Zohar Shavit,
Poetics of Children's Literature,
The University of Georgia Press,
Athens and London, 1986 ©
Chapter Six
The Model of Development
of Canonized Children's Literature
The canonized system of books for children began to
develop almost a century after a stratified system of
adult literature already existed. This is true, of course,
if children's literature is discussed as a steady and con-
tinuous flow and not as a sporadic activity, like the few children's
books published in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Chil-
dren's literature became a culturally recognized field only in the
eighteenth century, and a prominent field within the publishing es-
tablishment only from the middle of that same century. The relatively
late emergence of children's literature as a systemic form is a com-
plex issue and involves many factors. Thus, in this part of my book on
"system and history," I limit my discussion on the origins of chil-
dren's literature to two major questions: What is the foundation of
children's literature? How can we account for its stratification?
Histories of children's literature have paid much attention to the
development of children's books in the Western world (especially in
the Anglo-Saxon world, but in Germany, France, and Italy as well);
abundant material can be found in works such as Darton (1958),
Hürlimann (1967), Meigs et al. (1969), Ofek (1979), Thwaite (1972),
and others. There is no point in surveying the data described again.
Rather, I present them in a structural series and not simply in chron-
ological order, claiming that the same historical model is common to
all beginnings of children's literatures. I contend that the very same
stages of development reappear in all children's literatures, re-
gardless of when and where they began to develop. That is to say, the
historical patterns in the development of children's literature are ba-
sically the same in any literature, transcending national and even
133
time boundaries. It does not matter whether two national systems
began to develop at the same time, or if one developed a hundred or
even two hundred years later (as with Hebrew, and later with Arabic
and Japanese children's literatures). They all seem to pass through
the very same stages of development without exception. Moreover,
the same cultural factors and institutions are involved in their
creation.
From the instances of the Puritans in England and America, or the
followers of the Jewish Enlightenment in Germany 150 years later, it
may be concluded that their ideology formed the basis of canonized
children's literature. They all shared the view that in the process of
their education, children needed books, and that those books must
differ from adult books principally through their fundamental attach-
ment to the educational system itself.
Thus, it was through the framework of the educational system that
a canonized children's system began to develop; at the same time, it
was the need to combat popular literature from which the stratifica-
tion of the whole literary system emerged. To deal with these two
mutually dependent issues -- the function of the educational system
in the development of canonized system and the function of chap-
books in the stratification of the system -- methodological separation
is required. It is more convenient to treat each issue separately in
order to highlight the distinct historical factors involved in each;
hence, canonized children's literature will be discussed here not only
as part of the literary system, but as part of the educational system as
well. In the next chapter, the stratification of the children's system
and the creation of two new opposing systems -- adults versus chil-
dren and canonized versus non-canonized children's literature -- will
be dealt with, pointing to the function of chapbooks in this process.
The State of the System Prior to the Eighteenth Century
It cannot be denied that few children's books had been published
during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (compared to the
thousands of books published during the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries and sold in millions), as indicated by Sloane (1955), Welch
(1972), Watson (1971), and others. But clearly, children's literature
134
was not yet recognized as a distinct field of culture. Books published
prior to the end of the seventeenth century were composed mainly of
"courtesy books," such as the English translation of Erasmus's A
Lytelle Booke of Good Manners for Chyldren (1532) or Francis Seager's
The School of Vertue and Booke of Good Nourture for Chyldren to Learn
Theyr Dutie By (1557), which can only be regarded as part of the
culture of etiquette prevalent at the time and not as children's liter-
ature in the modern sense. They were part of the old apprenticeship
educational system, and the purpose of their production was to teach
children (of certain social rank) the behavior appropriate to their sta-
tus in society. They left no room for further reading, nor did they
encourage further education by means of books; moreover, these
books lacked the recognition that became part of the conceptual cul-
tural framework of the eighteenth century -- the recognition that
children needed books of their own that should be different from
adult literature and that would suit their needs, at least as understood
at the time. Only toward the end of the seventeenth century, with the
Puritan writings for children, did children's literature become a cul-
turally recognized field; at that time, special books were issued in
order to fulfill the educational needs of children. This development
did not signal the demise of courtesy books altogether. They slowly
declined or were integrated into the new books for children, serving
different functions, as is often the case when new models enter the
system.
Thus, children's literature did develop as a new cultural phe-
nomenon. However, this should in no way be regarded as an over-
night phenomenon; during this development, elements that already
existed in the literary system acquired new functions, in addition to
elements that were altogether new. For this reason, the emergence of
children's literature should be described as a long process that began
more than half a century before children's literature became a dis-
tinct field in the publishing world by the middle of the eighteenth
century. Obviously, the drastic changes in publishing and in the read-
ing public contributed their share to the emergence of children's lit-
erature, but they were a necessary condition, not a sufficient one.
What was peculiar to the development of children's literature, as op-
posed to adult literature, was its linkage to the educational system.
This linkage seems to be the prime reason for the delayed ap-
135
pearance of children's literature. This chapter will therefore deal
with the causes for the postponement of the emergence of children's
literature (as compared to adult) and the circumstances that enabled
its emergence.
The Delayed Appearance of Books for Children
Two mutually dependent questions will be raised regarding the de-
layed beginning of canonized children's literature: Why was there
such a delay in the development of children's literature? What
changes made the beginning of canonized children's literature
possible?
In the first chapter, my discussion focused on the development of
the notion of childhood in Western society and the special attention it
paid to children's needs, such as clothes, toys, games, and books.
The demand for those items for children, especially the demand that
children possess their own toys and books, was primarily the result of
the radical change in the educational system, which during the sev-
enteenth century passed from an apprenticeship system to a school-
based system. The earlier apprenticeship system did not demand the
use of books as learning tools, but the school system regarded them
as indispensable means for child education. Thus, this new educa-
tional system immensely enlarged the number of readers, as the chil-
dren of tradesmen, middle, and upper classes, previously put to ap-
prenticeship, were now sent to school where they were taught to
read. Still, the children of the lowest classes continued to work long
hours and in the best of cases enjoyed education only in the Sunday
school (whose part in the development of children's literature will be
discussed in the next chapter).
