text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Children's Literature

CHILDREN'S LITERATURE. Books written for or suited to the young. From a stricter point of view, children's literature comprises books specially written for children. In either case books about childhood intended for adult readers are excluded and will not be considered in this survey. But it is really impossible to define children's books without instancing titles of children's favorites. Such a list would show, for one thing, that quite as many works not written for children have found favor with them as those that were. Thus, parts of ‘The Bible,’ Homer's ‘Odyssey,’ ‘The Pilgrim's Progress,’ ‘The Arabian Nights,’ ‘Gulliver's Travels,’ and ‘Baron Munchausen’ — none of them intended for children — are just as much children's books as ‘Alice in Wonderland,’ Andersen's ‘Fairy Tales,’ ‘The Water Babies,’ and ‘Peter Pan’ — which were expressly written for juvenile readers. That the former should be much relished by children and the latter also by adults, proves conclusively the impossibility of drawing a hard-and-fast line between juvenile literature and other kinds of books. Any book that interests or comes within the comprehension of children generally may therefore be considered as belonging to the large and miscellaneous class of children's books.

History. — The difficulty of formulating a satisfactory definition of children's books adds to the perplexities of the historian of juvenile literature and helps to account for the woeful want of chronological definiteness in many histories of children's literature. Thus, while some of these date the beginning of children's books from 1715 — that is, from the appearance of Isaac Watts's ‘Divine and Moral Songs’ — others go back as far as the 7th century — to a Latin work by one Aldhelm, Abbot of Malmesbury, and to the school texts of the Venerable Bede. For our purposes this sketch need not extend beyond the 15th century, before which children's books can hardly be said to have existed. What, are now considered such by some imaginative historians were mainly lesson texts, written in Latin and intended generally for pupils in monastic schools. Such works belong rather to the history of education than to the history of children's literature. Passing by therefore the pseudo-juveniles of Aldhelm, Bede, Alcuin and even Aelfric, whose ‘Colloquy’ was one of the most interesting beginnings of books for the young, we come to the peculiar 15th and 16th century productions whose nature and purpose we shall now consider.

The Early Period. — During the 15th century real attempts at the writing of children's books were made by various authors, whose chief purpose was moral or other instruction. This appears in their very titles: ‘The Babees Boke; or, A lytyl Reporte of how Young People should behave’ (circ. 1475); ‘The Boke of Curtesye’ (1460); Simon's ‘Lesson of Wysedom for all Manner Chyldryn’; and the like. All these were written in Latin — one of them, ‘Stans Puer ad Mensam’ (‘The Page Standing at the Table,’ 1430) still preserves its Latin title — and most of them in rhyme. Not only was their general tone moral or didactic, being intended to inculcate lessons in manners and conduct, but their appeal was very limited, being addressed mostly to boys of noble families destined to serve as pages, esquires, etc., on to the rank of knighthood. There was not even the sugar-coating of narrative to render such wholesale didacticism palatable. In no sense of the word, therefore, can these 15th century rhymed treatises be considered as children's books.

The next stage in the development of children's reading was reached toward the end of the 16th century, with the invention of The ../Hornbook/ (q.v.), which for the first time put reading matter into the hands of children. Such instruction as this crude device contained was decidedly religious. A variation of the Hornbook, however, which appeared a century later and was known as the ‘Battledore,’ “contained easy reading lessons and little wood-cuts, besides the alphabets, numerals and so forth, but never any religious teaching. Now and then a short table or didactic story appears.” These battledores, crude makeshifts for modern primers, were long very popular, surviving into the second half of the 19th century.

Much more interesting to the unsophisticated boys and girls of this period must have been the numerous ballads, which, circulating freely among the common people, could not fail to attract the attention of the young.

Among the better known of these old ballads were Adam Bell, Guy of Warwick, Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay, and the prolific Robin Hood series. It was these and other mediæval ballads that have yielded such nursery favorites as Jack the Giant Killer, The Babes in the Wood and Tom Thumb and that in the 17th and 18th centuries became so popular in the form of chap books, of which more presently. It is interesting to note in passing that those ballads have survived the longest which appeal most strongly to juvenile readers.

The Middle Period. — Having learned their letters from the ‘Battledore’ 17th century children had no means of satisfying their craving for reading save the above-mentioned ../Chap-Books/ (q.v.). These cheap and uninviting leaflets, printed in type calculated to ruin children's eyes and illustrated in wood-cuts that violated the proprieties and shocked one's taste, must have been very sorry things indeed. Yet, forbidding as they were, these pamphlets represented the first embodiment of popular literature, intended as they were for every age and taste, and costing but a penny each. Though not written for children, these little tracts, whose popularity was phenomenal and whose vogue lasted far into the 19th century, put within the reach of the young tales of action, stories of heroism and adventure, narratives of peace and war, etc., which must have enchanted the juvenile reader of those early days. It was an unfortunate boy indeed that could not own such things as Jack and the Giants, Guy of Warwick, Hector of Troy or Hercules of Greece in the centuries of chap-books. Indeed, it was in this crude form that such fairy stories as Blue Beard, Cinderella and other of the Mother Goose Tales collected by Perrault, French fountain-head of fairy tales, first appeared. Possibly even such classics as the ‘Canterbury Tales’ were also peddled about by hawkers on streets and highways, with all the lustiness of a town crier.

To this period, too, belong the stern and gloomy New England Primers, which long embodied the religious features of the hornbooks aforementioned. The general tone of the so-called children's books written in Puritan times may be judged from such titles as James Janeway's ‘Token for Children; an Exact Account of the Conversion, Holy and Exemplary Lives and Joyful Deaths of Several Young children’ and Francis Cokain's ‘Divine Blossoms; Prospect or Looking Glass for Youth.’ Small wonder therefore that, in view of such unimaginative vehicles for religious instruction as these — and their number was appalling — such a gem as Bunyan's ‘The Pilgrim's Progress’ was eagerly seized upon by juvenile readers, written though it was for their elders.

But, dull and forbidding as were these early attempts at children's books — the hornbooks, chap-books, tokens, primers, etc. — which reached their culmination in such works as Franklin's ‘Poor Richard,’ they were the undoubted forerunners of real children's literature, whose rise we must now consider. As such, their historical importance should not be underestimated.

The Period of Transition. — The rise of real children's books — that is, books specially written for children — dates from the second

half of the 18th century. It was then that such educational reformers as Rousseau, Froebel and Pestalozzi aroused that new interest in childhood which culminated in modern ../Child Study/ (q.v.). Obviously, before this general awakening to the special needs and problems of the child as a child, his reading appeared to involve no special difficulties. One of the first manifestations of this new realization — the realization that the child is not merely a diminutive adult, but a being with tastes and interests peculiar to himself — was the founding of a children's magazine (Weisze's Kinderfreund).

But the turning point in the development of children's literature seems to have been reached by 1760, when John Newbery (q.v.), the first publisher of books for children, issued a small collection of nursery rhymes under the title of ‘Mother Goose's Melody.’ It was five years later that Goldsmith, who probably edited the little volume just mentioned published his ‘History of Margery Two-Shoes,’ which is generally considered the first real children's story written — and it is still a favorite with younger children. But the enterprising publisher, assisted by Goldsmith, Dr. Johnson and lesser celebrities driven to hack-work, published hundreds of little volumes for juvenile readers, whose appetites he both stimulated and sought to satisfy. This prolific and ambitious publisher ran the gamut of children's reading, from young folk's magazines to grammar-texts and a ‘Circle of Sciences,’ a sort of compendium of universal knowledge. The tone of most of the Newbery publications, however, was still didactic. Such titles as ‘The Renowned History of Giles Gingerbread, a little boy who lived upon learning’; ‘The Whitsuntide Gift, or the Way to be Happy’; and ‘The Valentine Gift, or how to behave with honor, integrity and humanity’ — and they are not by any means exceptional — sufficiently indicate the type of thing produced by “the philanthropic publisher of Saint Paul's Churchyard,” as Goldsmith once called John Newbery.

A somewhat similar service to children's books was rendered in America by Isaiah Thomas, the long-lived Massachusetts printer and bookseller, the pioneer publisher of juvenile literature in die western world. Drawing freely upon Newbery's list, he needed but to alter a bit the English terminology and give the stories a New England setting to make his reprints interesting to children of Colonial and Revolutionary times. In such stories as ‘The Juvenile Biographer’ (containing accounts of Mistresses Allgoo, Careful and Lovebook, together with the narratives of Mr. Badenough and other heroes) the English text is easily recognizable. They represented no very great advance, it must be admitted, over the least cheerless New England primers. Nor were such of the Thomas publications as were written in America tinged by less sombre sternness. ‘Godly Children the Parents' Joy’; ‘A Dying Father's Legacy to an Only Child’; and Janeway's ‘Token for the Children of New England’ — were the self-explanatory titles of some of these. The echo of Puritan England and Colonial America was far too distinct in such children's books — they were in no sense real literature — to make them delightful reading for healthy boys and girls. For that they had still to wait.

In Germany the educator Basedow and others originated a type of literature which, intended for children and undeveloped adults, combines instruction and narrative in an entertaining manner. Although the art of such tales was still crude, they form another interesting link in the evolution of children's literature. It was as a result of this movement inaugurated by The Philanthropium (see ) that Defoe produced his children's classic. ‘Robinson Crusoe,’ so many times translated and imitated — only half successfully, it should be noted, in ‘The Swiss Family Robinson.’

