The first targets of Wolgast’s criticism were publishers, writers and illustrators who for the sake of improving their income had lowered their standards to the degree that they had produced what he called Schundliteratur (trash). Under this term he grouped a great variety of books that he considered to be in poor taste by being overly sentimental, overly didactic, too trite, too “incredible” as far as their plots and characters were concerned, or merely shabby in their style and illustrations. Among these he counted not only works cheaply printed for “mass consumption” (often given away in department stores as advertisements) but also mystery, adventure and detective stories characterized by sensationalism and clichés, as well as the popular girls’ books patterned in a sentimental style after Richardson’s Pamela but within a German upper-class setting. Children would fare much better without reading these “trivia,” said Wolgast, as they were quite unrelated to good taste.
Wolgast was the first critic who called for quality control in children’s literature on the basis of literary, and artistic standards. He appealed to writers, illustrators and publishers to show their respect for the child by producing their very best. Writers should abstain from “talking down” to the child, artists should not “scribble,” and publishers should not look for business first. Significantly, Wolgast was also the first critic to voice his objection against didacticism in childrens’ literature. Gedike, Menzel, and others, in spite of their critical views, had taken for granted that childrens’ books were primarily there to teach certain things. Wolgast called the didactic trend an “abuse” of children’s literature. Whenever an interest group, be it religious, educational, political, or economic in nature, used the child’s book as a means to another end, thus reducing the story itself to a carrier of his message, it showed little respect for literature and less for the child. Children deserved respect, insisted Wolgast, and therefore, he demanded for them the best that national literature and world literature had to offer. Good quality books were meant to develop good taste in the child and to bring him in touch with humanity as a whole.40
Wolgast made a particular point of attacking children’s books that taught chauvinism. In one of his reviews he pointed out that one story character had been eager to forgive his friend the sins of lying, cheating, and stealing, but that he had been pitiless in his judgment when he found out that he had faltered in his loyalty to the fatherland. Wolgast expressed his dismay at the discovery that a writer should have placed the value of loyalty to the nation above that of respect for the Ten Commandments. This was pure chauvinism, he wrote, which was as misplaced in children’s literature as were religious and secular didacticism, business interests, or political ideologies.41
Due to Wolgast’s initiative, children’s book authors, publishers and illustrators worked together to produce several series of inexpensive paperback editions with tasteful designs and in attractive formats. These were intended to bring to young people the very best of national and world literature, thus providing a bridge for human understanding through literature. Among others, he published Schöne Kinderreime (Beautiful Children’s Rhymes), the folktales by the Brothers Grimm, a new edition of the Nibelungenlied (Song of the Nibelungs), tales by Hebel and Hauff, medieval chapbooks, memoirs of the Napoleonic wars and a children’s book version of Wilhelm Tell (William Tell), in addition to a number of children’s classics from other lands. In 1909 the Hillger Publishing Company brought out a series entitled Deutsche Jugendbücherei (German Youth Book Library), and between 1903 and 1910 the Kunstwart Publishing House, representing the Art Education movement, issued the series Der deutsche Spielmann (The German Organ Grinder), all of which contributed much to raise the quality and respectability of children’s literature in Germany. Above all, these publications showed that it was perfectly possible to combine an emphasis on national literature and folklore with a genuine interest in world literature. Wolgast’s various writings were pioneering also in regard to the development of children’s book illustrations in Germany, for in the wake of the Children’s Literature movement such famous illustrators as Ernst Kreidolf, Fritz Kredel, Else Wenz-Viëtor, Elsa Eisgruber and others produced the very best of their works.42
On several accounts Wolgast was strongly challenged, however. One of the major criticisms was voiced by Lichtenberger, on the basis that Wolgast had gone “overboard” by advocating “art for art’s sake” in children’s literature. It was wrong, he said, to apply the same aesthetic and literary criteria to children’s books as to books written for adults. Such an approach ignored all the insights gained through theories of education and psychology pertaining to child development. In the first place, it was necessary to recognize that books for children had to have “childlike” qualities (without being childish or condescending in tone or simplistic in regard to the illustrations). This meant that it would have to recognize children’s needs while appealing to the child’s way of thinking and the child’s imagination. Such an approach to criticism found strong support among the members of the Children’s Literature Association, most of whom represented teachers who were informed about child development, and it is still widely accepted today.43
The second challenge came from the Socialist Party, the SPD, claiming that Wolgast, in his over-emphasis on aesthetic criteria, had not given enough attention to the needs of workers’ children. On the contrary, his sharp criticism of so-called “tendentious literature” had come into direct conflict with the promotional efforts of the SPD and its ideology and should be retracted or amended. During an official meeting of the National Children’s Literature Association, this criticism gained a hearing, but it was not recognized as valid. Upon a long discussion of the matter, the leader of the Socialist Party retracted his own letter of complaint while in principle acknowledging the validity of the Association’s concern with quality control based on Wolgast’s ideas.44 For Wolgast himself this was a real victory.
A third and more serious challenge came from Severin Rüttgers, an educator who had well established his reputation in children’s literature circles by his publications on the literary education of elementary school children. He attacked Wolgast, and with him the entire Art Education movement, for having been too “bookish” and too “aesthetic” in their evaluation of art and literature for children. In particular, he accused Wolgast of having labelled sound patriotism in children’s books as “chauvinistic trends.” Such an approach to criticism revealed nothing less than that Wolgast himself lacked warm feelings for the fatherland, possibly because he simply lacked patriotism. As early as 1913 Rüttgers had previously denounced some trends in German education as “unpatriotic” and “sterile” on a similar basis, while coming to the conclusion that aestheticism was derived from an unhealthy overemphasis on a humanistic-classical education. Rüttgers reasoned, then and now, that as an antidote to such a trend teachers should place a greater emphasis on German and Nordic Germanic folklore in their reading curricula at all levels, so as to build up in children a love of home and country. In fact, it was quite sufficient, he wrote, if elementary school children read nothing else but German and Nordic Germanic folktales, myths, and legends, in addition to some medieval chapbooks, and, perhaps, some regional ballads.45
Much of the discussion on this issue was carried on in various issues of the Jugendschriften-Warte, especially after World War I. The editors gave equal space to Wolgast and Rüttgers, but it appeared that Wolgast was in a defensive position throughout. Nevertheless, he stated quite clearly that, while he had never denied the value of a German and Nordic Germanic folklore emphasis, he had consistently rejected chauvinism in children’s books like any other type of didacticism, be it of a religious or secular nature. Children’s books should never be used as a means to another end, he concluded emphatically.46
During the following years it became evident that Rüttgers had won the argument as far as the majority of the teachers were concerned. Although opinions were still divided among them as a professional group,