A History of Children's Play and Play Environments

Toward a Contemporary Child-Saving Movement

Joe L. Frost

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2010
• ISBN:
  9781135251666
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Didattica
• Subtopic: Didattica generale

Children's play throughout history has been free, spontaneous, and intertwined with work, set in the playgrounds of the fields, streams, and barnyards. Children in cities enjoyed similar forms of play but their playgrounds were the vacant lands and parks. Today, children have become increasingly inactive, abandoning traditional outdoor play for sedentary, indoor cyber play and poor diets. The consequences of play deprivation, the elimination and diminution of recess, and the abandonment of outdoor play are fundamental issues in a growing crisis that threatens the health, development, and welfare of children.

This valuable book traces the history of children's play and play environments from their roots in ancient Greece and Rome to the present time in the high stakes testing environment. Through this exploration, scholar Dr. Joe Frost shows how this history informs where we are today and why we need to re-establish play as a priority. Ultimately, the author proposes active solutions to play deprivation. This book is a must-read for scholars, researchers, and students in the fields of early childhood education and child development.

1: Early Historical Views on Children’s Play

What! Is it nothing to be happy, nothing to run and jump all day? He will never be so busy again all his life long. Plato, in his Republic, which is considered so stern, teaches the children only through festivals, games, songs, and amusements. It seems as if he had accomplished his purpose when he had taught them to be happy ... Do not be afraid, therefore, of this so-called idleness. (Rousseau, 2001, p. 84)

Records of children’s play date back to antiquity, even earlier than classical Athens and Greece. Archaeological excavations of ancient China, Peru, and Egypt reveal drawings of various play scenes and play things such as tops, dolls, rattles, and other toys made of pottery and metal. Anthropological studies of primitive people among various cultures reveal evidence of acting, singing, storytelling, arts and craft s, dancing and rhythmic movement, and games and contests (Mitchell, 1937). Many games were of religious signifi cance, dating back to ancient rites of divination. Plato expressed the idea that people were God’s playthings and should spend their lives in the noblest of pastimes. He urged state legislation regarding children’s games and offered practical advice to mothers on nursery play (Johnson, 1937). Plato was far from alone in his belief that play was valuable for children’s development. Th roughout recorded history, many of the most prominent philosophers/educators/thinkers appeared to understand that play was essential to the development of a full childhood and a happy and well-developed person.

Children’s Play in Ancient Greece and Rome

During the time of Plato and Aristotle, about a half century before the birth of Christ, the classical Athenian attitude toward children saw them as simply cute, not to be taken too seriously, but to be loved and enjoyed. Plato divided children’s development into levels or stages. During infancy (birth to 3 years) the child was to be protected and cared for, develop no fears, and experience little pain. The nursery stage (3 to 6 years) was for playing, and hearing mother goose stories and fairy tales. Punishment was to be infrequent and mild. During the elementary stage (6–13 years) boys and girls should be placed in separate living quarters and learn letters, mathematics, music, religion and morals. Boys were to receive some military training. The middle stage (13 to 16 years) was for advanced study of arithmetic, poetry, and music. From 16 to 20 years boys were to receive formal military and gymnastics training.

Up until the entry to formal education outside the home, children were to exercise through play under the watchful supervision of adults. They were allowed to play much as they pleased, but their play was seen as less serious and of lesser consequence than the play of adults. Indeed, the act of grown men entering into the games of children was viewed with contempt—a waste of time. Children’s play was to be diverted into productive channels such as helping to identify aptitudes, and toys were to be used to prepare for future occupations as adults, such as building and teaching (Golden, 1990).

Plato’s Republic (360 B.C.) is his chief treatise on education (Rusk, 1956). Jean-Jacques Rousseau later called this the greatest treatise on education ever written and said that those who wished to know the meaning of public education should read it. Education for Plato would begin early because of the importance of initial impressions. Tales and fables should be carefully selected to ensure that those fi rst heard by the child should be models of virtue. Good (or virtue) and evil were considered of such importance as to be substituted for true and false, for God is the author of all things good and children must be taught to conform to His principles. Music and gymnastics, Plato believed, should also begin early, for musical training is the most potent of educational instruments and is the counterpart of gymnastics. “Education has two branches—one of gymnastics, which is concerned with the body, and the other of music, which is designed for the improvement of the soul” (Plato, 2000, p. 153). As accurately pointed out by Rusk (1956), we do not have to look to modern times, or to Herbart, Froebel, or Montessori, to fi nd play as a guiding principle in education, for such was formulated by Plato.

