Children’s Literature: A History
by
Jennifer Clapp
Today there are many genres of writing but perhaps the most controversial
is children’s literature, not simply because of its content but also because
of its origin and purpose. Long ago
literature consisted of legends, fables, and myths. None were originally
children’s literature but because of their fantastic, lesson oriented,
primitive aspects, they were given to children over the years for enjoyment and
learning. Children enjoyed these tales and parents appreciated the moral and
cultural lessons included. No attempt was made, however, to create a separate
genre of literature for children. Cervantes’ Don Quixote (1600s),
Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress (1678),
Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe (1719), and Swift’s Gulliver’s
Travels (1726) remain favorites among children but all were originally
written for adults. Arguably not until the 1400s was children’s literature as
a distinct entity born, though precursors may be seen beginning in the early 8th
century. The Fables of Aesop, published by William Caxton in 1484
primarily for children, remains a favorite to this day. However, John Corbally
argues in his lecture “The History of Children’s Literature,” that Johann
Amos Comenius’ Orbis Sensulium Pictus (1658) is the earliest major
children’s book. Today, there is an award for nonfiction picture books named
for this work. In the 17th and 18th centuries, the
Puritans published stories and books intended to teach children the Bible and
Puritan morals. Not until 1744 when John Newbery opened the first major press
and bookstore for children’s literature did this genre became a true, distinct
form of literature. His two most famous works were Little Pretty Pocket Book
(1744) and Little Goody Two Shoes 1765). The latter, Corbally argues, was
the first novel for children.
As children’s literature was born, a great conflict arose: should
children’s books be written simply for pleasure and enjoyment or should then
necessarily teach? For centuries stories held morals and lessons, but today many
books hold no clear purpose beyond fun and pleasure. Many educators are
attempting to take these books and use them to teach lessons, as the old reading
texts were used. Natalie Babbitt fears that “this will make a dry and tedious
thing out of fiction” (Babbitt 32). She goes on to say, “I don’t believe
in using fiction to teach anything except the appreciation of fiction. At least,
not to children” (Babbitt 35). Ms. Babbitt believes that pieces written
specifically to teach do not last because children do not see value in them. She
ends by saying “a good story is sufficient unto the day. It is complete as it
stands. If it has something to teach, let it teach in its own sufficiency”
Babbitt 38). As the children’s literature continues to develop, the conflict
will continue but Ms. Babbitt voices the opinion of many people: “Let it keep
its magic and fulfill its purpose. In other words, let it be” (Babbitt 38).
Works Cited
Babbitt,
Natalie. “Protecting Children’s Literature.” Only Connect: Readings on
Children’s Literature. Ed. Sheila Egoff,
Gordon Stubbs, Ralph Ashley, and Wendy Sutton. 3rd ed. New York:
Oxford, 1996.
Corbally,
John. “Lecture Two: The History of Children’s Literature.” 17 Nov. 2004