Yet, I do not intend to discuss here the development of the educa-
tional system, but rather to determine its impact on the development
of children's books. The educational system and various educational
ideologies responded to the demands of the new reading public,
which, in turn, was a by-product of the revolutionary innovation of
the school-based system and determined the framework for the first
canonized children's books. Thus it was a cyclical process, fueled by
the increasing demand from a new reading public and the legitima-
136
tion from within the educational system that made the development
of children's literature possible.
Philosophers of education and their followers, who translated the
philosophical views into action and actually produced the children's
books, had a far-reaching influence on the development of children's
books. In fact, their works lay the foundation for almost all canonized
children's literature, whether in England, Germany, France, or the
United States. Hence, the following universal can be proposed: un-
like adult literature, canonized children's literature began to develop
in response to the needs of the educational system, the result of
which is the strong grip of the educational system on children's liter-
ature and the major part it plays in its formulation.
As new ideas about education began to spread, education in the
form of the school-based system became more popular and was ac-
cordingly redesigned to serve a much larger section of the popula-
tion. Yet the educational system was initially monopolized, as well as
institutionalized, by the religious establishment, which was in the
best position to supply the necessary facilities demanded by the new-
ly recognized need for schools. The religious establishment's moti-
vation in forcefully advancing the idea of general literacy lay in the
belief that every person should be able to examine the Scriptures by
himself. Hence the first schools at which all children had to be taught
to read belonged to the church. Moreover, the first canonized books
published by the education establishment for children designed to
teach both reading and the principles of religion, laid heavy stress on
the learning of morals. The basic idea was that through books (nec-
essarily religious in nature) the child would be disciplined along the
paths of learning and godliness.
At first, children were given ABC books that included the alpha-
bet, Lord's Prayer, Creed, and Ten Commandments. The ABC
books were intended to teach the child to read, but nevertheless were
used for teaching morals as well. They commonly opened with the
maxim: "In Adam's fall, we sinned all." These books developed into
primers, which were particularly widespread in the United States but
were also common in Europe. Primers served as the first official
reading material for children as evidenced by Adam Martin (born in
1623): "When I was near six years old, one Anne Simpkin . . . be-
stowed an ABC upon me; a gift in itself exceeding small but . . .
137
worth more than its weight in gold. For till that time I was all for
childish play and never thought of learning . . . and by the help of
my brothers and sisters that could read . . . had quickly learned it
and the primer also after it. Then of my own accord I fell to reading
the bible" (Sloane 1955, 7). In this way, the primers expressed the
values that religious education wished to implant. Thus the Puritan-
influenced New England primer always stressed the idea of "original
sin" and early death because the fundamental Puritan view was that a
child is a sinner by nature and his education should guide him along
the path of salvation.
As can be seen by the following introductory lines to The Fathers'
Blessing by William Jole (1674), the main aim of children's books was
to arouse in the child the desire for spiritual salvation:
If you delight to read what I have writ,
God grant you Grace, that you may practise it.
Those little children that are wise
Do fear the Lord and tell no lyes;
And if their Minds to good they bend
A Blessing will on them attend.
The Lord will keep them in his Ways
and make them happy all their Days.
(Thwaite 1972, 26)
The books most approved by the Puritans, such as John Bunyan's
Pilgrims Progress (1678), which was not written especially for chil-
dren, and James Janeway's A Token for Children (1671), reinforced
these major virtues of salvation and early death. Janeway's subtitle
explains that his book describes An Exact Account of the Conversion
Holy and Exemplary Lives, and Joyful Deaths of Several Young Children.
More than anything, this book reveals the nature of the literature
considered acceptable for children. However, the Puritan establish-
ment was eventually forced to accept "amusement" as one of the
book's components at the beginning of the eighteenth century in
order to increase the book's appeal. The scope of children's reading
interests developed beyond the Puritan literature, particularly as new
models of writing for children based on different educational views
entered the scene of canonized literature. These new models
138
emerged from two primary sources: the commercial (see my discus-
sion later in this chapter and in the next one) and the moralist school
of education. The moralist school of education developed during the
Age of Reason and was soundly based on the writings of Locke and
Rousseau. It gradually acquired a status equal to the Puritan ap-
proach as an educational philosophy and, in fact, later overtook its
place at the center of the canonized literature for children. Unlike
the Puritans, who believed children were sinful by nature, the moral-
ists thought that the child was born "tabula rasa" and thus began his
life in a state of innocence. The task of education was to shape the
child and hence to determine his future as a man. Accordingly, edu-
cation was allotted a major place in man's life as never before; more-
over, since books were considered the main tools in the process of
education, a large demand for them arose, resulting in newfound
encouragement for children's writers. In this way, the moralist view
promulgated by Locke and Rousseau reached many writers for chil-
dren (mostly women) and opened the way for a change in existing
models and the insertion of new ones.
The most significant change initiated by the moralist school lay in
the new "raison d'être" of children's books. Unlike the Puritans who
taught children to read as a means to better comprehension of the
Scriptures, the new school of education considered books as the
most appropriate vehicle to integrate Locke's call for "amusement
and instruction." Here, reading was regarded as the best means not
for mastering the Scriptures, but rather for achieving other educa-
tional goals. As one of Locke's disciples, James Burgh, wrote in The
Dignity of Human Nature (1754): "Nothing will be of more conse-
quence towards the success of a young gentleman's endeavours than
his getting early into a right track of reading and study" (Pickering
1981, 20). Ironically enough, the new status allotted to books was in
no way apparent from the philosophy of Rousseau, who dismissed
the idea of reading except for Robinson Crusoe; neither was it apparent
from the philosophy of Locke, who pleaded for a more humane ap-
proach to the child's education. He was not satisfied with existing
children's literature and approved only of Aesop's Fables, Reynard the
Fox, and the Scriptures: "To this purpose I think Aesop's Fables the
best, which being stories apt to delight and entertain a child, may yet
afford useful reflections to a grown man. And if his memory retain
139
them all his life after, he will not repent to find them there, amongst
his manly thoughts and serious business.... Reynard the Fox is an-
other book, I think, may be made use of to the same purpose" (Dar-
ton, 1958, 18).