The Modern Period. — At least four distinct streams of influence are distinguishable in this great period of children's literature, which was well under way by the beginning of the 19th century. These may be characterized as (1) The Rousseau Influence; (2) The Sunday School Influence; (3) The Poetic Influence; and (4) The Classical Influence. We shall briefly consider each of them.

(1) The first of these influences has already been referred to. The enthusiastic disciples of Rousseau who wrote books for children — notably the two Edgeworths, Thomas Day and Mrs. Barbauld — accepted without question the narrowly utilitarian principles propounded in the ‘Emile’. The result, so far as children's reading was concerned, was not altogether a happy one. The writers of this school conceived the function of children's books to be informational and reformative. They, in effect, substituted educational and moral didacticism for the religious didacticism of preceding periods. Thus, parents are urged by the Edgeworths in their ‘Practical Education’ (1796) to banish dolls from the nursery, while the epoch-making ‘Parent's Assistant’ (1796) and ‘Moral Tales’ (1801) — perhaps the best known and most meritorious children's books credited to Maria Edgeworth — are equally laden with moral “objects” and information. Day's ‘Sanford and Merton’ (1783), one of the most famous juveniles of this school and long a children's favorite, would be quite as dull as the Edgeworth books save for its inclusion of some classic tales that constitute its sole redeeming feature. Perhaps even more insipid were the children's books of Mrs. Barbauld, best known for her ‘Evenings at Home’ (1795), whose every chapter seeks to impart some definite lesson; her ‘Early Lessons for Children’ (1774), written for the special edification of Charles Aiken, himself a writer of children's books; and her ‘Hymns in Prose for Children’ (1774), in which, like in all her works, instruction and narrative walk side by side. Among the descendants of these moral and educational writers was Jacob Abbott, author of the once popular Rollo, Jonas and Lucy books.

(2) The writers of juveniles identified with the Sunday School movement, started by Robert Raikes (q.v.), were still too didactic in tone, though their didacticism took on a somewhat social hue. The one direct effect of this movement upon juvenile literature was to create an unusual demand for tracts, a demand which Hannah More was the first to endeavor to satisfy. Her numerous tracts, from ‘The Shepherd of Salisbury Plain,’ her most famous one, to the least meritorious piety pamphlets, are redolent with a fundamental moral ideal

and abound in real pictures of humble folks worthy of a Charles Dickens. But throughout these and all her longer works, the acquisition of knowledge is considered as but a means to a better understanding of the catechism. The imaginative child's fancy must still content itself with very low flights, if it can rise at all.

Pretty much the same may be said of the juveniles of Sarah Kirby Trimmer, a more famous writer of the Sunday School group, who has been called the parent of the didactic age in England. Most of her books — such as ‘Easy Lessons for Children’ (1780), ‘Easy Introduction to the Knowledge of Nature’ (1782) and ‘Sacred History for Young Persons’ (1785) — were intended for use in the Sunday Schools, which Mrs. Trimmer had helped to open. But it is not for her religious writing as much as for her ‘History of the Robins’ (1789), which represents the earliest attempt to teach children kindness toward the animal world, that Mrs. Trimmer is best remembered

Among the many other writers of this school, mention must be made of Mrs. Sherwood, for her ‘Fairchild Family’ (1818-47), including ‘Little Henry and His Beaver,’ ‘The Child's Pilgrim's Progress,’ etc. A distant follower in America was Elizabeth Wetherell, author of ‘Queechy’ and ‘The Wide Wide World,’ works far above the average religious or Sunday School story written in America during the last century — such as are exemplified by the Elsie and the Pansy books. In the better stories of this class, though there is an unmistakable religious background, the picture of life is generally vivid and the narrative of considerable interest. The stories of Charlotte Yonge are among the very best religious tales extant

(3) With the gradual advance made in the literary qualities of children's books, special attention to juvenile poetry came as a matter of course. One of the first writers to pen a volume of verses specially for children was Isaac Watts (q.v.), a man belonging to an earlier age than we are now considering. His name must be mentioned here as a worthy predecessor of the better known children's poets to be spoken of presently. The verses of Dr. Watts — and such a charming hymn as ‘Holy Angels Guard Thy Bed’ is among the best in the language — show the truest understanding of childhood, childhood seen in retrospect and with an adult's sadness over the lost joys of innocence.

Much more didactic were the Taylor sisters, Jane and Ann, whose poetry makes a far greater appeal to juvenile readers than anything Watts ever penned. Their ‘Original Poems for Infant Minds’ (1804), containing verses of real merit, seek to emphasize such social virtues as generosity, honest and truthfulness — an emphasis no longer religious, it will be noticed, but distinctly ethical. Their aim was to interpret the world through the eyes of childhood, an ambitious undertaking in which they hardly succeeded

Far more successful in this respect were the children's verses of William Blake, whose ‘Songs of Innocence’ (1787), though chronologically belonging to the 18th century, is of the 19th century in form and spirit. So happily are the modern regard for childhood and the

latter's responsiveness to adult sympathy blended in Blake's verses that they suggest the best children's lyrics of Wordsworth and Christina Rossetti. Indeed, nothing finer than his ‘Songs of Innocence,’ with its remarkable imagery and grace, was added to children's verse before Robert Louis Stevenson's delightfully reminiscent ‘Child's Garden of Verses’ (1885), which has been the forerunner and inspiration of a great many volumes of poetry for children.

(4) The literary heights reached in children's verse during the 19th century marked but one of the important phases of the rapid development of modern children's literature. Another — perhaps an outgrowth of the first — was the new and increasing zeal for putting the classics within the reach of the young. By the middle of the last century four most noteworthy and very successful manifestations of this salutary tendency appeared. Kingsley's ‘Greek Heroes’ (1856), Lamb's ‘Adventures of Ulysses’ (1808) and Hawthorne's ‘Wonder Book’ (1852) and ‘Tanglewood Tales’ (1853) practically unlocked for children the rich granaries of Greek mythology, to the infinite delight of generations of eager readers. This gave such impetus to imaginative writing for children that the wonderful flowering of children's literature in the latter half of the century may well be attributed very largely to the classic influence we are here considering. Then it was that the reading child first came into full possession of his literary heritage, the accumulated treasures of imaginative Man.

Classification. — From the early times when children's books were yet non-existent — when children and adults heard the same tales with a common naïveté — to the present fine specialization in books intended for the young, millions of volumes have been published under the general head of Juvenile Literature. With this multiplicity has come also great diversity, so that it is no mean task merely to classify satisfactorily this wealth of material. The task becomes the more difficult in that there are no definite types of children's literature more than of any other, and this, naturally, makes for greater variety. For these and other reasons no adequate classification of children's books will here be attempted. Only a few of the more common types can be considered, and under these general headings: (1) Fairy Tales, Myths and Fables; (2) Historical Biographical and Other Narratives; (3) Children's Poetry; and (4) Juvenile Fiction. Nor can the treatment even of these be more than summary in the present article. For a fuller study of the subject, the reader is referred to the bibliography appended to this article.

Fairy Tales, Myths and Fables. — Despite the great variety of other books for children that have grown, like mushrooms, since Perrault's pioneer collection of ‘Mother Goose Tales’ (‘Contes de ma Mère L'Oye,’ 1697), nothing has displaced the fairy tale in favor with younger children. After Perrault, the greatest contributions to fairy tale literature were made by the Grimm Brothers with their ‘Household Tales’ (‘Kinder- und Hausmärchen,’ 1812-15) and by their most distinguished successor, Hans Christian Andersen, with his ‘Fairy Tales’ (1835), best translated into English by Mary Howitt. Among other literary fairy tale

to the making of which there is no end, mention should be made of Kennedy's ‘New World Fairy Book’; Rhys's ‘Fairy Gold’; Scudder's ‘Children's Book’; Jacobs' ‘English Fairy Tales’ and its companion volume, ‘More English Fairy Tales’; and Lang's long Rainbow Series. More in the nature of wonder stories are the Alice books of Lewis Carroll, Ruskin's ‘King of the Golden River,’ Kingsley's ‘Water Babies,’ and ‘The Arabian Nights.’ The charming fairy tales of George Macdonald have such a unique spiritual quality and a distinctive tone of mystery that they may be considered among the best modern specimens of their kind. As a general rule, however, the modern fairy story, cultivated hy many mediocre writers, is apt to be lacking in imagination, art and taste.

Mythological tales, which are based upon primitive man's interpretation of nature, run back naturally to the beginning of time. The best, myths have come down to us from ancient Greece, and we have already mentioned the three great writers — Kingsley, Lamb and Hawthorne — who first familiarized English-reading children with these most delightful narratives, so full of beautiful imagery and true poetic force. Of the many other versions of the classic myths of Greece, Bulfinch's ‘Age of Fable’ and Moncrieff's ‘Classic Myth and Legend’ are perhaps the fullest and best. Next to the Greek myths, the Old Norse myths are particularly interesting to children. They have been admirably retold by Brown (‘In the Days of Giants’) and Mabie (‘Norse Stories Retold from the Eddas’). The mythology of the American Indian, equally full of color, mystery and elemental nature, has been strangely neglected by modern writers of children's books. Longfellow's ‘Hiawatha’ is still the most beautiful presentation of Red Indian myths. There are, of course, many other kinds of mythical tales, but the three here mentioned possess the best characteristics for juvenile readers.

