Janie Laursen
Professor Sánchez-Eppler
Working with Manuscripts
October 5, 2011
Manuscript Identification: The Charlieshope Library
The Sofia Smith Collection at Smith College contains an incredibly large and diverse
collection of papers connected to the Hale family. One small portion of this collection is a set of
homemade books, created by the children of Edward Everett and Emily Hale and several of their
friends between 1886 and 1889. The children were inspired to create their collection, which they
called the Charlieshope Library, by the Franklin Lending Library, a similar project their father
and his siblings had undertaken in their own childhood. The library, as it survives today, contains
52 books and one (partial) index of the library’s contents.
My initial attraction to this collection was the novelty that all of the books are incredibly
small. Though the books vary widely in appearance, several patterns are evident, size being the
most prominent. The smallest of the manuscripts is two inches tall and one and half inches wide,
and the largest only six and half inches tall by four inches. Common dimensions are two and half
inches tall by two inches wide (the most prevalent), two by two and half inches, four by two and
half inches, and three by two inches, though there are individual books with irregular sizes.
The charm of the books, which were handmade by the “members” of the Charlieshope
Library, is amplified by the aesthetic techniques the children used to bind the books. Though
they used several different methods, many books of the same size tend to resemble each other in
composition. The majority of the two and half by two inch as well as four by two and half inch
books (the ones particularly similar in shape to full-sized books) are bound in the same way, with
decorative wallpaper covers trimmed with colored tape on the spine and corners to resemble
hardcover books. The more irregularly shaped books – those which are wider than they are tall or
are square – generally are more simply constructed, with just a decorative paper cover. Two of
the books – a two volume story entitled “Flossie and Dick,” which were Zelle Costello’s only
contribution to the library – differ noticeably from what emerges as standard formatting for these
books in that its corners have been cut to be rounded, though the job was not done particularly
neatly. A few of the books are bound in the same paper they are written on, and some have no
cover at all.
Just as the cover styles of the books differs widely, so does the formatting of the title and
cover pages. Many of the books include a formal cover page including the title, often the author
(though many are unattributed), and, occasionally, a table of contents. They also frequently
include the name of the “publisher” of the book, primarily listing “Morse Hale, & Co.” Very few
are dated, though the majority of those which are note the year 1866. Occasionally, the cover
will also feature labels, not only of the book’s title but also organizational keys. At least ten of
the covers have small, diamond shaped white stickers with a number on them, and several have a
number followed by “shelf” listed.
The paper used for the interior of these books is inconsistent; it seems that the children
used whatever paper was available. While some of the books are written on plain white paper,
many use various types of lined paper, and some show remnants of previous use. The first
volume of “Flossie and Dick,” for example, uses a piece of paper which shows a portion of an
embossed seal, of which only “shers & Chapin – Boston” is visible. The stories range in length:
whilemany of the books are neatly filled with one, two, or three different plots, some require
several volumes, such as “The Desk Stories,” which fill three books. Contrarily, several of the
books remain unfinished. The majority of the volumes also include illustrations, some using only
half of a page while other more elaborate pictures are given entire pages to themselves.
The books are equally diverse in the genre of their contents. Fairy stories are prominently
featured in the collection, including stories such as “The Fairy that Lived in a Tree,” “Fairy
Stories,” and “The Fairy Festival.” Other fantastic storylines are also used, like “What the
Playthings Said to Each Other on Midsummer Night,” a story written by one of the children
under the alias of “A Robin” about toys that come alive. However, the contributors did not limit
themselves to fantasy, but also wrote many adventure stories, including plots about shipwrecks
and the Civil War. This wide assortment of subject matter can be analyzed from many different
perspectives. What the children chose to write about, and the style in which they wrote, is highly
reflective of the kinds of literature they were themselves reading. The plots the authors create
clearly resemble established genres of literature, some of which are not necessarily explicitly
“children’s” literature. Simultaneously, the children’s choices also reflect their own
understanding of what literature is. One book is titled “The Lady in Brown: A Fairy Story for
Little Children.” This clearly stated intention as for children shows a complex relationship
between what they understand as children’s literature and how they themselves produce literature
for other children.
I find the sheer amount of variety in size, construction, format, and content one of the
most attractive aspects of this set of manuscripts. The children had both published books and the
Franklin Lending Library after which to model their enterprise, yet the Charlieshope Library
retains a very distinct sense of individualism and personality. Though the library was clearly
intended to be a miniature version of a real library, the leniency with which the children
approached the format books should take is an interesting issue. While many of the books are
designed to resemble hardcover published books as possible, the children also contributed very
plain manuscripts that hardly resemble hardcovers at all. This range suggests that though part of
the play of the library was to practice printmaking, the importance of the stories themselves was
also clearly on their minds.
The authors themselves are interesting on several levels. The most prolific author of the
library was Ellen Day Hale, otherwise known as Nelly. Clearly the primary organizer and
participant of the library, Nelly wrote twelve of the surviving books and co-authored three
others. Nelly’s contributions are particularly noticeable for their extensive and often elaborate
illustrations. As Ellen grew up to become a professional artist, these illustrations are fascinating
examples of her early work.
The library is also appealing because although it was inspired by earlier Hales and stayed
in the Hale household, the majority of the members were not family members but rather friends
of Ellen and her brother Arthur. The non-Hale authors, of which there are at least twelve
represented in the surviving books, suggests that creating a community of both authors and
readers was important to the young Hales. Their interest not only in producing their own books
but in encouraging their friends to also create and read suggests that the children not only had an
awareness of how books were made but also the role books play in a larger, communal context.
I also find it remarkable that the majority of these authors – at least nine of the fifteen
explicitly declared writers – are girls. I theorize that this might be because authors were solicited
from amongst Nelly’s friends, rather than Arthurs’, as she appears to be the one who led the
project. Nevertheless, the interest of young girls in participating in the creation of books and
their having the opportunity to do so in a mock-professional way is a fascinating situation.
One of the strengths and challenges with working with this collection of manuscripts is
the large number of analytical angles the library lends itself to. Questions of children’s play as
imitation of adult professions, female authorship, the role of both adult and children’s literature
in children’s lives, and the role of books in a larger community are all compacted into the
manuscripts. All of these questions stand out as possible and likely fruitful areas of investigation
as I continue with my work on these manuscripts, and I am sure that even more areas of interest
will arise as I dig deeper into their contents and context.