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.

Picky Child Eaters Before Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle

According to Jennifer Traig, author of Act Natural: A Cultural History of Misadventures in Parenting, there is very little evidence in the historical record for “concerns over children refusing what they were given” to eat much before the 1880s.  That makes Betty MacDonald a seeress when she invented “The Picky-Eater Cure” in Hello, Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle (1957). This cautionary tale zeroed in the sin of Will Pemberton,which was eating nothing but boiled noodles.  His distraught parents consulted Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle and came home with magic crystals, which when sprinkled on Will’s dinner, turned everything on the plate into his favorite (only) food.  In time Will grew tired of nothing but boiled noodles and was forced to dig into other dishes. Before Will, there was Heinrich Hoffmann’s Suppenkaspar, who would not eat his good soup and wasted away for lack of nourishment.  The marker on his grave was a  tureen, naturally.

Hello, Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle. Philadelphia: Lippincott, [1957]. (Cotsen 16024)

Picky eateritis is surely a disease of affluence, but the condition’s psychological aspects must be of equal importance.   Casual observation suggests that the child who turns down what’s on the plate is a child who knows full well that there are plenty of options in the refrigerator that are more to his liking.  So begins a battle of wills between child and parent, the child reasonably confident that his mother-combatant will throw down her lance rather than let her baby go hungry.

Let’s suppose that abundance of choice is at the heart of picky eateritis.  Then there ought to be evidence in the literature of parenting before 1880s that elite parents were tussling with children at mealtimes.  I didn’t find a Will or Kaspar in my quick and unscientific survey of late eighteenth-century sources, partly because the experts were concerned chiefly with the diet of infants and toddlers.  Among the problems that did preoccupy them were the prevention of letting children consume too much sugar or drinking wine and spirits.

There being no fast food industry to point the finger at, the blame for getting children off on the wrong foot fell squarely on the shoulders of adults. In 16th edition of Domestic Medicine (1798), Dr. William Buchan thought the practice of sweetening babies’ food with sugar encouraged them to overeat: “Their excesses are entirely owing to nurses.  If the child be gorged with food at all hours, and enticed to take it, by making it sweet and agreeable to the patate, is in any wonder that such a child should in time be induced to crave more food than it ought to have?”   Some parents, he observed disapprovingly, “teach their children to guzzle ale, and other fermented liquors, at every meal.”  Buchan’s advice was considered sufficiently authoritative to have been regularly repeated or plagiarized.

The good news was that sensible mealtime management was possible to establish and maintain, even before children could comprehend why restraining their appetites for certain things was good for their health.  Richard Edgeworth and his co-author/daughter Maria discussed this topic in Practical Education (1798-9), an late eighteenth-century forerunner to Dr. Spock, based on their experience raising a brood of twenty-two: “if they [children] partake of the usual family meals, and if there are no whimsical distinctions between wholesome and unwholesome dishes, or epicurean distinctions between rarities and plain food, the imagination and pride of children will not be roused about eating.  Their pride is piqued if they perceive, that they are prohibited from touching what grown up people are privileged to eat….  In families where a regularly good table is kept, children accustomed to the sight and taste of all kinds of food, are seldom delicate, capricious, or disposed to exceed.”  The thrust of the passage is that children observe the food preferences of adults and are likely to imitate them.  Picky children pick it up from picky adults.

A mother of twelve, Mrs. Trimmer weighed in on how to get children to eat in An Essay on Christian Education, which was published in installments in her children’s book review journal, The Guardian of Education (1802-1806).  She made a couple of observations which sound as if they were based on long experience with little people: “Children are generally averse to food which they have never tasted; and, in this case, the difficulty is to get them to taste everything.”   Another interesting remark she made was that “it is next to an impossibility, except in a very secluded situation, to keep a child in ignorance of the taste of rich cakes, &c. &c. and when these are placed before him in profusion, and set out too in the most inviting manner, they are real temptations.”   True words, indeed,

Did children’s book authors portray children who were bad eaters as negative examples?  Yes, indeed.  Here is the opening of “The Boy with the Sweet Tooth” from Profitable Amusement for Children (1802):   “Luke Lickerish was so very fond of sweet things, that, whenever his father or mother gave him a few pence, he immediately ran to the grocer’s or confectioner’s, and bought barley-sugar, licorice, sugar-candy, or something else of the sweet kind.  Besides, at breakfast and tea-time he always watched the sugar-basin; and, whenever he was his mother’s back turned, he slily filched three or four lumps of sugar, thrust them into his pocket, and afterwards ate them in private.  By continuing every day to eat such quantities of sweets, he injured his health very much and spoiled his appetite, so that he seldom relished his meals, ate very little of wholesome food, and was growing very thin, weak and puny.”

Luke sounds a lot like children now who crave heavily sweetened cereal, marshmallows, and Swedish fish.  Perhaps children who do not know hunger haven’t changed as much in certain respects as popular historians suppose…