The fable (q.v.), which is probably of Indian origin and was one of the earliest forms of story-telling everywhere, has been made familiar to children only in modern times. The classic fable of Æsop has never yet been surpassed, if it ever shall be equalled. This form of imaginative literature makes its peculiar appeal to younger children and performs a special mission in their ethical education. Some of the best of Æsop's fables — edited times without number — are ‘The Dog in the Manger,’ ‘The Lion and the Mouse,’ ‘Belling the Cat,’ ‘The Shepherd Boy and the Wolf’ and ‘The Town Mouse and the Country Mouse.’ The other two great fabulists were La Fontaine in France and Krylov in Russia, but neither has enjoyed such universal popularity abroad. ‘Select Fables from La Fontaine,’ translated by Elizier Wright, and ‘Kriloff's Original Fables,’ translated by Harrison, are perhaps the best two selections from these fabulists available in English. A general collection from Æsop, La Fontaine and others is found in Wiggin's and Smith's ‘The Talking Beasts; A Book of Fable Wisdom.’ Excellent recent specimens of animal stories that may be classed either as fables or as fairy tales are Kipling's Jungle books and ‘Just So Stories.’ In a class by itself stands that highly literary and charmingly imaginative

modern fairy tale, Lagerlöf's ‘Wonderful Adventures of Nils.’

Historical, Biographical and Other Narratives. — For children who have outgrown the world of make-believe these classes of books afford most welcome substitutes. The best kind of historical narrative for children is that which emphasizes the romantic and biographical elements. Such narratives have been written by Scott (‘Tales of a Grandfather’), Greenwood (‘Merry England’), Lodge and Roosevelt (‘Hero Tales from American History’), Eggleston (‘Stories of Great Americans for Little Americans’), Baldwin (‘Fifty Famous Stories Retold’) and many others.

From history stories to historical biography is a natural transition. This type of biography has been written for children since the middle of the 19th century, when the Abbotts, authors of hundreds of juveniles, popularized it. More recent examples — and naturally better ones — are Tappan's lives of Alfred the Great, William the Conqueror, Queen Elizabeth and Queen Victoria. Two excellent and very comprehensive sets of historical biographies (one in 36 volumes) are ‘Life Stories for Young People’ and the ‘Children's Heroes Series,’ the former translated from the German by G. P. Upton. Mention should here be made, too, of Marshall's ‘Child's English Literature’ for the abundant biographical material this well-written work contains.

Besides such special biographies, there are scores of others mat are not necessarily historical or romantic. Good examples of such biographies suited to young readers are the ‘Life, Letters, and Journals of Louisa Alcott’ and Richard's ‘Florence Nightingfale.’ Two excellent collected biographies are Mrs. Lang's ‘Red Book of Heroes’ and Mrs. Wade's ‘Wonder Workers,’ the latter dealing with eminent contemporaries.

Other kinds of instructive narratives that children like to read include every conceivable subject — from books of travel and geographical descriptions to animal stories and nature study excursions. Naturally, these cannot be enumerated here. A few good specimens of the types mentioned must suffice. Thus, ‘Peeps at Many Lands,’ ‘Little People Everywhere,’ ‘Peeps at Great Cities’ and ‘The Little Cousin Series’ — the last consisting of 40 volumes by various authors — are admirable travel books; such works as Burroughs' ‘Birds and Bees’ and ‘Squirrels and Other Fur-Bearers,’ Roberts' ‘Kindred of the Wild’ and ‘Haunters of the Silences’ — rather than the more romantic Seton stories (‘Lives of the Hunted,’ ‘Wild Animals I Have Known,’ etc.) — represent the best type of animal story; while Ball's ‘Starland,’ Morley's ‘Insect Stories,’ Thompson's ‘Water Wonders Every Child Should Know,’ Andrews' ‘Stories Mother Nature Told Her Children’ and Buckley's ‘Fairyland of Science’ — every one combining science and narrative in happy proportions — will serve to indicate the diversity of nature-study narratives, the best of which are as fascinating as fairy tales.

Children's Poetry. — It is common knowledge that a child's first appreciation of verse depends largely on rhythmic quality — hence his great fondness for the old Mother Goose rhymes, those matchless specimens of perfect rhythm. For the same reason children of fairy

tale age readily catch the swing of ballads, which they greatly enjoy even when the meaning of these vigorous poems happens to transcend their understanding. Among the best old ballads are ‘Adam Bel,’ ‘Chevy Chase,’ ‘Sir Andrew Barton,’ ‘The Battle of Otterburn,’ ‘Fair Rosamond,’ ‘Sir Cauline,’ ‘The Heir of Linne,’ ‘The Blind Beggar's Daughter,’ ‘Clym of the Clough and Wyllyam of Ooudeslee,’ and the cycle of Robin Hood poems. Good collections of such ballads are available in Bates' ‘Ballad Book,’ Mabie's ‘Book of Old English Ballads’ and Lanier's ‘The Boy's Percy.’ A special collection of the Robin Hood series has been made by Perkins (‘Robin Hood’). The great popularity of these old ballads does not suffer even when their tales are retold in prose, which has been done repeatedly — best perhaps by Pyle (‘Merry Adventures of Robin Hood’) and Tappan (‘Old Ballads in Prose’). For older children there are, in addition, the more modern ballads of Scott, Coleridge, Wordsworth, Browning, Tennyson and others, which are well represented in Palgrave's ‘Golden Treasury,’ ‘The Oxford Book of English Verse’ and almost any comprehensive collection of children's poetry.

Didactic narrative poetry for children has been well written by the Taylor sisters, whose ‘Original Poems for Infant Minds’ has already been characterized; the Lambs, authors of those charming ‘Tales from Shakespeare’ and other excellent Juveniles; the Carys, authors of the delightful ‘Ballads for Little Folk’; Dr. Hoffmann, author of the ever popular ‘Slovenly Peter’; and many others. Lyric verse for young readers is equally abundant. William Blake, already mentioned for his beautiful ‘Songs of Innocence,’ and William Allingham, author of many natural and graceful lyrics, seem to have perfected this type of poem. Other children's poets of the earlier period are Christina Rosetti, referred to elsewhere, Mary Howitt, Celia Thaxter and Lucy Larcom (most of them represented in Whittier's excellent anthology, ‘Child Life’). The children's verses of Robert Louis Stevenson, whose ‘Child's Garden of Verses’ has never yet been excelled, of Eugene Field and of James Whitcomb Riley — not to mention their numerous imitators — are distinctly reminiscent of childhood at play; their appeal is therefore quite as much to adults as to children. Romantic poetry, which appeals to children in adolescent years, has been written by Scott, Longfellow, Tennyson and all the other great poets. Much of it can be appreciated in later childhood. When the child's taste for poetry has grown to the appreciation of the best romantic poets, he no longer needs any special children's poetry. For anthologies of children's verse, the reader must be referred to the works cited in the bibliography.

Juvenile Fiction. — From Goldsmith's ‘Margery Two-Shoes,’ Day's ‘Sandford and Merton,’ and ‘The Moral Tales’ of Mrs. Edgeworth to such modern children's stories as ‘Heidi,’ ‘Peggy’ and ‘Nancy Rutledge’ — is a far cry indeed. Yet, everything in narrative form that marked this long evolution comes somewhere under the general head of juvenile fiction. Naturally there are many different types of children's stories — some writers

no fewer than a dozen. For our present purpose, however, two broad classes will suffice: (1) Stories of Adventure, and (2) Stories of Character. But even so, it cannot always be determined accurately to which class a children's story really belongs, the two general types not being mutually exclusive — a good story of adventure may abound in delineation of character, and effective character stories are not necessarily devoid of thrilling narrative. The determining consideration will be simply the predominance of either of these elements in stories possessing both.

That the child's earliest interest is in the adventure story, the story concerned with events rather than with character, is shown by the undying popularity of the fairytale and wonder story as nursery literature. This interest naturally carries over into animal stories of the non-fable type, stories of travel and romantic tales of every kind. Perhaps the best romantic story for children who have just emerged from the cycles of Arthurian, Carolingian and other legend — those fascinating adventure stories that no reading boy or girl should miss — is the historical novel, in which the heroic side receives special emphasis. Famous novels of this kind suitable for young people include Scott's ‘Ivanhoe’ and ‘The Talisman,’ Dickens's ‘Tale of Two Cities,’ Kingsley's ‘Westward Ho!’ and Bulwer-Lytton's ‘The Last Days of Pompeii.’

A very different kind of romantic story, one that may be styled unhistorical, originated in this country with Cooper's tales of Indian life and adventures on the sea. In his ‘Leatherstocking Tales’ to ‘The Last of the Mohicans’ and ‘The Two Admirals’ there is not a narrative that any normal boy — and Cooper is decidedly a boy's author — willingly skips, any more than he can abstain from devouring the tales of mystery by Jules Verne. The genre of romance originated by Cooper has been done by Captain Marryat, Mayne Reid, Ballantyne and many others, whose thrilling tales of adventure on land and sea continue to enchant boys to this day.

Differing more in degree perhaps than in kind are such children's classics of adventure as ‘Treasure Island,’ ‘The Three Musketeers,’ ‘Mysterious Island,’ ‘The Slowcoach,’ ‘The Adventures of Tom Sawyer,’ ‘Kidnapped,’ ‘Captains Courageous’ and ‘Adventures of Billy Topsail.’