Locke legitimated the introduction of the model of the fable into
children's writing, and numerous editions of Aesop were issued, as
well as other texts inspired by his "moralist" demand for adequate
children's texts. Likewise, the philosophical ideas of Rousseau
prompted the insertion of new literary models -- and the revision of
older ones -- into the existing children's literature. Much in the same
way that the Puritans integrated religious teachings into their manner
books, so the moralists integrated Rousseau and Locke into books
and primers of the ABC's. Thus the famous opening of the Puritan
primers, reflecting clearly their authors' educational views, "In
Adam's fall, we sinned all," was altered in the moralist scheme to
something amusing, like "A was an Apple Pie" or "A was an Archer"
as in seventeenth-century ABC's, or like the formula that suited both
moralists and Newbery's more bourgeois' views:
A As you Value your Pence
At the Hole take your Aim;
Chuck all safely in,
And you'll win the Game.
(A Little Pretty Pocket-Book, [21] 71)
Yet the prominent change in the children's literature system and its
transformation from a homogeneous to a heterogeneous system was
not the result of the revision of existing models, but rather of the
creation of new ones. One of these models, the moralist, was deeply
rooted in the Rousseauian tradition; a second model, the "infor-
mative," was based on both Rousseau's and Locke's views; while the
third and most prominent model, the animal story, was supported
primarily by Lockean views.
It is not my intention to analyze the differences between Locke's
and Rousseau's philosophical views, nor even to discuss their respec-
tive views on education. Rather, I point out the way in which the basic
conceptions of human nature and the nature of the world, formu-
lated by Locke and Rousseau, were translated into the themes and
structure of a new body of literature.
140
In the case of the first model, the moral story, Rousseau's model of
education was translated from an educational model into a literary
one. In fact, such a translation was imperative before Rousseau's dis-
ciples could begin to write children's books (given Rousseau's rejec-
tion of books as a means of education). Thus, in order to produce the
desired literature, "Rousseauians" adapted his educational praxis
into a literary one. For example, Rousseau suggested the dialogue as
an important educational tool; writers inspired by Rousseau thus
used dialogue as a basic tool in their work. It is particularly interest-
ing to note that Rousseau's views were integrated into a religious
framework, as religious writers believed that knowing nature is a step
along the child's way to knowing God. Watts, the most prominent
figure in this group of writers, thus wrote in his Treatise on Education
that if children know that God made "the Heavens and the Earth,
and the Birds and the Beasts, and the Trees and Men and Women,"
they could "be instructed in a Way of easy reasoning in some of the
most evident and most necessary Duties which they owe to the Great
God whom they see not" (Pickering 1981, 18-19).
The structure of the moral story included a fixed stock of charac-
ters and of actions in which they were involved. As suggested by
Rousseau's educational model, a commonly found figure was the all-
knowing parent, relative, friend, or teacher who could answer all
questions and was always at hand to make a profitable lesson out of
everything and anything, rendering every experience educational. As
Ellenor Fenn stated in her introduction to The Rational Dame; or,
Hints Towards Supplying Prattle for Children (1790): "Under the in-
spection of a judicious mother, much knowledge may be acquired
whilst little people are enjoying the recreation of a walk; queries arise
spontaneously from the scene" (Pickering 1981, 19).
One of the best examples of a translation of Rousseau's views into
a literary work was Thomas Day's Sandford and Merton (1783-89).
This collection of short stories contains two protagonists, Harvey and
Tommy -- each from a different social class -- who are taught by the
local clergyman, Mr. Barlow. Their education is mainly carried out
through edifying stories of what is good (the simple and the natural)
and what is vain (wealth and status). The figure of the teacher, Mr.
Barlow, who teaches the inevitable moral through a form of Socratic
dialogue, "was a stock figure then or soon afterwards" (Darton 1958,
146) and was the most prominent figure in the "moral stories." For
141
instance, this stock figure appears earlier in Sara Trimmer's An Easy
Introduction to the Knowledge of Nature and Reading the Holy Scriptures
Adapted to the Capacities of Children (1780), in which two young chil-
dren are taken for a long walk through the sense-awakening natural
world, and later in Mary Wollstonecraft's Original Stories from Real
Life with Conversations Calculated to Regulate the Affections and Form the
Mind to Truth and Goodness (1788).
The other prominent literary models were the "instructive" story
and the animal story. The instructive story was a sort of textbook of
nature studies, geography, or history, disguised into fiction, and thus
combining instruction with amusement. It was not especially
intended for instilling morality, but rather for replacing boring text-
books and utilizing the child's leisure time "constructively." Samuel
Goodrich used the typical instructive story as a model when writing
his Peter Parley series (beginning in 1827), which tells about travel,
history, nature, and art (Tales of Peter Parley About America, Tales of
Peter Parley About Europe); similarly, Jacob Abbott's Rollo series de-
scribes a young boy's attempts to cope with the tasks and duties of
daily life (Rollo Learning to Talk, Rollo Learning to Read). All of these
books were extremely popular and sold millions of copies. They es-
tablished a new model in the children's system that has been popular
ever since and even dominates children's literature today (Dick
Bruna picture books, Selma Lagerlöf
's The Wonderful Adventures of
Nils, and educational television programs such as Sesame Street).
