Charlotte M. Yonge’s Neglected Survey of English Children’s Literature

Photographic portrait of author Charlotte M. YongeBefore F. J. Harvey Darton, there were several important accounts of the development of English children’s literature.   James Petit Andrews highlighted books published in the 1740s when he was a boy in a piece in his collected essays (1789).  Mrs. Trimmer wrote at greater length about more books in “Observations on the Changes which have taken place in Books for Children and Young Persons” in vol. 1 of The Guardian of Education, Mrs. Trimmer wrote at greater length about more books, but she was writing largely from memory about the contents of older books.  She was much more specific about the pros and cons of recent publications by Elizabeth Pinchard or Mrs. Pilkington, copies of which she clearly had at hand.

More expansive than either Andrews or Mrs. Trimmer is Charlotte Yonge’s “Nursery Books of the Eighteenth Century,” the first part of a three-part essay “Children’s Literature of the Last Century” published in Macmillan’s Magazine 20 (Jul-Sep 1869). Yonge’s legacy as a High Church Victorian writer for children has scared off modern readers, which is a shame.  “Nursery Books” is neither bland nor censorious but stuffed full of clear-sighted, affectionate commentary lacking in the other two authors.

She begins by poking a little fun at parents and critics with this self-evident observation that there is nothing new under the sun:

Each risen generation repeats to the rising one, that there was nothing like it in its departed childhood, and each mourns over the dissipation of mind created by the profusion of reading, till we are sometimes started to find that the same things were said to us that we are now saying to our children.

Descriptions of bits she remembers with pleasure from most of the books dot the essay.   She chuckles over the dilemma of “little Caroline, who insisted on taking  a country walk in the full fashionable dress of the period, including powdered hair, pale-green shoes with high heels, and the tightest possible stays,” a story adapted from Berquin’s L’ami des enfans by Richard Johnson in The Looking Glass for the Mind (1792).  In the discussion of Ann and Jane Taylor’s poetry for children she shares that “we never enter  Cavendish Square without recollection how little Ann and her mother were passing one day in that direction.”   The only it-narrative she really liked, Dorothy Kilner’s Life and Peraumbulation of a Mouse (1789), contained “a dialogue between two little girls in bed on the imaginary terrors of robbers, which is as good as anything we ever read.”

Probably writing fast without much preliminary fact checking, she made some real howlers. Johann David Wyss’s 1812 The Swiss Family Robinson [Der Schweizerische Robinson]  was incorrectly attributed to Joachim Heinrich Campe (1746-1818), the author of 1779-1780 Robinson the Younger [Robinson der jungere].   The slip is redeemed by this shrewd critique, which offers a little historical perspective, an amusing anecdotes, and a lively assessment:

It has been one of the greatest of favourites until Captain Marryat’s nautical criticisms cruelly disclosed its absurdities….No one but a German could have thought it practicable to land the whole family in a row of washing tubs nailed together between plants…but the book is extremely engaging…and we decidedly would prefer reading it at this moment than the rather characterless Masterman Ready by which Marryat superseded it.

This is her approach throughout.   Her discussion of the now unfamiliar Elements of Morality (1798), Mary Wollstonecraft’s adaptation of C. S. Salzmann, is quite insightful but also strikingly personal.   Not owning a copy herself as a girl, she learned of it from “older generations that had been nurtured thereupon and always regarded a reading of it as one of the pleasures of the houses where the ancestral copies still abode.”  The detail of exploring the library in someone else’s home is rather unusual.   Of the clergyman who rescued the little boy lost in the woods, she says slyly, “We suspect he was formal and prosy, but the noble art of skip carried us over all that.” Only someone with a vivid visual imagination could have recalled of the impression the plates–unaware that they were by William Blake–made upon her:

We well remember…the occasional felicity of studying there…a print of this unhappy being, on which we used to gaze with awed fascination [a boy who kicked a door and impaled his foot on a nail]); there was also a miser in a ragged garment, and a benevolent Jew, whose forms impressed themselves on our imagination before our tenth year, though what part they played in the story is so entirely forgotten that probably it was beyond the childish comprehension.

A standout is the discussion of the children’s books by Dissenters Dr. John Aikin, and his sister Mrs. Barbauld.  Although a devout Anglican who wrote in support of the Oxford Movement throughout her long career, Yonge largely avoided the treatment of religion in Evenings at Home.  Instead, she opens with a humorous anecdote about the difference between the French and English: “A French lady walks easily and gracefully, an Englishwoman always moves as if bent on hurrying somewhere.  There is a light, laughing good-humoured touch-and-go moral in L’Ami des Enfans, while every “Evening at Home” has its earnest purpose.”   Still, she sees much to praise in the prose: “We are struck by the perfect precision and polish of the language, even of the most simple, such as renders them almost as complete epigrams as Aesop’s fables, and contrasts with the slovenly writing of the present day.”   Without a warm heart, the beautiful style is not enough for Yonge: “For somehow there was little to love in these well-written books; they had a certain bright coldness which extends to all Aikinism, except perhaps to Mrs. Barbauld’s Prose Hymns…but judging by ourselves, we do not think they could ever have been very dear to anyone.”

As a historical critic, Charlotte Yonge proves to be very good company.  Unlike her predecessors, she expresses her feelings without put aside her analytic powers. When she zeros in on things that made deep impressions without knowing why as an adult, she provides excellent evidence about her reading experiences, an elusive subject that is quite difficult to document.   One of the things she does best is demonstrate why these former favorites did connect with children, because she remembers loving them herself.