The juvenile character story may deal with school-life, the home and many other things. The forerunners of the modern school story, a very prolific brand of juvenile fiction, were Harriet Martineau's ‘Crofton Boys’ and ‘Tom Brown at Rugby.’ Unfortunately these masterpieces have not been often duplicated in recent times, when the average school story is apt to be devoid of characterization and interest. Among the best modern school stories are Vachell's ‘The Hill,’ Coolidge's ‘What Katy Did at School,’ Brown's ‘The Four Gordons,’ Richards' ‘Peggy,’ and, especially, the works of Arthur Stanwood Pier, who has written some of the best books of this kind.

The home story, a type as ill-defined as any other kind of children's story, includes such excellent things as Alcott's ‘Little Women,’ ‘Little Men’ and ‘Under the Lilacs’; Richards' ‘Hildegarde Series’; Pyle's ‘Nancy Rutledge’;

Ewing's ‘Jackanapes,’ ‘Lob Lie-by-the-Fire’ and ‘Six to Sixteen’; Yonge's ‘The Lances of Lynwood’; Martin's ‘Emmy Lou’; and Howell's ‘A Boy's Town’ — to cite but a few of the thousand-and-one stories coming under the present classification.

Finally, there are numerous other varieties of juvenile fiction which are represented by such diverse genuine classics as ‘Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm,’ ‘The Prince and the Pauper,’ ‘The Story of a Bad Boy,’ ‘Mrs. Wiggs of the Cabbage Patch,’ ‘Jim Davis’ and ‘Betty Leicester.’ These few titles of modern children's books indicate the great advance made in juvenile literature since the days of the Edgeworths, Thomas Day and the other early writers of so-called children's stories. With all that, however, and despite the fact that streams of juveniles are continually pouring from publishers' presses, there is still a woeful dearth of unexceptionable juvenile fiction, especially of realistic stories.

Bibliography. — Most of the literature on children's books has appeared in the form of magazine articles, many of them in library journals. Moses, in ‘Children's Books and Reading’ (pp. 269-72) gives a fairly comprehensive list of such periodical literature up to 1907. Later references will be found in Fay and Eaton's work cited below. The more important books on the subject in English include Ashton, J., ‘Chap-Books of the Eighteenth Century’ (London 1882); Fay and Eaton, ‘Instruction in the Use of Books and Libraries’ (Boston 1915, chaps. XIII-XXI); Field. E. M., ‘The Child and his Book’ (London 1891); Field, W. T., ‘Fingerprints to Children's Reading’ (Chicago 1907); Ford, P. L., ‘History of the New England Primer’ (New York 1897); Lee, G. S., ‘The Child and the Book’ (ib. 1907); Lowe, O., ‘Literature for Children’ (ib. 1914); Lucas, E. V., ‘Old-fashioned Tales and Forgotten Tales of Long Ago’ (London 1905); Moses, M. J., ‘Children's Books and Reading’ (ib. 1907); Olcott F. J., ‘The Children's Reading’ (Boston and New York 1912); Pearson, E., ‘Banbury Chap-books and Toy Book Literature in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries’ (London 1890); Repplier, A., “The Children's Poets” (in her ‘Essays in Idleness,’ Boston 1893); Grahame, Kenneth, ‘The Cambridge Book of Poetry for Children’ (New York 1916). Two excellent works in German are Koster's ‘Geschichte der deutschen Jugendlitteratur’ (Hamburg 1906) and Wolgast's ‘Das Elend unserer Jugendlitteratur’ (Leipzig 1905). Judicious lists of children's books are published by most public libraries. A very helpful and comprehensive one has been compiled by G. W. Arnold, ‘A Mother's List of Books for Children’ (Chicago 1909).


text:
Hoyle's Games Modernized/Cribbage

CRIBBAGE.

Cribbage is primarily a game for two players, though it may also be played by three, or even four persons; in the latter case, two playing against two, as at Whist. Of the two-handed game there are three varieties, known, from the number of cards dealt to each player, as "five-card," "six-card," and "seven-card" cribbage. The number of points to be made in the first case is 61; in the second, 121; and in the third, 181. If the loser has made less than half the specified number of points, he is "lurched," and pays double the agreed stake.

The score is marked by means of pegs of ivory or bone, on a special board, as depicted above. It will be observed that there is on either side of the board a double row of holes, thirty in each, divided, for convenience in counting, into sets of five. The board is placed cross-wise between the players, and both start from the same end (which should be that to the left of the first dealer), each travelling up the outer and down the inner row (once round in the "five-card," twice in the "six-card," and thrice in the "seven-card" game), terminating with the "game-hole" at the end from which they started. In scoring, the hinder peg for the time being is advanced the requisite number of points beyond the foremost.

We will commence with the five-card game.

The pack of fifty-two cards is used, and the players cut for deal, the lowest dealing. For this and for "sequence" purposes, the cards rank in regular order from ace (lowest) up to king (highest), but in counting court cards count as tens.

The pack having been shuffled, the non-dealer cuts, and his opponent deals, one at a time, five cards to each player. Meanwhile the non-dealer scores three holes, known as "three for last," and regarded as a set-off for the advantage of first deal. The undealt portion of the pack is placed face downwards between the players. Each player now "lays out" two of his cards (placed face downwards to the right hand of the dealer) to form what is called the "crib." The principles which govern the "lay out" will be discussed later.

The crib having been laid out, the non-dealer cuts, by lifting off the upper half of the pack. The dealer turns up the card left uppermost and places it on the top of the pack. This card is known as the "start." Should it chance to be a knave, the dealer is entitled to "two for his heels," and scores two points.

The score depends partly upon the course of play, and partly upon the player's holding certain combinations of cards. These latter are scored at the close of the hand.

The scores which may be made in course of play are as under:—

—A player playing a similar card to the card last played by his adversary (as a king to a king, or a seven to a seven) is entitled to score two for a pair.

—If the first player in the case last supposed can follow with a third card of the same description, he scores six for a pair-royal.

—If the second player replies with a fourth card of the same description, he scores twelve for a double pair-royal.

—Three or more cards of any suit but forming a regular numerical succession (as two, three, four; knave, ten, nine), count one for each card to the last player. The sequence need not be played in regular order, so long as the cards exposed for the time being form an unbroken series. Thus, suppose that A plays a five, and B a four. If A now plays either a six or a three, he is entitled to score a run of three (three points). We will suppose that he plays a three. If B can play either a six or a two, he will be entitled to score four; and if A can then add another card at either end, he will score five. Suppose, again, that A has played a five and a three, and B a two and a six. If A now plays a four, he is entitled to score five for the complete sequence. The highest number that can be scored for a sequence is seven, for ace, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Ace, king, queen, do not count as a sequence.

or .—A player whose card makes, with those already exposed, the number fifteen, scores two. If either player makes thirty-one, he scores two in like manner. If, when the cards on the table approach thirty-one, the player whose turn it is can go no further without passing that number, he says, "Go." His opponent then plays any other card or cards up to that limit. If they make thirty-one exactly, he scores two; if not, he scores one for "last card," i.e. the last card played. This (at five-card cribbage) terminates the hand.

The hand being over, the players, beginning with the non-dealer, proceed to "show," i.e. turn up their cards, and reckon how many points they may contain conjointly with the turn-up card, which is regarded as belonging, for this purpose, to the hand of each player, as also to the "crib" of the dealer. The first point noted is the fifteens they may contain, two points being reckoned for each, and the cards being combined in every possible way to make that number. Thus three fives and a ten or court card make (apart from their value under other aspects) four fifteens (technically spoken of as "fifteen eight"), each of the fives forming one fifteen with the ten, and the three fives united forming another.

The next thing to be noted is the presence of any pairs, pair-royal, or double pair-royal. Thus, in the case supposed, the player, after claiming "fifteen eight," would go on to say "and six for a pair-royal, fourteen."

If all the three cards in the hand are in sequence (independent of suit), three points are reckoned for this, or if the three form a sequence with the turn-up card, four.

If three of the cards are in sequence, and the fourth is a duplicate of one of them, such fourth card is regarded as making a fresh sequence with the other two, the "double run," as it is called, scoring six points. Besides this, the holder is entitled to two for his "pair" (the two duplicate cards), bringing the total value (irrespective of "fifteens") up to eight.

Where (as in crib at five-card, or hand or crib at six-card Cribbage) five cards have to be reckoned, it may happen that three are in sequence, and that the other two are duplicates of one of them. In this case they constitute a treble run of three (nine points) and a pair-royal (six points), total fifteen.

If the three cards of the hand are all of one suit, the player scores three points for a flush. If the turn-up is of the same suit, four points.

If the hand chance to contain a knave of the same suit as the turn-up card, the holder is entitled to score one point, "for his nob."

The non-dealer having scored his points, as above indicated, the dealer proceeds to score any points, first in his hand, and then in the crib, in like manner. There is only one distinction, viz., that, in counting crib, a flush is not reckoned unless the "start" is of the same suit as the rest. In this case the flush is worth five points (one for each card).

The following table indicates the method of counting some of the more important combinations (including the start) of the hand at five-card Cribbage:—

Where the four cards of the hand (or all four of the crib, and the start) are of the same suit, the value of the flush (four or five, as the case may be) must be added. Where either includes a knave of the same suit as the start, one "for his nob" will be scored in addition.

A study of the foregoing table should be a material aid to the player in discarding for "crib." If he is dealer, he desires the crib to be as productive as possible; if non-dealer, the reverse. On the other side, he desires to retain such cards as shall be likely to score best in his hand, and these two objects frequently clash. It is therefore, important to know which to prefer.