The third model, the animal story, is quite different. What dis-
tinguishes this model, and particularly its earlier versions in the eigh-
teenth and nineteenth centuries, is its consistent use of the imagi-
nary. First hinted at by Locke's attitude toward Aesop's Fables and
Reynard the Fox, the idea of imaginary animals as main figures of
children's books presented the moralists with a dilemma; their prohi-
bition on imaginary characterization initially precluded the integra-
tion of animal talk, animal families, and so forth in children's books.
The solution to this prohibition was again to be found in Locke's
ideas, thus dissolving the moralists' difficulty in rationalizing it.
Locke contended that the fable constituted the best reading material
for children. As a result, a new distinction between the fable, in
which the eighteenth-century animal story was contained, and the
fairy tale was formulated; the former was within the legitimate
142
bounds of children's literature, while the latter represented the worst
possible use of imaginary characterization (see Pickering 1981, 40-
104).
In Sara Trimmer's famous Fabulous Histories (1786), she argued
that children should not believe those stories "containing the real
conversation of Birds" but rather should regard them as "Fables,
intended to convey moral instruction applicable to themselves at the
same time that they excite compassion and tenderness for those in-
teresting and delightful creatures, on which such wanton cruelties
are frequently inflicted, and recommend universal Benevolence" (Pick-
ering 1981, 20). In fact, the legitimation of the animal story as a fable
was enhanced by the implicit subject of the text: its main concentra-
tion was not a specific animal itself, but on the relation between that
animal and the children. It was believed that a child's attitude toward
an animal revealed his real personality -- what he was like and what
would become of him. In order to construct this relationship, the
animal story was built upon a series of events describing children's
behavior toward animals or toward their pets; good behavior invari-
ably led to better behavior and culminated in a decent and moral life,
while bad behavior led to worse behavior resulting in the eventual
death of the child, who grew into a mean and evil adult. This belief
was the leading theme in all children's animal stories of the time and
appears repeatedly in several texts.
In the story of The Life and Perambulation of a Mouse (Kilner 1783),
Charles's father claims: "Every action that is cruel and gives pain to
any living creature, is wicked, and is a sure sign of a bad heart. I never
knew a man, who was cruel to animals, kind and compassionate to-
wards his fellow-creatures" (Pickering 1981, 22-23). This theme ap-
pears again in Mademoiselle Panache (Edgeworth 1801), in which un-
kindness to animals indicates that the girl would not make a good
wife. In The Two Cousins (Cheap Repository Tracts, 1797), Dick, who
is cruel to animals, also mistreats his mother, becomes addicted to
gambling, and eventually loses all his mother's money. In The Adve-
ntures of a Silver Penny (1787), George's torturing of birds precedes his
habitual lying and stealing; his bad behavior leaves his father with no
choice but to send him to the army, where he gets shot in the head.
The pattern surfaces again in Fabulous Histories (Trimmer 1786), in
which Edward, who tortures animals, continues to do the same to his
143
schoolmates. When he grows up, he "had so hardened his heart, that
no kind of distress affected him." Eventually he is killed when a horse
that he has beaten throws him. Conversely, his sister Lucy, who un-
like Edward has mended her ways, manages to live a long and decent
life.
This type of didactic animal story, combining religious views with
new educational views, was very popular at the end of the eighteenth
century and the beginning of the nineteenth. Some of its most prom-
inent titles were Dorothy Kilner's The Life and Perambulation of a
Mouse (1783) and Sara Trimmer's Fabulous Histories; Designed for the
Instruction of Children, Respecting Their Treatment of Animals (1786),
later called The Robins. The popularity of these stories began to de-
cline only toward the middle of the nineteenth century when the ad-
hoc opposition between fables and fairies gave way to the insertion of
the imaginative model into the children's system (see chapters 3 and
6). Interestingly enough, it should be noted that animals did not dis-
appear altogether from children's books. In fact, quite the contrary is
true -- the eighteenth-century model was replaced by a new one in
which animals were not meant to serve the same purposes required
of them in the eighteenth century. Consequently, animals in the new
model constituted the main or exclusive figures of nineteenth- and
twentieth-century children's books (the following titles, picked ran-
domly, illustrate this point: North Sterling's Rascal, Mary O'Hara's
My Friend Flicka, Roger Caras's The Custer Wolf, Joyce Stranger's
Chia, the Wildcat, and Robert Lawson's Rabbit Hill).
So far, I have discussed the influence of the new educational
ideas -- and the educational system into which they were inte-
grated -- on the development of children's literature, created pri-
marily due to the ideological motivation of its writers. However, the
impact of the educational system was quite strong in the case of can-
onized commercial publishers as well. Although they were not moti-
vated like the moralist writers by ideological considerations, can-
onized commercial publishers could ill afford to ignore current
educational views; children's literature was too strongly linked within
culture to the educational system as a whole to allow such. Thus
commercial publishers had to take into account prevailing educa-
tional views, even at the risk of losing potential commercial success.
144
They were consequently forced to consider imagination on the whole
and fairy tales in particular as unsuitable matter for publication, de-
spite the latter's high commercial value. Ironically, publishers did not
hesitate to use characteristic elements of fairy tales in order to en-
hance the appeal of their books (see next chapter on Newbery's use
of these elements). However, they did make it clear to parents and
teachers that their books served educational purposes and did not
violate the taboo on fairy tales. For instance, when publisher John
Marshall advertised The Histories of More Children Than One; or,
Goodness Better Than Beauty, he assured the public that the book "was
totally free from the prejudicial nonsense of Witches, Fairies, Fortune
Tellers, Love and Marriage" (Pickering 1981, 41). Hence the main
condition for a book to be accepted by the canonized children's liter-
ature establishment was that it agreed with, or at least did not violate,
the basic educational principles. The ideal publication, of course,
combined commercial interests with educational interests, as New-
bery's books did. In fact, this skilled combination undoubtedly con-
tributed to Newbery's emergence as the first successful commercial
publisher.