Plato’s proposed education would be a sort of amusement, allowing the teacher to better determine the natural bent of the child, and compulsion would not be used. In his Laws, Plato (2000) emphasized the positive signifi cance of play, yet he admitted that there are both good and bad pleasures (Plato, 1952, p. 384), just as there are good and bad or right and wrong opinions (p. 623). Plato and other great thinkers to follow were concerned with children’s play and with other fundamental factors in education. In defi ning the very nature and power of education, Plato inserts play into a central role.

... anyone who would be good at anything must practice that thing from his youth upwards, both in sport and earnest ... for example, he who is to be a good builder, should play at building children’s houses; ... the future warrior should learn riding, or some other exercise ... The most important part of education is right training in the nursery. (Plato, 1952, p. 649)

Up to the age of six boys and girls were to play together, but after the age of six they were to be separated. “Let boys live with boys and girls in like manner with girls” (Plato, 1952, p. 650). At the right times or ages, the appropriate training would be introduced: music, gymnastics, arithmetic, the alphabet, the mind of nature existing in the stars. All children would have such knowledge as that of a child learning the alphabet, but those who would be rulers of the state would have additional studies to prepare for their future role.

The Greek educational games included games for the nursery, gymnastic exercises for the school, and the social games of adults. In the nursery, both boys and girls played with rattles, hoops, balls, swings and tops. Even then, adults distinguished between boys and girls in their provision of toys. There were stilts and carts for the boys and dolls for the girls, and children were allowed to make their own toys. Plato did not countenance an excessive number of toys but advocated play tools for carpentry and free play or natural modes of amusement. Many Greek children’s outdoor games are familiar even today; Odd or Even, Slap in the Dark (guessing who boxed the ear), Hunt the Slipper, Catch Ball, Hide and Seek, Heads or Tails, Tortoise, Blind Man’s Buff , Kiss in the Ring, Tag, and many others. A Greek boy was sent to the palaestra (ancient Greek wrestling school) at age seven. Here, at the break of day for school he engaged, along with his pedagogue, in early morning active play: racing, leaping, wrestling, singing, and dancing until time for later morning rest and lunch. Older boys were admitted to the gymnasia for participation in the pentathlon: running, jumping, throwing the discus, boxing, and wrestling. Little wonder that the world still marvels at the physical perfection of the ancient Greeks and their influence on art, especially sculpture (Johnson, 1937).

Aristotle studied with Plato for twenty years, then traveled, tutored Alexander the Great, and after twelve years returned to Athens and established the Lyceum, a school located in a garden, where he taught until his death. He did not write a book dedicated to education but discussed the topic in other works (Aristotle, 1925, 1943). He proposed that training (Aristotle, 1943) should fall into stages according to children’s developmental stages: early home education, grammar school, and training in rhetoric from fi ve to seven years of age. The curriculum included reading and writing for utility, gymnastics for health and strength, and music for character formation, enjoyment, and education. The curricula were expanded for older children. For health and proper habits, the young child should be given milk, allowed to move her body, and exposed to cold. Up until the age of fi ve there should be no demands for study or labor lest growth be impeded, but there should be suffi cient motion to prevent the limbs from being inactive. The home rearing should allow much play and physical exercise. This could be achieved through amusements, which were for the most part imitations of future occupations. The rattle was given to infants because it was suited to the infant mind but education was a rattle or toy suited for older children.

Aristotle, like Plato, believed that until children are fi ve years old they should be taught nothing lest it hinder growth. Children should be as active as possible, even in their play, to avoid an indolent habit of body. Such activity could be acquired through play, which should not be too hard or too easy—children who played slowly or without spirit would not develop an aptitude for any branch of science. During the fi rst few years of a child’s life toys were seen as useful and even later, when the child was being taught to read, Aristotle would give him ivory figures or letters to play with.

According to Aristotle, the branches of education to be entered after age seven were reading and writing, gymnastic exercises, and music, but “the fi rst principle of all action is leisure” (Quintilian, 1965, p. 322). Both leisure and occupation were required, but leisure was better. Amusement was needed during pursuit of occupations more than at other times ... amusement gives relaxation, whereas occupation is always accompanied with exertion and eff ort. Pleasure springs from the noblest sources; therefore music, drawing, and gymnastics are introduced at the proper times. Parents should train their sons not simply because education is necessary or useful but because it is liberal or noble.