We will first examine the question from the dealer's point of view. Both hand and crib belong to him, but the hand consists (including the start), of four cards only, while the crib has five. The possible combinations of five cards are so numerous that space will only permit us to give examples of a few leading hands. The highest possible score is twenty-nine, which is made by three fives and a knave, with a fourth five, of the same suit as the knave, turned up by way of start.

The mode of reckoning is as follows: the four fives, in four combinations of three, score fifteen eight. Each of them again scores a fifteen in conjunction with the knave, making eight more. To these are added twelve for the double pair-royal, and "one for his nob," making twenty-nine.

As for combinations of minor value, their name is legion.

With four cards only, the general average is very much lower, as will have been seen from the table on p. 39.

A comparison of the foregoing tables show that the crib at five-card Cribbage is likely to be much more important than the hand, and this furnishes us with a safe principle for the guidance of the player in laying out. In the case of the dealer, he should lay out for crib such cards as are most likely to form valuable combinations, even though he may, to some extent, sacrifice the scoring value of his hand. Conversely, it is to the interest of the non-dealer to lay out such cards as are likely to "baulk the crib," as it is termed, even though he may to some extent injure his own hand in doing so. On close examination of the tables, it will be found that the cards most likely to help the crib are pairs. If the other three cards chance to be in sequence, they are worth, standing alone, three only, but the addition of duplicates of either of the series will bring their value (for runs and pair-royal) up to fifteen, independently of any other points they may contain. Or suppose, with six as start, that the dealer has thrown out a four and a five, these are worth five only; but if the non-dealer had been rash enough to throw out a pair, either of fours or sixes, the score would run up to twenty-one. If the non-dealer had thrown out a pair of fives, it would have been twenty-three.

Next to a pair, two cards forming a fifteen, or two cards in sequence, are most likely to help the crib, and should therefore be preferred by the dealer, and eschewed by the non-dealer—the more so, if they chance to answer both conditions—e.g. a seven and eight. Next to cards in sequence come cards only one or two points apart, as the cards of the opposite player may fill up the gap, and convert them into sequence cards. Of single cards, a five is the most likely to score, inasmuch as there are sixteen tenth cards to four of any other denomination, and the chances of its forming part of one or more fifteens are therefore considerable. The cards which are least likely to make for crib are king and ace, inasmuch as nothing save queen, knave can convert a king into a sequence card, and nothing save a two and three can convert the ace into a sequence card. The best cards for the non-dealer to throw out are therefore a king or ace, and some second card so far removed from the first that the two cannot form part of the same sequence. King or queen, with nine, eight, seven, six, or ace, are good "baulking" cards; likewise two or ace, with seven, eight, nine, or ten. The non-dealer should never throw out a knave if he can help it, as the start may cause it to score a point for "nob." In like manner, the non-dealer should avoid laying out two cards of the same suit, as he thereby runs the risk of a flush in crib.

In the play of the hand the guiding principle should be to give to the adversary the fewest possible opportunities of scoring. Bearing this in mind, it will be seen that the best card to lead at the outset is an ace, two, three, or four, as the second player cannot make fifteen, and the chance of doing so will revert to the first player. A five, on the other hand, is a very bad lead, inasmuch as, from the greater number of tenth cards in the pack, it gives the second player the best possible opportunity of making fifteen. If the leader holds duplicates of ace, two, three, or four, one of them is a very good lead; for if the second player should pair, the leader will have the opportunity of making a pair-royal. Failing pairs, if the leader hold two cards which together make five, i.e. two and three, or ace and four, it is good to play one of them, when, if the adversary play a tenth card, the leader will be enabled to make fifteen. Likewise, if the leader hold a six and a three, a four and a seven, or a three and a nine, the first card of the couple is a safe lead, for if it is paired, the second will make fifteen. On the other hand, should the second player play a tenth card to the lead, the first player may pair it with perfect safety, for no pair-royal can be made without overpassing the limit, thirty-one.

As regards the second player, he will generally do well to make fifteen if he can. If a low card, i.e. a four or less, has been led, he has no choice, in the majority of cases, but to leave the fifteen to his adversary; but he should carefully avoid playing such a card as will enable the adversary to score not merely the fifteen, but a pair or sequence in addition. On a four led, for instance, it would be very unwise to play either a six or a five, as in such cases respectively, a five or six played by the first player would give him both fifteen and a sequence. On a three it would be equally wrong to play a six; on a seven a four; on a nine a three, or on an ace a seven; for a like card played by the first player would give him both fifteen and a pair. Again, it is in general unwise for second player to play a close card (i.e. next or next but one to the lead), as he thereby gives the adversary the chance of a "run." If he is in a position to continue the run, he may of course play a close card with impunity. The points of "five" and "twenty-one" are to be avoided, as a tenth card played by the adversary will in such case make him fifteen or thirty-one. Similarly, it is bad play to make fourteen or thirty (i.e. one short of fifteen or thirty-one) with an ace; to make thirteen or twenty-nine (two short) with a two; twelve or twenty-eight with a three; eleven or twenty-seven with a four; as in either of such cases, should the adversary be able to pair, he will thereby score four holes. The only exception is where the player chances to hold two deuces or aces, in which case it will be worth while to make twenty-nine or thirty respectively with one of such cards, on the chance of the opponent holding no deuce or ace, in which case the first player will himself gain the advantage of the double score.

Some discretion is needful in pairing the card first led, as the first player may be aiming at a pair-royal, and the temporary gain of two points may be counter-balanced by six to the adversary. Where, however, the player holds two of the card led, it may be paired without hesitation. The chances are much against the dealer's being in a position to make a pair-royal, and if he should, it can be capped (unless the card be over seven) by the double pair-royal of the last player.

A further point to be considered, in deciding whether to make a pair or sequence, is the state of the score. It is calculated that the non-dealer, at five-card cribbage, should make, on an average, six in hand and play; the dealer eleven, or a shade more, in hand, play, and crib. When each has dealt once, they should stand abreast at seventeen to eighteen, and so on throughout the game. The player who has maintained this average is said to be "home," and a player who is in this condition at an advanced state of the game, should run as few risks as possible; should avoid pairing, play wide cards to avoid sequences, and so on. This is known as "playing off." If, on the other hand, he is behind his proper position, his chance of winning will depend, in a great degree, on his making more than the average number of points in play. In such case, he should embrace every opportunity of making a fifteen, a pair, or a sequence, even at the risk of giving opportunities to the enemy. This is known as "playing on." As there are sixteen tenth cards in the pack, and ten out of fifty-two are dealt, the probabilities are in favour of the players holding originally three between them, and this probability should be borne in mind, as the so doing will often help the player to a thirty-one. Suppose that the leader starts with queen, and that the other player has no tenth card, but has a seven and a four, an eight and a three, or a nine and a two. In such case it is good policy to play the seven, eight, or nine. If the first player again plays a tenth card, the second will be enabled, with his small card, to score thirty-one. If the second player have no tenth card in his own hand, the probability of his opponent holding more than one is proportionately increased.

It may be useful to illustrate these elementary principles by the play of a couple of imaginary hands. Let us suppose that A (elder hand) has the queen and six of hearts, nine of clubs, eight of diamonds and seven of spades. And B (dealer) the ace and ten of hearts, ten of clubs, five of spades, and four of diamonds.

It will be observed that A has four cards, six, seven, eight, nine, in sequence, of which either the six and nine or the seven and eight will form a fifteen. His fifth card, the queen, does not and cannot score with either of the others. Obviously the queen should form one card of his lay-out. Of the four remaining, he will naturally keep three in sequence. Which shall he throw out, the six or the nine? The six in one respect is preferable, inasmuch as it cannot be brought into sequence with the queen, whereas the nine might possibly be so. On the other hand, the six is of the same suit as the queen, and might help towards a flush. He decides, therefore, to throw out queen, nine, retaining the six, seven, and eight.

B's proper course is clearly to throw out the ace of hearts and four of diamonds, retaining the two tens and the five, which are good for six points, viz. fifteen four and a pair, and with a five or ten start would be worth twelve. On the other hand, should there be one or more tenth cards in the crib, the four and ace will give them a scoring value.

The cards are cut, and B turns up the queen of clubs.

A leads the seven of spades, saying, "seven." This is his best lead. If B should play an eight, making fifteen, A will be enabled to continue with the six, and so score a run of three. But B cannot make a fifteen, and it is therefore his best policy to go beyond that point. He plays the ten of hearts, saying, "Seventeen," or more shortly, "'-teen." A has no card which will score, and he therefore plays his highest, as the nearer he gets to thirty-one the fewer chances does he leave his opponent of getting closer to that number. He plays the eight of diamonds, saying, "Twenty-five." B plays the five of spades—"Thirty." "Go," says A. B scores one for last card, and the play of the hand is at an end.

The cards are turned up, and A counts his hand. The start has left him "no better." He scores fifteen two for the seven and eight, and three points for the run—five in all.

B is rather better off. With the start he has fifteen six and a pair—eight in all. In crib the start has helped him considerably. Without it he had fifteen two only—the ace and four combining with the queen of hearts; with the start he has six—fifteen four and a pair. The nine is useless.

A having taken his three points as non-dealer, the score stands eight to fifteen. It is now A's turn to deal, and the cards fall as follows: B has king and eight of hearts, seven of spades, eight of diamonds and three of clubs. And A (dealer) five and nine of diamonds, three of spades, ten of hearts and six of clubs.

B throws out the king of hearts and three of clubs; A, the six of clubs and nine of diamonds. The cards are cut, and the six of diamonds is turned up.

