What would you say defines your childhood

Change of Childhood

1 Introduction

At the beginning we would like to write down the understanding of childhood as it is described and explained today. The definition of “child” is today1: Man in the age and development phase of childhood. In general, a distinction is made between newborns (up to the 10th day of life), infants (1st year of life), toddler (2nd and 3rd year of age), kindergarten child (4th to 6th year of age) and school child (7th to 14th year of age). Age). Childhood used to be divided into other age phases and, above all, did not last as long as it does today. Here is a brief objection to the various stages of life in childhood. The childhood phases, which were already divided in this way in the Middle Ages, were still retained in the upper strata of society. At the age of six the children were already considered small adults and at ten they went to the appropriate schools or, depending on their class, had to go to work or work on their parents' farm, which at the same time meant the final end of their childhood. These phases were divided into the cuddling age, which ended at three to four years of age, and the learning age, which, according to Phlippe Ariès, ended at the age of seven, since children up to the age of seven were viewed as innocent and pure. If you take it seriously, this learning age was also the intermediate phase between childhood and adulthood.

Today, however, child-friendliness is very important ...

In some companies, day nurseries have been or are being installed for children who are still too young for kindergarten. This means that single parents can go back to work and improve their standard of living for themselves and their children. In addition, the children are taught socialization at an early age, which goes beyond the closest family members. In the past, however, the parents did not care whether their children were alone as long as they were working. Some of the children were also taken to work right away, as many of them had to help with their work. Be it in the field or in a factory for child labor as cheap labor. Today, both child labor and leaving the child alone for several hours without supervision have been strictly forbidden by law. Much more is being done now in many ways about childcare. In public shopping centers, for example, there are so-called “children's paradises” or “children's cinemas”, and almost all inns have small, in-house playgrounds.

But not only the types of care are becoming more and more varied, no, the toys are also getting better and the product ranges are being expanded.

... but what does reality look like?

Are there “children's paradises” not only so that parents with affluent purchasing power can stay “at home” longer? Do innkeepers not only want their playgrounds to prevent other guests from being bothered by the screaming of children? Why has the toy market been booming for decades? Do parents have less and less time for their children and is the toy shelf filling up as a result?

All these questions about today's child-friendliness are open ...

But one thing is certain: never before have children had such a high position in society as they do today. And each of us knows idioms like “Everything was different in the past” or “In the past, the boys still had respect for old age”. In fact, it used to be very different, both in terms of living conditions and in bringing up children. And now we would like to write about this childhood in the past and the difference through the development to today.

1. The upbringing and position of children in society

1.1 from the 17th century to the present day

There are different opinions about what childhood and its upbringing looked like. However, it is not possible to say exactly whether the children were happy or unhappy.

One thing is certain, however: there was no such thing as a “typically medieval childhood”.2but it all came down to what class the child came from.

The nobility and the bourgeoisie


Education among the nobles and the upper classes did not change from the previous century. It was only slowly changing with the children for whom school attendance could be paid. It is primarily thanks to the schools that these children have had a longer childhood.

The main goal in schools at that time, however, was not yet to educate, it was also indifferent to this so-called educational institution whether the children were given education or not. At the time, education was not yet specialized. This development should take a long time. Up until the 18th century there were schools in which classes were either ten to thirteen year olds or fifteen to twenty year olds3.

The children whose parents could not afford to send them to school or who could not afford it for a long time soon had to take part in adult life again. It was the same with the girls. The “right school” was initially closed to them. They had to go to convent schools or boarding schools, but not for as long as the boys and also not to give them a lot of education or upbringing. In these monastery schools they were not taught general things such as reading and writing, but only religion was taught here.

What the girls were taught from day one, however, was that very, very soon, they would have to act like little adults. Otherwise they were taught nothing and were not educated in any other way. It can be said that most of the girls and women were illiterate at the time4. They were often even less educated than the girls from the lower classes, as these mostly learned to read and write while they were working5. School education for girls did not tend towards today's educational goals until a long time later6.

The boys in the upper classes, on the other hand, were allowed to learn to write and read. They had to go to boarding schools or cadet schools, because in the following years more and more importance was attached to the upbringing of the boys7. After all, they were considered to be the guide for later society. In these educational institutions they were brought up to order and discipline and had to totally submit, because punishment and beatings were high on the agenda there8.