During the first century of the Roman Empire, education was left in the hands of the pater familias (highest ranking male in a familia) and, being a matter of private rather than public interest, lagged far behind education in Greece. The Greek Plato elucidated the education of the philosopher with the end being that of the speculative life. In contrast, the Roman Quintilian (35–97 A.D.) detailed the education of the orator, aimed at the practical life. From infancy, even when cared for by nurses, children’s minds should be imbued with excellent instruction and should be a pleasure to them. Quintilian did not “disapprove“ of items or toys, or whatever could be invented for stimulating children to learn. He emphasized that, during play time, memory, which is so important to an orator and strengthened by exercise, can profi t from the sayings of eminent men and poets.

Quintilian would have education begin early, provided that no burden or requirement be too exacting. The fi rst instruction was to be in the form of play, for one who cannot yet love studies should not learn to hate all learning. Perhaps the idea of the kindergarten is thus foreshadowed (Smail, 1938). Quintilian condemned corporal punishment as degrading, unnecessary, and ineff ective given proper instruction, and he insisted that teachers must recognize differences in temperament and intellectual gift s among pupils. Not unlike later great reformers, he emphasized the value of observing children and recognizing their individuality—strong premonitions indeed given contemporary educational practice. He recognized that the main purpose of education was to foster mental activity but games had their place in his educational scheme: “nor should I be displeased by a love of play in my pupils, for this too is a sign of alertness; only let there be moderation ... so that ... refusal to allow them may not breed hatred of studies” (Smail, 1938, p. xxv).

Threads of Quintilian’s thought pervade the philosophies of the great humanists of the Renaissance. Martin Luther stated that he preferred Quintilian to almost all other authorities on education for he gives a model of eloquence and teaches by the happiest combination of theory and practice. John Stuart Mill called his work an encyclopedia about the thoughts of the ancients and on the whole field of education (Colson, 1924; Smail, 1938).

The Play of Medieval Children

During the latter period of the twentieth century historians explored and extensively documented the life of children during the medieval period. Aries (1962), French historian of the family and childhood, studied the metamorphosis of childhood through paintings and diaries across four centuries and described the medieval child as a little adult and childhood as being undiscovered until the end of the Middle Ages. Since he did not discover pre-twelft h century art portraying childhood, he concluded that there was no place for childhood in previous periods. Aristocratic children played with toys during infancy, were taught to play musical instruments, dance, and sing as early as age two and participated in festivals by age three. While he still played with dolls, the child of four or fi ve practiced archery, played cards, chess, and adult games, and by age six was playing parlor games and pantomime games commonly played by adults. By age seven there was riding, hunting and fencing, and starting school or work.

Such variety in play, common among aristocratic children, did not apply equally to the children of the poor. Many died young and others were sent away to school or to serve in other people’s homes. Aries argued that childhood was not a distinct cultural phenomenon until the Renaissance or the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries.

In medieval society the idea of childhood did not exist ... as soon as the child could live without the constant solicitude of his mother, his nanny or his cradle-rocker, he belonged to adult society ... The absence of defi nition extended to every sort of social activity: games, craft s, arms. (Aries, 1962, p. 128)

Aries found no example of a collective picture of medieval times in which children were not seen in the presence or service of adults. In a rich anthology prepared by ten historians, DeMause (1974, p. 1) summarized his major conclusions, seemingly echoing Aries’ findings:

The history of childhood is a nightmare from which we have only recently begun to awaken. The further back in history one goes, the lower the level of child care, and the more likely children are to be killed, abandoned, beaten, terrorized, and sexually abused. (DeMause, 1974, p. 1)

DeMause went on to point out that a favorite medieval doctrine was “Work is worship” and everyone, even the littlest children, had work to do. There was no separate world of childhood; children lived their lives with adults, never apart, sharing the same games, toys, and fairy stories (Tucker, 1974, p. 229). Bruegels’ famous paintings of festivals, and other works of art, were commonly used as evidence for this view of childhood by Aries, DeMause, and other historians. The searching of documents, records, and original papers by later historians painted a more complete and somewhat diff erent portrait of medieval childhood.