B leads the eight of hearts. This is a safe lead, for, if A scores fifteen, B can pair him; if A pairs, B can make a pair-royal. A, not being able to do either, plays the ten of hearts, making eighteen. This prevents all possibility of B's making fifteen; and should B play a tenth card, A's three will make thirty-one. There is a possibility of B's playing a nine, and so making three for the run, but this risk must be taken. Should he do so, A will in all probability score one for last card; but B, having only a seven and an eight, plays the latter, making twenty-six. This is a shade the better card, inasmuch as it brings the score one point nearer thirty-one. As it happens, the choice was unfortunate, for A, having a five, is able to make thirty-one exactly, scoring two points accordingly.

The cards are shown: B scores fifteen four, a pair, and a run of three twice over—twelve in all. A has in hand fifteen two only; but in crib he has fifteen six and a pair, making eight in all.

The game now stands—A 20, B 27. Both have made their full average in the two deals; but B's seven points ahead give him a decided advantage, and, on the principle already explained he will do well to "play off" during the remainder of the hand.

In this form of the game six cards are dealt to each player. Two being laid out for crib, four are still left in hand, and the scores accordingly average very much higher than in the five-card game. The only material difference of procedure is that in the six-card game the scoring of three extra points by the non-dealer is omitted, both players being considered to start on an equal footing; and secondly, that the cards, instead of being thrown down as soon as thirty-one or the nearest possible approach to it, is reached, are played out to the end. The player who failed to score for the "go" leads again, giving the adversary the opportunity to make fifteen, or pair him if he can. Each plays alternately as before, the player of the "last card" scoring "one" for so doing. If there is only one card left after the "go," the leader still scores it as "last card." The general principles laid down as to five-card cribbage apply equally to the six-card game, save that in the latter, as hand and crib consist of the same number of cards, the non-dealer is no longer under the same compulsion to baulk the crib, even to the destruction of his own hand. The two objects—preserving the hand and baulking the opponent's crib—are in this case on the same level, and either may legitimately be preferred, as the nature of the hand may render desirable.

In consequence of the greater facility of scoring, it is customary to play six-card cribbage twice round the board, i.e. to make the game 121 points.

Seven-card cribbage is played in the same manner as the six-card game, save that seven cards are dealt to each player, two being thrown out for crib, and five left in hand, or, with the start, six. With such a largely increased number of possible combinations, very high scores are frequent, and for this reason it is customary to make the game three times round the board, i.e. 181 points.

When three persons play, five cards are dealt to each, one card of each hand being laid out for crib, with one card from the top of the pack to complete it. The start is then cut for in the usual manner. The player to the dealer's left has first lead and first show, and deals in the succeeding hand.

The score is usually marked on a triangular board, open in the centre, or the ordinary cribbage-board may be furnished (see illustration) with a supplementary arm, turning on a pivot, and duly provided with holes, to keep the score of a third player.

Where four persons engage in the game, two play as partners against the other two, each pair sitting facing each other. Partners and deal are cut for, as at Whist, the two lowest playing against the two highest, and the lowest dealing. Five cards are dealt to each player, and each puts out one for the crib, which belongs, as in the two-handed game, to the dealer. The player to the dealer's left has the lead, and each of the others play to it in rotation. No consultation is allowed during the play, but partner may assist partner in counting his hand or crib. One partner scores for both. The cards are played right out, as in the six-card game.

The score is usually twice up and down the board, i.e. 121 points.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Hoyle's Games Modernized/Cribbage


text:
Page:Life with the Esquimaux - 1864 - Volume 1.djvu/165

144 struck upon the island leeward of us, where, after "worrying" her anchor round a point of land, she got into some slightly smooth water, and there continued pounding her larboard side on the rocks. The crew now left her and went on to the island, expecting every moment that she would part her remaining chain, and so be driven out into the bay, where there would be no possible chance of saving their lives.

Meanwhile, we ourselves were momentarily expecting destruction. It did not seem possible that our anchors could hold. Wind, and storm, and a raging sea appeared to be combined against us. Thirty souls, besides near a score of natives, were on board, and all preparing for the moment when it was probable the George Henry would be adrift on the rocks. But thanks to Providence and our good anchors, we did not stir, though at no time very far from the rocks. Every now and then I was on deck, not to hear the howling winds, for the whole cabin below resounded with their roar, but to gaze upon the terrible scene. And what a scene! It was truly awful. Never before had I seen its like—never had I pictured to my imagination the reality of such a night. As I tried to steady myself by holding fast to some fixed rope, my eyes were spell-bound by the fearful sight before me. There behind was the brig pounding away upon the rocks; and here, closer to us, was our consort, the schooner, plunging and chafing at her anchors as if mad at the restraint put upon her, and insanely desirous of letting go her hold to rush upon the shore. Ever and anon would she throw her bows low down, taking up the briny sea, and then, swiftly surging to and fro, spring fearfully on her chains. On the rocky, desolate island astern, the moving figures of those belonging to the brig could be discerned, evidently doing their best to keep warm in that bitter night. Through the rigging of our ship came the howling wind and the driving snow, while the fierce waves played and leaped about in the wildest fury. Yes, it was indeed a fearful sight, especially as it was increased in horror by the dread uncertainty of own and our consort's continued safety.


text:
Page:Discovery and Decipherment of the Trilingual Cuneiform Inscriptions.djvu/18

Rh {|
 * His Translations
 * 215
 * Lassen's 'Altpersischen Keilinschriften': A.D. 1836
 * 220
 * Holtzmann's charge of plagiarism
 * 223
 * Holtzmann's charge of plagiarism
 * 223
 * 223
 * Beer and Jacquet to Rawlinson: A.D. 1838-46
 * 287
 * Jacquet's contributions to the 'Journal Asiatique': A.D. 1838
 * 239
 * Rawlinson translates two paragraphs of the Behistun Inscription for the Royal Asiatic Society: A.D. 1888
 * 244
 * He deciphers two new characters: A.D. 1839
 * 248
 * Grotefend's later contributions: Identifies Artaxerxes: A.D. 1837
 * 251
 * Lassen and Westergaard's edition of the Persian and Susian Inscriptions: A.D. 1845
 * 253
 * Holtzmann's Criticism
 * 262
 * Edward Hincks begins his contributions: June 1846 . ..
 * 265
 * Rawlinson's Supplementary Note and Memoir: A.D. 1840 ..
 * 271
 * Estimate of his claims as a decipherer
 * 275
 * His revised Translation of the Inscriptions
 * 291
 * Hitzig, Benfey, and Oppert: A.D. 1847
 * 294
 * 265
 * Rawlinson's Supplementary Note and Memoir: A.D. 1840 ..
 * 271
 * Estimate of his claims as a decipherer
 * 275
 * His revised Translation of the Inscriptions
 * 291
 * Hitzig, Benfey, and Oppert: A.D. 1847
 * 294
 * 291
 * Hitzig, Benfey, and Oppert: A.D. 1847
 * 294
 * 294

309
 * Decipherment of the Second or Susian Column: Westergaard to Oppert: A.D. 1844-62
 * 298
 * The early efforts of Grotefend . . ..
 * 299
 * Westergaard's Essay and Translations: A.D. 1844-5
 * 300
 * Hincks's Contributions: A.D. 1840-7.
 * 307
 * De Saulcy, Löwenstern, and Holtzmann: A.D. 1850
 * 300
 * Hincks's Contributions: A.D. 1840-7.
 * 307
 * De Saulcy, Löwenstern, and Holtzmann: A.D. 1850
 * De Saulcy, Löwenstern, and Holtzmann: A.D. 1850
 * De Saulcy, Löwenstern, and Holtzmann: A.D. 1850
 * Norris: Contributions to 'J. R. A. S.': 1855.
 * 314
 * Oppert's first success . . ..
 * 320
 * Old Susian and Malamir Inscriptions
 * 322
 * Various names proposed for the Second Column
 * 324
 * Oppert on 'Le Peuple des Medes': A.D. 1879.
 * 326
 * Various names proposed for the Second Column
 * 324
 * Oppert on 'Le Peuple des Medes': A.D. 1879.
 * 326
 * 326

 * Decipherment of the Third or Babylonian Column: Hincks and Rawlinson: A.D. 1846-51
 * 337
 * The Babylonian Inscriptions: Michaux Stone and East India House
 * 337
 * }
 * The Babylonian Inscriptions: Michaux Stone and East India House
 * 337
 * }
 * }


text:
Page:Life with the Esquimaux - 1864 - Volume 1.djvu/166

Rh At length these our fears were in part fulfilled. Toward morning the hurricane became stronger. Every blast seemed as if about to tear us from our hold, and then lift us into the air and hurl us upon the rocks for destruction. Presently our eyes caught sight of the Rescue in a moment dashing before the storm toward the dreaded shore. She had parted chain, and, with one bound, went hopelessly broadside on, amid the breakers at her lee. Thump! thump! crash! crash! away the tottering masts! the ropes, the bulwarks, the all of what was once the noble-looking, beautiful, and renowned schooner Rescue! In and among the rocks, with their jagged tops tearing her to pieces, and the boiling surges driving over her decks, as the snow-storm poured its heavy drift around, even as if it were a wondrous funeral shroud, so did the doomed craft meet its fate. So, too, was my expedition boat torn from its moorings, and, sharing the Rescue's sad end, doomed me also to a wreck of disappointment in the hopes I had cherished concerning her. And all this we saw as, with startled gaze and anxious thought, we stood on deck, powerless to save, and equally powerless to avert our own doom, if it should come.