But slowly but surely the trend in education, as well as that of upbringing (more detailed information will be given later) of children, is oriented in the direction of psychology. It was found that upbringing is not about violence against children, but about discipline. This discipline should focus on "moral and spiritual perfection"9 serve and it should not be achieved by force. This was also a huge step forward from the schools of the Middle Ages to the modern age. The schools that introduced this discipline were called colleges.

But even in these educational institutions it was not yet an easy life for the students because the teachers kept them more and more under control. The general opinion at that time was that all of this was "for a serious upbringing"10 important and necessary. Almost coherently, I would now like to move on to education at this point.


As mentioned above, the children did not have an easy time in school. The boys also found it very difficult in other respects, since they did not experience any affection or love from their fathers. They only felt the severity of their father and no tenderness on his part. The children's needs were never addressed, because the boys were supposed to behave really masculine11. Therefore it was taken for granted that the children had to go to the military. For this reason they were not allowed to choose their profession freely, but were forced to do so "in absolute adaptation to a very restricted system of thought and behavior with an overly strict code of ethics from which there is no escape"12 to live. The children should have an "aristocratic-elitist we-feeling"13 develop. The children were soon torn from their own families and now had to belong to a new "family", the military. And here the individual of the boys was totally neglected, after all they were just one of many others. This was reinforced by the uniform they had to wear from the start.

So you might ask yourself at this point whether the children wouldn't have had it better in their own families? This is a point to argue about because the children were raised not by their parents but by wet nurses and other servants. They saw their parents very seldom because they always lived very distant from their children14. It was considered extremely important for upbringing to separate the children from their parents. A good example of this is that the children were not allowed to sit at the same table as the parents during meals. The reason at that time was that the children would otherwise be spoiled too badly: “They may eat elsewhere, under the eyes of a teacher who preaches cleanliness to them and doesn't let them get away with anything [...] Take your son away and prove yourself not as a wet nurse; the little ones like to eat [...] in the serving room "15. A harsh prejudice against the lower class also arose here: the children of the poor were brought up badly, but not because they were neglected, but rather from a completely different point of view. The upper class believed that the lower class children were spoiled because their parents loved them so much that they could do what they wanted. So you twisted the whole thing. For this reason, the upper class children never received any kind of affection or affection from the people who fathered them. They must therefore often have felt unloved and rejected. Because even most of the wet nurses were angry with the weakest in our society. They often punished the children with mean punishments that they made up. And the children had no way of getting protection and security anywhere. They never got to know the feeling of being really loved by someone with their whole heart16.

But not only were the children isolated in their parents' house, a very large number were also brought to the country with wet nurses for the first few years of their lives. In Paris in 1780 this was around 17,000 out of 21,000 babies born. During these trips, which the little ones had to make very weakly, many of them died17.

Only later did the adults come close to the necessary understanding for the children. Since children can also be funny and cute, the adults found fun in them at some point, especially the women - mostly the wet nurses, educators and mothers - started with the "pampering"18 of the children. In the past, tenderness towards children was one of the "inarticulate feelings"19. Therefore, at the beginning there were real opponents who did not feel it was right that children now receive these affections from adults. This negative attitude arose at the same time as “loving” children.

The children only got these caresses in the early years of their lives. Because this so-called weakness should be educated away from the children. And this, in turn, was again a sign of a very short childhood.

At about the same time, science and society also developed a real psychological interest in children. One no longer only had fun with them, one began to really explore them and their peculiarities. Now they finally tried to “see through the child's mentality in order to adapt the upbringing methods to the child's level”20. Among other things, scientists and doctors called for children to be brought up and loved. Books have even been written about it21. One now felt more and more responsible towards the children. But this was also due to the attitude of the later time that children are like angels who are very close to God in heaven. This was the development towards the upbringing as it is by and large still today: The children should become righteous and reasonable people.

The beginnings of these insights also came from the priests, moralists and lawyers, who were the first to recognize that too little had been done for children. They saw the children as weak, innocent creatures who cannot defend themselves on their own and who therefore need to be protected. They also saw it as their duty to the children to raise them so that they could properly grow into society22. From the 18th century onwards, increased attention was paid to hygiene and health in order to reduce child mortality, as science was now slowly ready and had recognized that this was also related to the unsanitary living conditions of people. Because in the past people lived according to the motto "what doesn't kill, hardens"23. More and more was now being done for the weakest in our society.