The Robins in The Children in the Wood and Other Birds Who Watch Over People

Many English superstitions are associated with birds: Simpson and Roud’s Dictionary of English Folklore notes that swans were once thought to sing before they died and swallows to hibernate underwater.  A stranger one is you’ll have good luck all year if a bird poops on you Easter Sunday.  When a bird beat its wings against a window or flew through one into the house, it was a dark portent (Susanna Clark certainly played on that in Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norell).

The Children in the Wood, or the Norfolk Gentleman’s Last Will and Testament. London: John Evans, c1790. (Cotsen 38704)

The robin and the wren enjoyed almost sacred status as reflected in the once familiar traditional saying, “Cock Robin and Jenny Wren/ Are God Almighty’s Cock and Hen.”  Bad luck followed  anyone who destroyed their nests.  But both are associated kindness to people.One reason may be the robin’s role at the end of the hugely popular ballad The Children in the Wood, or The Norfolk Gentleman’s  Last Will and Testament. Robbed of their inheritance by a greedy uncle, the sister and brother abandoned in the forest freeze to death at night and the robin tenderly covers their little bodies with leaves.   The pathetic tale was so well known that it was reprinted without an introduction in the great ballad collection of the 1720.  Allusions to the ballad are sprinkled all over eighteenth-century literature.  Jonathan Swift furnished the cottage of the humble Baucis and Philemon with a copy of the ballad pinned to the wall.  Gay preserved it among the many references to popular lore  in The Shepherd’s Week, Richardson’s Pamela refers to it along with satirists, playwrights, and the essayists of The Guardian, Rambler, and Connoisseur.

Folklorists still debate if the ballad conferred this status upon the robin, or it was an even older tradition.Edmund Burke used the ballad as a case history of the relative power of stories versus pictures used the ballad as a case study: which stirred the emotions more?

The surviving illustrations don’t make it easy to gauge if the robin tugged at the heartstrings of eighteenth-century readers more the sad fate of the children.The image above that frequently appeared in ballads and chapbooks depicted most of the story’s key scenes in one frame.  The duel where the wicked uncle is run through dominated the center, while a rather unsatisfactory rendering of the dead toddlers and the robin is tucked in the upper left hand corner.   Likewise the robin is difficult to see in this engraving after Sir Joshua Reynold’s painting and significantly, there is no litter of leaves.  This highly romantic 1826 folding frontispiece to Mary Belson Elliott’s retelling the only illustration I have found that elevates the robin’s labors, but it does suggest the difficulty in rendering the subject.

The Children in the Wood. London: William Darton, 1826. (Cotsen 14894)

One well known eighteenth-century robin wrote letters of advice to the son of the family whose garden was his home.    When perched on the sill of the library window, it noticed a letter from its little master Billy Careless to his father.  Billy’s failure to express the obligations owed his father when making a request prompted the bird to compose a kind but strong letter:

Give me leave, therefore, dear Billy, to acquaint you, that no one should ever write to his Papa or Mam, without beginning his Letter with, Honoured Sir, or Honoured Madame; and at the same time, not forget to observe…the most perfect Obedience, in a very obliging, respectful Manner.  By these means, you may not only increase your Papa’s Affection, but obtain almost any Thing from him, that you can reasonably ask, provided it be proper and in his Power to grant.

It warbles next the “unpleasing but very useful Song” that a sloppily written letter does not deserve a reply, especially when the recipient knows the correspondent is capable of much better penmanship.  The bird expresses itself “surpris’d  you ever neglect it.”    After reminding Billy about a few other points of good conduct and filial Duty, he takes his “leave on the Wing”, imploring

That I may never have occasion again to write you an unpleasing Letter of Rebuke; and that you will always remember that however distant you are, or how secret you may think yourself from your Friends and Relations, you will never be able to conceal your Faults; for some of our prying, Tattling Trible, will be continually carrying them home, to be whistled in a Melancholy Strain, in the Ears of your Papa.

Signed, “Your ever Watchful, and most affectionate Friend, Robin Redbreast from my little Hole in the Wall, at Sun-rising, the 1st of June, 1758.”  The postscript assures Billy that the letter was “prompted both by Love and Gratitude, in Return for the Plenty of Crumbs I have received at your Hands.”    Robin’s letter first appeared in the steady selling children’s book, The Polite Academy, or School of Behaviour for Young Gentlemen and Ladies first published in 1759.  However, It probably reached an even wider audience through inclusion in The Complete Letter-writer, or Polite English Secretary (also of 1759) reprinted regularly until the end of the century.  I can’t help but wonder if some of the children reading the busy-body bird’s lecture on manners thought Cock Robin in the nursery rhyme had it coming to him:

The Wren. London: John Marshall, [1787]. (Cotsen 374)

Robin’s wife the wren could also be “a little friend to little men.”  An anonymous father wrote the charming but little known The Wren, or The Fairy of the Greenhouse to amuse his three boys while their mother was recovering from the birth of their fourth child. She monitors their behavior, leaving illustrated cards—pink for good, black for bad—hung on ribbons from orange trees in the conservatory when circumstances warrant a reward or punishment. The little boys had behaved well all day until the discovery of a book, the gift of their mama, cut to bits and left it on the window sill.   When their father demanded to know who was responsible, the two culprits accused each other before eventually telling the truth and being ordered upstairs  to bed without any raspberry tarts for dessert.

The Wren. (Cotsen 374)

The next morning, the orange trees in the conservatory tubs had to be checked for a sign from the wren.  (The  method is not original to this book: similar systems were described in Newbery’s The Easter Gift  and in Elizabeth Hamm’s diary in the 19th century.)   The wren also took the extraordinary step of promising to tell the boys’ friends of ups and downs in their behavior.  Too many infractions would cause her to fly away, the cards to be burnt, and papa leave off writing the story.

 

Are these birds benevolent or bossy?