Aries’ research focused primarily on France and, to a lesser degree, England. His sources were essentially limited to paintings, sculpture, and diaries, and the bulk of his writing was about the Renaissance or the 14th through 16th centuries. The research of Orme (2001), Shahar (1990), Crawford (2000), and other contemporary historians on medieval childhood stands in contrast to that of Aries; all rebut some of his major conclusions and examine the previously unexplored richness of evidence, including translated sources, writings, art, records, and archeology, demonstrating that medieval adults considered childhood a distinct period, treated children with aff ection and care, and allowed them their own possessions and play activities.

Adults provided culture for children by means of toys, games, and literature, but children created their own toys and games as well. They spent time by themselves, talking and playing away from their elders, sometimes against their elders’ conventions and wishes. (Orme, 2001, p. 6)

Also relying primarily on depictions of childhood in works of art, Schorsch’s (1979) conclusions about childhood during the medieval and Renaissance periods were similar to those of Aries in some respects, but his descriptions of play were more liberal:

The reality is that until fairly modern times most children were either abandoned by their mothers or farmed out to other women shortly after birth and that, in fact, both the family and the family house as we know them today did not even exist until well into the 17th century. (Schorsch, 1979, p. 12)

Acknowledging exceptions to the rule, Schorsch maintained that medieval adults dealt with children much as they dealt with their animals—both shared the dirt, worms, and every manner of disease that being a child or an animal implied. Such degraded living, characteristic of the most destitute and poor throughout history, has not applied to the rich and not necessarily to those falling in between these extremes.

Despite such dire descriptions of the state of the child, Schorsch devotes a chapter to children playing vigorously with their friends yet finding this painful to the conscience, even producing guilt at feelings of delight. Fathers and clergymen set about restraining play and thus destroying evil, yet the medieval community engaged in play, sports, and games as amusement and enjoyed festivals, holidays, and celebrations as “a natural part of life itself ” (Schorsch, 1979, p. 77). “Each medieval man, unlike the generations that followed, gave his child as much access to entertainment as to the work of the day” (p. 78).

Hanawalt’s (1993) extensively documented history of childhood in medieval London, utilizing court records, coroners’ rolls, literary sources, and books of advice, as does the work of Orme, weaves a more complete description of childhood during that period. These writers demonstrate through rich data that medieval adults recognized and paid close attention to the various stages of childhood, though the meanings of these stages were not dissimilar to those described for other periods. Play, they demonstrated, was common to both children and adults. Playing, pimping, carousing, soliciting, and working were common in street life though the streets were oft en little more than sewers, helping to explain the stories of dirt and fi lth in some accounts. Extreme contrasts of luxury and poverty lent further insight into conflicting accounts of life during this period, with drunken immorality, cruelty, and crime existing side by side with the large gardens and grandeur of the rich.

As far back as the twelfth century adults in London knew that children would and should play. Hanawalt (1993) describes their play life in some detail, noting that on Shrove Tuesday children brought fi ghting cocks to their schoolmasters and watched cockfi ghts. They also played ball in London fields, competing with students from other schools. At various times, they played tag, ball games, ran races, rolled hoops and imitated adult ceremonies copied from marriages, festivals, pageants, and church masses. By the late fourteenth century many guilds required that apprentices achieve functional literacy before enrolling. Some students went on to enroll at university and a few were sent abroad for university study. Some girls may have attended grammar school with boys and yet others received separate schooling. Schorsch (1979) found that girls, being considered inferior in temperament and condition, were not admitted to fifteenth century choir schools or sixteenth century grammar schools. They were taught literacy and religion at home or in the petty schools that later became the dame or academy schools of the 18th and 19th centuries. Encouraging girls’ training in music and dance was considered to be a sign of the devil at work.

The school day and the play of twelft h century eight-year-old Richard in London was described by Hanawalt (1993, p. 81). Richard’s day began at 6 a.m., with washing and getting ready for school. He made his own bed, greeted his parents and said prayers with them. His parents were illiterate but held schooling in high regard. Richard looked at the shops and ran to make it to school on time. He was reverent toward his schoolmaster in order to avoid a whipping but today everyone behaved so no one felt the sting of the willow twigs. He was tired from the Latin exercises when he walked home for his midday dinner. after dinner, while his elders were busy with guests, he was free to play and on this fateful day he joined his friends for street games. Today’s game was to hang from a beam protruding from London Bridge. Richard was feeling brave from the wine given him at lunchtime but his hands slipped, resulting in a fatal plunge into the river. Accidents, some fatal, were the fate of ...