The night passed on. The morning light slowly and cheerlessly pierced through the increasing thickness of falling snow as it flew past us on the driving wind. Dimly at first, then more distinctly, but still in dread spectre-like form, loomed up the rugged island scene, with its wrecks and desolation. Figures all but indistinct were moving about, and the two ships were pounding upon the rocks, tearing at their anchors as if in the most convulsive death-throes. The Rescue was on her broadside, with her bow easterly, and evidently breaking up. The Georgiana, being in a more sheltered spot, appeared to be less hurt. But it was necessary to do something, if possible, to release the men from their position on shore, and get them on board of us, for we seemed now likely to hold on. Accordingly, the moment a lull in the wind took place, which was at 9 of the 27th, a whale-boat was carefully lowered and passed astern. Into it Rh


text: Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Candidus, William


text:
Hoyle's Games Modernized/Écarté

ÉCARTÉ.

The game of Écarté is played with what is known as the Piquet pack of thirty-two cards. The relative value of the cards is the same as at Whist, with one exception, viz. that the king is the highest card, the ace ranking between the knave and the ten. Thus the knave can take the ace, but the ace can take the ten.

Trumps, as at Whist, are the most powerful cards. A seven of trumps can take the king of another suit.

LAWS OF ÉCARTÉ.

The laws of Écarté, as accepted by the principal clubs in London and elsewhere, are as follows. We here quote them as given in "Cavendish on Écarté," a standard authority on the subject. Any reader who desires to become a skilful player cannot do better than procure and study this work.

The Club Code laws are—

1.—Each player has a right to shuffle both his own and his adversary's pack. The dealer has the right to shuffle last.

2.—The pack must not be shuffled below the table, nor in such a manner as to expose the faces of the cards, nor during the play of the hand.

3.—A cut must consist of at least two cards, and at least two must be left in the lower packet.

4.—A player exposing more than one card when cutting for deal must cut again.

5.—The player who cuts the highest Écarté card deals, and has choice of cards and seats. The choice determines both seats and cards during the play.

6.—The cut for deal holds good even if the pack be incorrect.

7.—If in cutting to the dealer a card be exposed, there must be a fresh cut.

8.—The dealer must give five cards to his adversary and five to himself, by two at a time to each, and then by three at a time to each, or vice versâ. The dealer, having selected the order in which he will distribute the cards, must not change it during that game; nor may he change it at the commencement of any subsequent game, unless he inform the non-dealer before the pack is cut.

9.—If the dealer give more or less than five cards to his adversary or to himself, or do not adhere to the order of distribution first selected, and the error be discovered before the trump card is turned, the non-dealer, before he looks at his hand, may require the dealer to rectify the error, or may claim a fresh deal.

10.—The hands having been dealt, the dealer must turn up for trumps the top card of those remaining.

11.—If the dealer turn up more than one card, the non-dealer, before he looks at his hand, may choose which of the exposed cards shall be the trump, or may claim a fresh deal. Should the non-dealer have looked at his hand, there must be a fresh deal.

12.—If, before the trump card is turned up, a faced card be discovered in the pack, there must be a fresh deal.

13.—If the dealer expose any of his own cards the deal stands good. If he expose any of his adversary's cards, the non-dealer, before he looks at his hand, may claim a fresh deal.

14.—If a player deal out of his turn, or with his adversary's pack, and the error be discovered before the trump card is turned up, the deal is void. After the trump card is turned up, it is too late to rectify the error, and if the adversary's pack has been dealt with, the packs remain changed.

15.—If, after the trump card is turned up, and before proposing, or, if there is no proposal, before playing, it be discovered that the non-dealer has more than five cards, he may claim a fresh deal. Should the non-dealer not claim a fresh deal, he discards the superfluous cards, and the dealer is not entitled to see them.

16.—If, after the trump card is turned up, and before proposing, or, if there is no proposal, before playing, it be discovered that the non-dealer has less than five cards, he may have his hand completed from the stock, or may claim a fresh deal.

17.—If, after the trump card is turned up, and before the dealer accepts or refuses, or, if there is no proposal, before he plays, it be discovered that he has dealt himself more than five cards, the non-dealer may claim a fresh deal. Should he not claim a fresh deal, he draws the superfluous cards from the dealer's hand. Should the dealer have taken up his hand, the non-dealer is entitled to look at the cards he draws.

18.—If, after the trump card is turned up, and before the dealer accepts or refuses, or, if there is no proposal, before he plays, it be discovered that the dealer has less than five cards, the non-dealer may permit the dealer to complete his hand from the stock, or may claim a fresh deal.

19.—If a fresh deal be not claimed when the wrong number of cards are dealt, the dealer cannot mark the king turned up.

20.—If the non-dealer play without taking cards, and it be then discovered that he has more or less than five cards, there must be a fresh deal.

21.—If the dealer play without taking cards, and it be then discovered that he has more or less than five cards, his adversary may claim a fresh deal.

22.—If a king be turned up, the dealer is entitled to mark it at any time before the trump card of the next deal is turned up.

23.—If either player hold the king of trumps, he must announce it before playing his first card, or he loses the right to mark it. It is not sufficient to mark the king held in hand without announcing it.

24.—If the king be the card first led, it may be announced at any time prior to its being played to. If the king be the card first played by the dealer, he may announce it at any time before he plays again.

25.—If a player, not holding the king, announce it, and fail to declare his error before he has played a card, the adversary may correct the score, and has the option of requiring the hands to be played over again, notwithstanding that he may have abandoned his hand. If the offender win the point he marks nothing; if he win the vole he marks only one; if he win the point when his adversary has played without proposing, or has refused the first proposal, he marks only one. But if the adversary himself hold the king, there is no penalty.

26.—If a player propose, he cannot retract; nor can he alter the number of cards asked for.

27.—The dealer, having accepted or refused, cannot retract. The dealer, if required, must inform his adversary how many cards he has taken.

28.—Each player, before taking cards, must put his discard face downward on the table, apart from the stock, and from his adversary's discard. Cards once discarded must not be looked at.

29.—If the non-dealer take more cards than he has discarded, and mix any of them with his hand, the dealer may claim a fresh deal. If the dealer elect to play the hand, he draws the superfluous cards from the non-dealer's hand. Should the non-dealer have taken up any of the cards given him, the dealer is entitled to look at the cards he draws.

30.—If the non-dealer asks for less cards than he has discarded, the dealer counts as tricks all cards which cannot be played to.

31.—If the dealer give his adversary more cards than he has asked for, the non-dealer may claim a fresh deal. If the non-dealer elect to play the hand, he discards the superfluous cards, and the dealer is not entitled to see them.

32.—If the dealer give his adversary less cards than he has asked for, the non-dealer may claim a fresh deal. If the non-dealer elect to play the hand, he has it completed from the stock.

33.—If the dealer give himself more cards than he has discarded, and mix any of them with his hand, the non-dealer may claim a fresh deal. If the non-dealer elect to play the hand, he draws the superfluous cards from the dealer's hand. Should the dealer have taken up any of the cards he has given himself, the non-dealer is entitled to look at the cards he draws.

34.—If the dealer give himself less cards than he has discarded, he may, before playing, complete his hand from the stock. If the dealer play with less than five cards, the non-dealer counts as tricks all cards which cannot be played to.

35.—If a faced card be found in the stock after discarding, both players have a right to see it. The faced card must be thrown aside, and the next card given instead.

36.—If, in giving cards, any of the non-dealer's are exposed, he has the option of taking them; should the non-dealer refuse them, they must be thrown aside and the next cards given instead. If the dealer expose any of his own cards, he must take them.

37.—If, after giving the cards, the dealer turn up a card in error, as though it were the trump card, he cannot refuse another discard. If another be demanded, the non-dealer has the option of taking the exposed card.

38.—If the dealer accept when there are not sufficient cards left in the stock to enable the players to exchange as many cards as they wish, the non-dealer is entitled to exchange as many as he asked for, or, if there are not enough, as many as there are left, and the dealer must play his hand; the dealer is at liberty to accept, conditionally, on there being cards enough in the stock.

39.—A card led in turn cannot be taken up again. A card played to a lead may be taken up again to save a revoke or to correct the error of not winning a trick when able, and then only prior to another card being led.

40.—If a card be led out of turn, it may be taken up again, prior to its being played to; after it has been played to, the error cannot be rectified.

41.—If the leader name one suit and play another, the adversary may play to the card led, or may require the leader to play the suit named. If the leader have none of the suit named, the card led cannot be withdrawn.

42.—If a player abandon his hand when he has not made a trick, his adversary is entitled to mark the vole. If a player abandon his hand after he has made one or two tricks, his adversary is entitled to mark the point. But if a player throw down his cards, claiming to score, the hand is not abandoned, and there is no penalty.

43.—If a player renounce when he holds a card of the suit led, or if a player fail to win the trick when able, his adversary has the option of requiring the hands to be played again, notwithstanding that he may have abandoned his hand. If the offender win the point he marks nothing; if he win the vole, he marks only one; if he win the point when his adversary has played without proposing, or has refused the first proposal, he marks only one. Should the card played in error be taken up again prior to another card being led (as provided by Law 39), there is no penalty.

44.—A player may call for new cards at his own expense, at any time before the pack is cut for the next deal. He must call for two new packs, of which the dealer has choice.

45.—If a pack be discovered to be incorrect, redundant, or imperfect, the deal in which the discovery is made is void; all preceding deals stand good.