The pattern of development in children's literature indicates that
the educational system not only served as the framework for the cre-
ation and legitimation of children's literature, but also determined
the stages of its development. The fact that children's literature re-
quired the legitimation of the educational establishment, as well as
the fact that the educational system served as its primary framework,
can thus account for the recurring pattern typical to all beginnings of
canonized children's literature. The first official books for children
were ABC books, primers, and horn books whose main goal was to
teach the child to read for religious purposes and in accordance with
a certain religious-educational doctrine. As new educational doc-
trines evolved, however, children's books began to change as well,
acquiring widespread appeal and catalyzing the new field of commer-
cial publishing for children. As a result, the canonized system lost its
homogeneous nature and became heterogeneous (moral stories, ani-
mal stories, instructive stories, primers, readers). Eventually, it be-
came stratified and subject to competition and struggle between the
various models.
145
A Test Case: Hebrew Children's Literature
As a test case for analyzing a parallel historical pattern, I will discuss
Hebrew children's literature, chosen primarily because it is histor-
ically exceptional -- Hebrew children's literature was "abnormal" lit-
erature as far as its language and territorial existence were concerned
since it did not address children in their native language and devel-
oped in various territories. All the same, a repetition of the entire
process described above may be seen, in spite of its development
almost one hundred years after European children's literature had
become a recognized and important field in publishing. If the same
pattern can be discerned in the development of such a peculiar case,
then it may indeed exemplify more than any other case the model for
the emergence of children's literature, since its analysis focuses on
the cultural circumstances required for the development of a given
children s literature at a given point in time.
When the development of Hebrew children's literature is exam-
ined, three questions should be raised: Why the delay? Why the
strong dependency on German children's literature? Why was the
incipient stage of development of the German model imitated? De-
spite its solid dependency on German literature, Hebrew children's
literature did not use the inventory current at the time in the German
system as might have been expected, but rather went back almost one
hundred years in order to repeat the entire developmental process of
German children's literature. This can be explained, in spite of the
obviously different conditions of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century
Europe, by the cultural situation for Hebrew children's literature and
its similarities to eighteenth-century German children's literature, as
it also needed, like the German, the framework and legitimation of
the educational system. However, unlike German children's liter-
ature, Hebrew children's literature only managed to liberate itself
from this framework at a very late stage, and only then did it become
a "normal" fully stratified system.
THE STATE OF HEBREW CHILDREN'S LITERATURE
By the time Hebrew children's literature had begun to develop, Eu-
ropean children's literature had already reached a fairly advanced
146
stage and was rapidly approaching its so-called "golden age." The
delay in the development of Hebrew children's literature was deeply
rooted in the complicated status of the Hebrew language itself and its
multiterritorial existence. These unique conditions, to a large extent,
determined the character of Hebrew literature as a whole and also
account for the dependent position of Hebrew children's literature
on the German (see Even-Zohar 1974, 1978c, 1978e, 1978f).
Moreover, these particular conditions also acted as an ideological
basis for Hebrew children's literature for over a century and deter-
mined its structure and the nature of its inventory. In fact, it was only
in the late 1940s, when the commercial factor began to play a central
role in the publishing of children's books, that Hebrew children's
literature managed to liberate itself from that ideological basis. Be-
fore and even during the "Israeli" period, publishing of Hebrew chil-
dren's books was hardly profitable (except for a short time in Eastern
Europe), but was motivated by the values it represented (as was the
case with most children's book publishing in Europe in the eigh-
teenth century). As a result, the system of Hebrew children's liter-
ature was for a long time a defective system lacking some of its mem-
ber parts (see Even-Zohar 1978e), leading to a semitaboo on non-
canonized texts1 and creating a demand for other didactic texts.
However, while these ideological considerations did impose various
limitations on the texts, they were also the very factors that actually en-
abled the creation of Hebrew children's literature within the context
of the Jewish cultural Enlightenment movement in Germany, from
around the end of the eighteenth century until the middle of the nine-
teenth, when the center of Hebrew culture moved to Eastern Europe.2
1 As Professor Shmeruk claims, children probably read popular Yiddish literature
because Yiddish functioned as the non-canonized system for Hebrew literature. At
least part of the development of Hebrew children's literature can be explained in ter
of its need to compete with Yiddish reading, but unfortunately, very little research
been done on this issue.
2 When Hebrew children's literature in Europe is discussed, books published in the
German period are rarely mentioned. This can be justified normatively, as the first
texts for children did not have any later value as "living texts" for the reading pub
From a historical prespective, however, one cannot ignore the German period, not
only because it was a formative period, but also because the historical processes and
procedures of the German period largely determine both the character of the later
periods and their historical options.
147
Unlike European children's literature, which had to wait only for
the emergence and crystallization of the concept of the child before
child-oriented books could be written, Hebrew children's literature
had to wait for a total reform in the concepts of Jewish society's edu-
cational values before Hebrew books for children could be written.
Consequently there was a delay of over one hundred years from the
time the first European books for children were written.
Hebrew children's literature became possible not because of the
emergence of European children's literature, but because of the
emergence of a new social and cultural movement -- the Jewish En-
lightenment movement, whose main goals were cultural, especially in
the field of education. This movement created for the first time in
Jewish society a demand for special books for children, which, in
turn, created both the framework and motivation for Hebrew chil-
dren's literature. The earliest writers were enlightened Jews who uti-
lized their texts to disseminate their movement's ideology. Most ideas
of the Jewish Englishment, especially those concerning education,
were rooted in the German Enlightenment.3 The Jewish movement
adopted not only the German views about nature, man, and aesthet-
ics as ultimate views, but also tried to apply the "Philanthropinismus"
ideas on education to Jewish schools. In fact the movement's fol-
lowers built a whole system of new schools based on these views, in
Breslau, Dessau, Hamburg, and Frankfurt.4
This new education system naturally needed appropriate books for
expounding the new ideas; selection of the texts was made accord-
ingly. The first Hebrew books for children were primarily oriented
toward those children studying in schools of the Jewish Enlighten-
ment movement or to those children whose parents favored its ideas.
