according to Fitzjames Stephen, than the troops who stormed the Redan. The contempt with which twentieth century criticism has dismissed them as sentimentalized contrasts vividly with the enthusiasm and tears of con-temporaries. What does this tell us? Is it simply the verdict of one age upon another, to be replaced in its turn by the verdict of a future age on our own (arguably this has already begun), and to be explained in terms of the needs and values of the age that responds? Or is some kind of objective criterion possible in such judgments? I have come across no topic that raises this issue so acutely as child deaths, because it is the topic on which the difference between contemporary and modern judgments is most extreme: the once great popularity of The Fairchild Family and the overwhelming impact of the deaths of Nell, Paul, and Eva now leave us puzzled, indifferent, even vaguely resentful. The question of value judgments and the permanence of the canon, once so central and so unquestioned in literary criticism, now so profoundly interrogated and explained as the rationalization of power, takes us to the heart of literary controversy today. So whereas in the first four chapters I have tried to write directly about the original material, allowing these often moving stories and wonderful novels to affect the reader directly, mentioning modern scholars and critics only when they impinge directly on the discussion, and then only briefly, in the last chapter I confront recent critics explicitly and use the matter of child death to enter into current controversies. For some readers this may seem the most important chapter, for others it may the one to skip.
|
No one writes a book like this all by himself; and I am more than usually conscious of how much I owe to others. Impersonal thanks are due to those whose published work has helped me to cope with my ignorance, especially to the historians who have gathered together some of the material I have used. Although I have tried to go to the original sources where feasible, I owe much to the editorial and scholarly work of Robert Cecil, Philip Collins, Leonore Davidoff and Catherine Hall, David Grylls and Linda Pollock. Peter Wright and Warren Lenney did their best to correct my medical ignorance, and the late David Eversley my ignorance of demography; they must of course not be held responsible if it still shows. The deepest and most important thanks are due to those who read my first draft and offered much good advice: John Burrow, Philip Collins, Tony Thorlby, and above all Wayne Booth, who is as conscious of how much of his good advice I did not take as I am of how much I did.
|
|