46.—The game is five up. By agreement, the game may count a treble if the adversary has not scored; a double if he has scored one or two; a single if he has scored three or four.

47.—A player turning up a king, or holding the king of trumps in his hand, is entitled to mark one.

48.—A player winning the point is entitled to mark one; a player winning the vole is entitled to mark two.

49.—If the non-dealer play without proposing, and fail to win the point, his adversary is entitled to mark two. If the dealer refuse the first proposal, and fail to win the point, the non-dealer is entitled to mark two. These scores apply only to the first proposal or refusal in a hand, and only to the point, the score for the vole being unaffected.

50.—If a player omit to mark his score, he may rectify the omission at any time before the trump card of the next deal is turned up.

51.—An admitted overscore can be taken down at any time during the game.

The following French terms are commonly used at Écarté:

 * Trump.— To cut.— To deal.— The cards thrown aside.— To play a superior on an inferior card.— All five tricks made by either player.— Three out of the five made by either player. Asking for fresh cards.— Not to answer the suit led.

We will now suppose, by way of illustration, that A and Y play a game of Écarté.

Two packs of different colour or pattern, say a red and a white pack, are used. From these packs the cards from two to six are extracted. A and Y cut for deal; A cuts the knave, Y the ace. A therefore deals, as knave is in this game higher than ace.

The cards having been shuffled, A gives the pack to Y to be cut. A then deals three cards to his adversary, three to himself, then two to his adversary and two to himself, and turns up the king of spades. "I mark the king," says A (see Law 22).

A does not look at his cards, but waits to see what his adversary will do. Y looks at his hand, and says, "I propose." A looks at his hand, and finds in it queen, knave, ace of spades, the ace of diamonds, and the eight of hearts. A has the trick now to a certainty, and cannot lose it by accepting, the low heart being the weak point in his hand. The hand of Y was ten of spades, king of hearts, ten and seven of diamonds, and nine of clubs. Y takes three cards; A takes two. Y takes in the king of diamonds, the seven of spades, and the seven of hearts; A takes in the nine and eight of spades, and must win the vole.

Y now deals, and turns the nine of clubs as trumps. A looks at his hand, and finds in it the king and ace of diamonds, the eight and seven of hearts, and the ten of spades. A proposes. Y looks at his hand, and finds king, queen, knave of spades, eight and seven of clubs. "Play," says Y, and he wins the vole. Score: Y = 2; A = 3.

With such a hand as Y held, to accept the proposal would have been wrong, the chances being in his favour.

A now deals, and turns knave of diamonds. Y looks at his cards, and finds they consist of queen, ten of diamonds, ten and eight of clubs, and eight of hearts. He elects to play without proposing. A's hand consists of knave of clubs, ace, knave, ten of hearts, and eight of diamonds. Y may now win or lose the point, according to the cards he leads.

If he led queen, then ten of diamonds, he would lose the point. If he led ten of clubs, he would win the point. The reader should place the cards and play out these hands.

We will suppose that Y played correctly and won the point; the game stands at 3 all.

It is now Y's turn to deal. We will suppose that he does so, and wins the point; the game is then, Y = 4; A = 3.

A now deals, and turns the nine of diamonds. Y's hand consists of queen, knave of diamonds, king, queen, ace of spades. Y elects to play. A looks at his hands, and finds in it the king, ace of diamonds, the ace of hearts, the king of clubs, and the eight of spades.

Y must win the game if he play correctly; but, being anxious to win more tricks than are necessary, he loses it by reckless play. Y leads king of spades, on which A plays eight of spades, without marking the king. A does this because Y, having played without proposing, will lose two if he lose the point. To mark the king will be useless, if Y win the point; hence A conceals from Y the fact of his holding the king. Y plays incautiously, and leads as his second lead queen of diamonds; A wins with king of diamonds, and leads king of clubs, which Y trumps, and leads queen of spades, which A trumps, and leads ace of hearts, which wins the game.

If Y had followed his first lead with queen of spades, he must have won the game; but, imagining that A could not hold the king because he did not mark it, he played feebly, and lost the game.

This example will give some idea of the play of a hand, and of the different results which follow the correct and incorrect play of even five cards.

Great stress is laid by scientific Écarté-players on what are termed Jeux de règle, that is, hands which ought to be played without "proposing" or "accepting." When the cards held by a player are so good that he cannot fail to win three tricks unless his adversary hold two trumps, it is the rule to play without proposing. It is easy, by an examination of the five cards, to at once perceive how the trick must be won, unless the adversary hold two trumps. Here are a few examples:

King, queen, knave of spades, eight of hearts (trumps), eight of diamonds. Lead king of spades; if not trumped, follow with queen, etc.

With three trumps, play without proposing. Likewise with two trumps, if the other cards belong to one suit, or with two cards of one suit, one of which is the king or queen.

Play if holding only one trump, provided the other cards are four of one suit, one being a king, or three cards of one suit, one being a king or queen, and the fifth card being a king or queen.

Play with no trump if three queens are held, or four court cards.

When playing these hands (and they apply mainly to the leader) it is important to remember the disadvantage that follows leading from a suit of two when one is a high, the other a much lower card, and the advantage of leading from a suit of two when these are in sequence.

Take the following hands as examples:

A holds queen of clubs, queen of diamonds, queen and eight of hearts, and eight of spades, the ten of spades being turned up as trump.

Y holds king and nine of hearts, nine and seven of diamonds, and nine of spades.

If A lead the queen of hearts, he must lose the point, no matter how Y plays. If, however, he lead either of his single queens, he may win the point, if Y, after winning the queen of clubs, lead the king of hearts.

Again, A holds queen, ten, of spades; knave, ten, of hearts; ten of diamonds; diamonds being trumps.

Y holds knave, seven, of spades; seven of hearts; and knave, eight, of diamonds.

If A lead the queen of spades, he loses the trick. If he lead knave and then ten of hearts, he wins the trick.

From these examples it will be evident that cards in sequence, or single cards, are better as leads than one high card, and then a small one of a two-card suit. Also it is desirable that the adversary should be the leader when the third lead occurs.

What is called being "put to a card," is, if possible, to be avoided. The following will serve as an example:

A holds king, knave, ten, of hearts; queen of diamonds, and knave of spades (nine of clubs turned up). A proposes, and is refused. He may now conclude that Y has two trumps at least.

A leads king of hearts, which wins; then knave, which wins. If Y holds ace of hearts, A must lose the point. If, however, Y hold either a diamond lower than the queen, or a spade lower than the knave, A may win, if he keep the right card; if, however, A play a third heart, and this is trumped, and Y play, say, queen of trumps, A must discard either his queen of diamonds or his knave of spades, and he has no guide as to which to discard. Instead, therefore, of playing the third heart he should lead either the diamond or the spade, and thus avoid being "put to a card."

The dealer has the option of refusing or accepting; before doing either, he should not only consider well the cards in his hand, but the state of the score.

It is not unusual for a player who may hold the trick for certainty to propose in the hopes of being refused, in order that he may, by winning the trick, score two. If this occurred at the score of three, the results would be fatal.

As a general rule, refuse if only two cards can be discarded. A king or a trump should not be discarded in the first instance.

With three trumps, refuse, unless the king of trumps is one of the three, when there is a great chance that the cards taken in may enable the vole to be won.

With only one trump and one king, no matter what the other suits may be, if not having a card higher than a ten, accept. But with one trump, two queens guarded, or a king and queen guarded, refuse. Although in many cases, where it is the rule to play, it is two to one in favour of the player winning the point, it must not be imagined that he will always win. He may win twice out of three times, but it is possible for the adversary to hold exceptionally good cards, and to win the point against the jeu de règle. For example, A holds queen, ace, and seven of hearts (trumps), king of spades, king of diamonds, and, of course, plays without proposing. Y holds king, knave, nine, and eight of hearts, and nine of clubs, and must win the point; but for A to propose would have been wrong, his hand being strong enough to win four times out of five.

When a player proposes, and is refused, he may form an estimate of the suit or suits out of trumps in which his adversary it likely to be strong. Suppose A, the non-dealer, hold queen, knave of spades, ace of hearts, seven of clubs, and knave of diamonds (trumps). The probabilities are that Y is strong in hearts and clubs, or holds two trumps. The queen of spades in this case should, of course, be led; and, if it win, should be followed by the knave.

The condition of the score ought to be considered before proposing or playing without proposing. If the adversary be at the score of three, it is dangerous to play without proposing, unless the hand be very strong. If the adversary be at four, it is better not to propose if the non-dealer's hand be fairly strong, unless the king be held, as there is a chance of the dealer drawing the king, and at once scoring game.

The high cards which have been discarded should be remembered, because lower cards are then of greater value; thus, if the knave and ace of hearts have been discarded, and the king and ten are drawn, there can be only one card, viz., the queen of hearts, which is better than the ten, and in this suit the ten is equivalent to the knave held originally.

Inexperienced players, as a rule, are too apt to propose, and to continue proposing till the pack is exhausted. As there are eight trumps in the pack, a player gains no advantage if he hold four of these, when his adversary also holds four. His hand looks better than if he held only two, but whilst he has furnished himself with trumps, his adversary has done likewise.

In order to play Écarté well, take a pack of cards, and deal out the hands against an imaginary or dummy adversary; remember those hands under the heading Jeux de règle, and then note how the hand can be best played to secure the point.

title: Hoyle's Games Modernized/Écarté