The books, most of them readers (like the first European children's
books), were aimed at teaching the child the German language, im-
parting to him knowledge of the world, and socializing him properly.
3 Mendelssohn and Basedow corresponded and Mendelssohn even recommended
that the Jews support Basedow in publishing Elementarwerk. He also persuaded the
Jews to donate 500 talers for the foundation of Philanthropin in Dessau (Eliav 1960).
4 Jewish schools were the first to follow strictly Philanthropin views on education.
Investigation into those views should be directed primarily to the Jewish schools; no
until the middle of the nineteenth century did the Germans build their first modern
schools, based on Pestalozzi's ideas (Eliav 1960).
148
Because of the ideological relations between the Jewish and Ger-
man enlightenment movements, German children's literature was
not only a natural frame of reference, but also an ideal to be imitated,
albeit a century later. The German system was imitated in four ways.
The historical development of German children's literature served as
a model for the development of Hebrew children's literature. Most
texts for children were either translations of German texts, or adap-
tations based on those texts. German children's literature served as a
mediating system for the Hebrew system; texts translated from other
systems, like French or English, were usually translated via the Ger-
man. The few original texts (either plays, poems or fables), written at
the time, were based so completely on the German model that it is
very difficult to distinguish between original and translated texts.
THE MODEL OF DEVELOPMENT
By the middle of the nineteenth century, European children's liter-
ature had managed to liberate itself from the sole hegemony of the
didactic approach, becoming more stratified and generically more
complicated. Hebrew children's literature did not adjust itself to this
latter stage of development of European children's literature, but
rather to the initial stages; and thus the first Hebrew texts for chil-
dren were ABC books and readers, followed by moral books, fables,
and some plays.
There were two reasons for the repetitionötigthis whole process:
the first involved a certain demand, the other a certain legitimation.
The reading public of Hebrew children's literature was created by
the Enlightenment movement; consequently, the first books had to
respond to its demands, which included certain assumptions about
the child's education. The Enlightenment movement's ideas served
also as the legitimation given to the books produced. This particular
legitimation assumed that it was impossible to produce children's
books simply for literature's sake. This is why Hebrew children's
literature in Germany never went beyond what might be called "the
didactic age" of children's literature, not accepting the new models
prevalent at the time in the children's system and only taken on those
which were rooted in Philanthropinismus views, such as fables and
moral texts.
149
The German case served as a model both for stages of develop-
ment and for textual models. The first Hebrew ABC and readers
were based on German readers as far as pedagogic ideas and textual
content were concerned. For instance, they adopted the German
method of teaching the alphabet (despite the obvious differences be-
tween the two languages), by starting with texts comprising basic
vowels and consonants and gradually moving to more and more diffi-
cult texts, as in the Ben-Zeev reader (1820):
To-ra Zi-va La-nu Mo-she Mo-ra-sha Khi-lat Ya-acov: Shma Bni
Mu-sar A-vi-cha veal Ti-tosh To-rat I-me-cha. (Ben-Zeev 1820, 24)5
[Moshe bequeathed the torah to us, the tradition to the people of Jacob.
My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and foresake not the law of
thy mother.]
Like German readers, Hebrew readers contained poems, morals,
and fables, as well as various texts about nature, geography, man, and
society, such as the following about the structure of society:
And the other people in the state of the Kingdom: officers, noblemen
aristocrats, wisemen, writers, teachers, and priests. Sages write books
of science and knowledge. Teachers teach the sciences to their students
in academies. Priests preach the Torah and morality, and guide the
people in religion and divine service in the House of Prayer.... Happy
is the boy who, in his youth, industriously studies a science or craft and
when he grows up this ensures that he will not be hungry nor suffer a
lack. But the lazy boy who, in his youth, does not study anything will
grow up with nothing in his hands to earn a living and will remain poor
and wretched for the rest of his life. (Ben-Zeev 1820, 57)
All texts were either explicitly committed to Enlightenment ideas, or
were chosen because they could be accommodated to them. Writers
were even willing to change traditional aphorisms in order to adjust
them to these new views, as illustrated by one of the most popular
readers of the time, Mesilat ha-Limud (written by Ben-Zeev). In one
chapter, Ben-Zeev introduces sayings from the Talmud, in spite of
5 Translations of Hebrew examples are literal.
150
the fact that the Enlightenment movement, generally speaking, was
hostile to the Talmud; for followers of the Enlightenment, the Tal-
mud and the Mishna reflected everything they rejected in Judaism.
Nevertheless, Ben-Zeev did include some Talmudic sayings (per-
haps in order to attract Orthodox Jews). However, by placing them
with Greek proverbs under the category of "Wise Men," he present-
ed them as a part of the general humanistic heritage. Thus, the
Greek sayings were granted thirty pages, whereas only a page and a
half were devoted to the Talmudic and included only those sayings
that suited the ideas of the Enlightenment movement, such as: "So
said the sages: A man should always be involved with his friends,
should not laugh among the weeping, nor weep among the merry, nor
be awake among the sleeping nor sleep among the wakers, nor stand
among the seated nor sit among the standing, nor change his friends'
manners" (Ben-Zeev 1820, 219). In at least one case, the saying was
even altered. The famous saying, "In three ways a man is dis-
tinguished: his pocket, his glass and his anger," was altered to "In
four ways the sages are distinguished: their pocket, their glass, their
anger and their dress" (Ben-Zeev 1820, 219).
