be improved upon, could CM’s method have some imperfections which might be improved upon?
Thank you for your time and consideration on these questions.
M.K.
Dear M.K.,
Thank you for your comment and for your insightful questions. I think you might find it easier to follow my argument if you consult the text version which includes all of the references.
You wrote:
You answered by saying that she says that there is a danger in applying her principles without acknowledgement of God in the picture.
No, I don’t claim she said that. I think if you read the quotes I include, this will be more clear.
You wrote:
Next, you say, “CM claimed to develop a method of education which conforms to divine law (aka: The Way Things Are).” Could you give a reference for that claim by her?
Yes, please see the quotes I cite from the first edition of Home Education (pp. 27-28). Mason also makes such claims in the “‘Preface to the ‘Home Education’ Series” found at the beginning of editions of the first five volumes that were published in 1905 or later. Other examples could be provided.
Your summary of my argument was interesting, but I don’t think it quite captures my point. In this article I am not arguing for what is the best method of education. Rather, I am arguing for how to authentically interpret Charlotte Mason’s writings. Those are two quite different theses. Please consider the closing sentences of my article:
Mason proposed a complete method of education that conforms to divine law. That method is fully documented and available for our consideration. Perhaps Mason got it wrong. If anyone thinks they’ve got something better, they are invited to propose and promulgate it. But they are not invited to attach it to Mason’s name.
In this article I do not evaluate whether or not Mason “got it right.” Rather, I assert that an authentic interpretation of Mason’s writings should adequately take into account her philosophy, methodology, self-understanding, and claims. Note this pivot point in my argument:
One may respond by saying that new discoveries have come to light since Mason’s death, and that if Mason were alive today, she would embrace those discoveries and revise her method. But to evaluate such claims it is so important to return to our starting point: the synopsis of an educational method that conforms to divine laws.
I elaborate upon these thoughts in my more recent article entitled “What Would Charlotte Do?” In both articles, I argue that if someone wishes to improve upon Mason’s method, he or she should acknowledge that he or she is doing so, and disclose that his or her method is merely “inspired by” or “influenced by” one or more of Charlotte Mason’s principles.
Finally, I do say, “if we wish to benefit from the results of her method, we must seek to understand and apply it authentically.” Mason often pointed to results as evidence that she “got it right.” One cannot expect to experience the same results as she observed in her day if one fiddles with the method in an effort to “improve” upon it.
Respectfully,
Art