The Hebrew system's tendency to rely heavily on the German is
perhaps best manifested in Bible teaching. The Jewish Enlighten-
ment movement's positive attitude toward the Bible can be traced to
the great deference and respect displayed toward the Bible by the
Germans and later consolidated by Mendelssohn's translation. How-
ever, Bible teaching was strongly oriented toward fulfilling the aims
of the Enlightenment movement. The translation was initially used
as a means of studying both German and Hebrew. Soon thereafter
the idea of teaching the Bible itself was abandoned and replaced with
the biblische Geschichte, the teaching of the history of the Bible, as
can be seen from the following example:
At the end of seventy years of the Babylonian exile, the Lord remem-
bered his people and brought them back to his land. And they settled
again, as they had the first time and built again the House of the
Chosen and settled in peace for another four hundred years. However,
again this time, they did not keep God's law and refused to walk in his
path. Although they had seen and known bad times in Babylon, morali-
ty they did not learn. When the Lord saw what evil they made of his law
151
and how they broke their covenant, he sold them to the kings of the
surrounding peoples. Then came the Romans, who fought them and
took their country and burned the Holy City of Jerusalem and the
House of God. They drove away the people from their land and put an
end to their kingdom and scattered them among the Gentiles in exile
all over the world. Since then and till now, we are scattered among the
Gentiles in the four corners of the earth. Strangers everywhere with no
estate neither a vineyard nor a field. (Ben-Zeev 1820, 112)
Thus, in spite of the attraction that Bible teaching could have held
for orthodox parents, the Jewish Enlightenment movement preferred
to follow the German example because of the high status attributed
to the German culture.
The prime aim of the Jewish Enlightenment was the desire to merge
with German culture; its leaders believed this could be achieved
through acquisition of the German language. That this was so can be
easily attested to by the graphic format of the texts for children. Most
texts were written in both Hebrew and German; the Hebrew was
utilized in order to teach German and German to teach Hebrew,
though Hebrew was, in essence, a dead language at the time. There
were three formats for printing Hebrew and German: Hebrew op-
posite German in Latin letters, Hebrew opposite German in Hebrew
letters, and Hebrew with German in Hebrew letters below.6
To sum up, the German model of development was followed by
the Hebrew model because of similar legitimations given to both at
their respective formative stages. The Hebrew system's use of the
German as a frame of reference determined not only its stages of
development, but also the nature of its texts -- original and translated.
TRANSLATION AND ADAPTATION
Texts, in particular those of poetry and fables, were chosen for adap-
tation and translation either because they were works of German
Enlightenment writers (considered by Jewish writers as the informal
representatives of German children's literature) or because of the
6 The last format might have had a special intention: to mislead Orthodox Jews,
who were used to reading texts written in Hebrew and Yiddish in this form (see
Shmeruk 1978).
152
implicit Enlightenment attitudes and values they embodied, as can be
seen in the following poem by Schiller, which was undoubtedly
chosen for translation because of the importance attached to
"wisdom":
Successful man success deserted
Willingly gave her hand to wisdom
To you I'll give all my goodness
From now on, be my love.
The honor of my wealth and treasure I gave to him
None is as big as him in the whole world
But his thirsty lust I have not yet quenched
I was called mean and stingy.
Come my sister we will make an eternal covenant
During the plowing season it will not be tempted to throw fennel.
In your bosom I'll put the glory of my greatness
Both will be satisfied by my fertile property.
Wisdom laughed hearing her words
And wiped the sweat from her face
Your lover has gone to take his life
Forgive his crimes. I can live quietly without you.
(Ben-Zeev 1820, 30)
Even in the case of fables, translations dominated, although origi-
nal fables did exist in the Hebrew inventory and could easily have
been used. In the section dedicated to fables in Mesilat ha-Limud, the
most popular reader, there were twenty-one translations of German
Enlightenment writers, such as Albrecht von Haller (1708-77),
Friedrich von Hagedorn (1708-54), and Christian Frchtegott
Gellert (1715-96);7 only thirteen were original (some had already
been published in Ha-Measef; the adult periodical of the Jewish
Enlightenment).8
7 Only Gellert was known at the time as a writer of fables for children. The other
two seem to have been known only as adult writers. They may have been adopted by
the Hebrew children's system via the Hebrew adult system.
8 Although the strong connections between the two children's systems were indis-
pensable for the Hebrew system, the transfer from German children's literature to
Hebrew children's literature was not always direct; in certain cases the transfer wen
via the adult system and vice versa. Hebrew children's literature served in some case
as the connecting system (though peripheral) between the Hebrew and the German
153
It is the strong orientation of Hebrew children's literature toward
the German Enlightenment that explains why Campe, a dis-
tinguished Enlightenment writer, was so very popular among
Hebrew translators. The entire number of books translated into
Hebrew during the German period did not exceed fifty, yet almost all
Campe's books were translated into Hebrew, some even more than
once -- Robinson der Jüngere was translated into Hebrew three times
as was Die Entdeckung von America. His moral book Theophron was
translated more than five times. Campe enjoyed such high status in
Hebrew children's literature that his books remained popular among
Hebrew readers even after the German center had declined and the
cultural center had moved to Eastern Europe. Hence, the German
system for children continued to serve as a mediating system, even in
Eastern Europe.
THE GERMAN SYSTEM AS A MEDIATING SYSTEM
The German system served as a mediating system for the general
Hebrew literary polysystem, continuing to do so for children's books
even after the Russian system had taken over as the mediating system
for adult literature (see Even-Zohar 1978c). Authors of other na-
tional systems, like Stephanie Genlis and Daniel Defoe, were trans-
lated through the German. Genlis was translated into German main-
ly because of the Rousseauian views expressed in her books, which
probably accounts for the fact that her work was translated as well
into Hebrew. Defoe's Robinson Crusoe, however, is more complicated
and probably became as popular a children's book as it did (and the
model for a whole genre, the Robinsonnade) thanks to Campe's adap-
tation. Campe decided upon adapting the original Robinson into
Robinson der Jüngere on the strength of Rousseau's remark in Émile
that it was the only book he would give to his son. However, in order
to conform to Rousseau's views, Campe needed to greatly revise the
adult systems. The dual functioning of the Hebrew adult and children's systems in the
interference relations is connected with the blurred borders of each system. Most of
the writers for children wrote for adults as well and often published the same text in
periodicals for adults and in books for children. This fact is bound up both with the
low status of the writer for children and with the still-blurred status of children's
literature that is typical of the beginning of children's literature everywhere in Europe.
154
text. Moreover, the revised text had to be further adapted in order to
suit the ideas of the Jewish Enlightenment. The Hebrew translation
of Robinson der Jüngere was used in one version (David Zamoshch's)
to convey the Jewish Enlightenment ideas on productivization, the
importance of studying and understanding the world, and love of
mankind. Thus, the following conversation between father (narrator)
and son is used to teach both geography and good manners:
Issachar: What are the travellers of Genoa?
The father: Ask Gad and he'll tell you.
Gad: Do you know there is a state called the Land of the South, and it
has a shore.
Issachar: A shore?
Gad: The Land close to the sea. Look at my globe. This strip of land is
called the Genoa shore.
The father: The people who go there for their business are called the
travellers of Genoa (Zamoshch 1824, 12)
Meanwhile the following passage is meant to teach love for all
mankind:
Shimon: Were they the people of Hamburg?
The father: Should we help only the people of our own country? Is that
what you mean, my son? If someone from America should fall into the
river in front of our eyes, would we ask where he comes from? Would
not we save him from death? These people do have hearts, just as we
do, although they are neither from Hamburg, nor are they Europeans.
They were not Christians, but Muslems of Izmir in Asia.
Shimon: That I did not know, that Muslems are of kind heart.
The father: You should know that among every people and in every state
there are good people, just as there are in every people and every gen-
eration the bad and the reckless. (Zamoshch 1824,10)
By translating from the German, Hebrew writers accomplished at
least two objects: they were able to use texts that had already ac-
quired legitimation and could therefore be easily legitimized by the
Hebrew system and they managed to adopt the main components of
a system considered as ideal for imitation and thus laid the ground-
work for acceptance of the new system. Just how strong this need to
155
follow the German model was can be discerned in the case of origi-
nal Hebrew texts.
ORIGINAL TEXTS BASED ON GERMAN MODELS
At the outset, original Hebrew texts for children were few, and the
distinction between the original texts and translations blurred. As
translated texts were so common, translators did not even bother
citing the name of the original author; at times, it is almost impossi-
ble to determine whether a text is original or translated (a good ex-
ample is Mishle Agur by Shalom Hacohen).
Most original texts were based on and constructed in the same way
as German texts (readers and Bible stories). In fact, the dominance of
the German model is evident even in original fiction. But since origi-
nal writing was rare, and translations were more easily accepted,
writers sometimes felt reluctant to acknowledge themselves as the
authors, preferring instead to present the text either as a contempo-
rary translation or as an adaptation of an ancient text (ancient Greek
and Hebrew texts were popular at the time). This was the case with
the fables of a certain Satenof, who preferred to attribute his fables to
Asaf Ben Brachia (a psalmist mentioned in the Chronicles). When
accused of plagiarism, he defended himself by saying that writers
commonly stole and never bothered to accredit true authorship,9
while he (poor chap!) was being accused of stealing from himself and
attributing it to someone else (see Ofek 1979). In any case, Satenof's
fables are still quite close to the model of Enlightenment fables and
are very similar to those that were translated. The explanation for
this similarity lies in one of two possibilities: either the Germans
themselves, like Satenof, tried to imitate ancient formulas or Satenof
deliberately tried to imitate the German model in order to make his
original acceptable.
Thus, because German children's literature functioned as a frame of
legitimation for Hebrew children's literature, the Hebrew system fol-
9 Although the habit of not citing the source text was very common, writers were
often accused of "stealing" texts. Ben-Zeev, for instance, who wanted to defend him-
self in advance, declared that he attached the names of the original writers in order
avoid any attack on himself.
156
lowed its model of development (and used its inventory) to such an
extent that it was almost entirely composed of translated or pseudo-
translated texts. Moreover, the peripheral literary system preserved
its contact with the German long after the adult system had discon-
nected itself.
The short examination of the model of development of Hebrew
children's literature manifests the strong linkage between children's
literature and ideology and the extent of its dependence on the edu-
cational system. Yet in order to focus on the relations between educa-
tional doctrines and historical processes in the children's system, this
scheme deliberately ignores, for methodological reasons, the func-
tion of popular literature in the development of children's literature.
It should be clear, however, that although this separation is meth-
odologically valuable, a full analysis of the development of children's
literature cannot be undertaken without considering the function of
popular literature. The next chapter is devoted to this issue.
Texts
Ben-Zeev, Yehuda Leyb. 1820. Bet Ha-Sefer. Part 1, Mesilat ha-Limud. Part
2, Limude ha-mesarim. Vienna: Anton Schmidt.
[Campe, J. H.]. 1824. Robinson der Yingere, Eyn lezebukh fir kinder. Ins
Hebräishe ibertragen von David Zamoshch. Breslau: Sulzbach.
[Campe, J. H.]. 1819. Tokehot Musar. German front page: Sittenbüchlein für
Kinder, Zur allgemeinen Schul-encyklopädie
gehärig. Von J. H. Campe.
Ins Hebräische ubersezt von David Zamoshch. Breslau: Sulzbach.
[Cohen], Šalom b.r.y.k. from Mezrich. 1799. Sefer Misle Agur. Part 1, Oder
moralisches fabel-buch. Berlin: in der Orientalischen Buchdruckerei.
Rothstein, Fayvil ha-Levi. 1844. Moda Li-bne-ha-neurim. German front
page: Der Jugendfreund, Oder Der dreifache Faden. Hebrisch und Deutsch
von Ph. Rothstein. Königsberg.
[Satenof, Isaak]. 1788. Mišle Asaf
. Berlin. German colophon: Die Weisheits
Sprüche
Asaphs herausgegeben von R. Isaak Satenof.
Zamoshch, David. 1834. Eš Dat: tsum unterrikht im lezen und anfangsgrinde der
religion. Tsum iberzetsen oys dem hebräishen ins daytše firdi izraelitische
Jugend. Breslau: Sulzbach.
157
Contents