At this point I would like to take a short leap into industrialization. Due to the economic changes in society, the extended family slowly developed into parent-child families. This happened because more and more people were moving to the city to earn their money there, as the industry could offer more and more jobs. So the father went out of the house in the morning to work, and the mother was responsible for household chores and child-rearing. As a result, most of the time the woman had no schooling or profession. A new turning point for the children was that they now got so-called nurseries and more and more toys. But more on that later.

The working class and rural families

In the working-class family it was very different. The men had to work long and hard in the industry and the women had to go to the factory all day long so that the livelihoods of the family could be secured to some extent. Since the mother often had to work up to 12 hours a day, raising the children and the security that the children actually needed was very neglected. The many pregnancies that most women went through were an additional burden, because firstly, the woman could not work during this time and, secondly, she was often very weak from the complicated deliveries.

In turn, the farming families were dependent on many children in order to provide enough labor. The same was true here as in the Middle Ages: the benefit for the parents determined the value of the children24. What the parents of that time are often accused of today is that they did not care at all about the children. But this was not always the case, not all were so heartless that they would not cry for their children when they died. There were also parents for whom losing a child was really bad. They treated their children very lovingly. But mostly it was the male firstborns, for example on a farm, who were particularly pampered and cared for, because the latter would later take over the farm. The children who followed were usually not treated as lovingly. You were just an additional worker, nothing more25. Therefore, it was often the case that there was a certain indifference towards the children or, better said, a "traditional indifference"26which means that parents didn't care how their children fared.

The upbringing of the children proceeded according to the "house father principle"27. This means that the children have prescribed norms, regulations and résumés and they had to learn these from the day they were born. This also meant that they had no "emotional relationships"28 were allowed to enter, as this was considered detrimental to the survival of the family at the time. For this reason, after the so-called petting age, the relationship between children and parents changed to a relationship of work. The petting age was over at three to four years of age. For this reason, the children of this time never had the opportunity to really live out their child development. "The parents determined how one had to behave and one had to obey them, even if the feeling resisted it."29. After confirmation or second communion, childhood was finally over. On this day the children were dressed like adults for the first time, which is also where the end of childhood was fixed30.

Another blow to the positive development of the children was probably also the industrialization, because during this time many people moved to the city.Since there was initially no way of building enough apartments there, many families had to live closely together with other foreign families. This was absolutely bad for the children's development. The result was neglect and disease transmission, and many children died. The families no longer had any private life or security, and the children felt homeless because they did not even have their own bed to call “their own”.

Child labor - children's toys

17th century to 19th century

In this chapter I will write about child labor, but also about the toys used by the children of that time. What should be said here is that this chapter also describes a lot about education through toys, for example. However, this is all very coherent and will therefore be dealt with in one chapter. The first real nurseries with their own furniture and toys did not get the children of the upper classes until the beginning of the 19th century. In the Biedermaier period, nurseries were still quite rare, and even the upper classes only had very small ones, if at all. These nurseries were created out of the idea that the children need more understanding and attention and this should be a sign of this31. In some houses, the nursery was there so that the child had his “own kingdom”. On the other hand, this children's furniture was also for mental safety and the associated constriction32which means that the children in these nurseries were separated and isolated from the life of the adults.

In the middle class, the children still played in the living rooms of the house. This was also a kind of control over the children, because all members of the family stayed there after work. The children should be good and obedient, that is, they should respect the norms of adults and, above all, learn and imitate the separation of the activities of the sexes33. In this way, the father and mother presented the role expectations of the boys and girls. For example, the mother knitted or sewed while the father was reading the newspaper. With the children, however, it was the case that the girls played with their dolls and dollhouses and the boys with their construction sets.

But playing in the living room was not only used for surveillance, it also promoted a more intimate family life, since everyone was gathered in the same room in the evenings. But now to the toy itself. The so-called "primary toys" have increased because of changes in the bourgeois world. This means that since then the adults have been giving presents to the children and have also set up these nurseries for them. This change was initiated by scientists. They found that children grew into the world in such a playful way and that they also learned their roles better for later life. Thus toys were "a sign of a pre-logical phase"34. During this time it was finally recognized that the toy is important for the "socialization process of the child"35 is and it should also help with education. Because the children imitated the adults in the game. A good example of this are the girls' dollhouses. They mostly looked as real as real houses in miniature and the girls were supposed to play housewives from an early age. But more on that later.

So now children, at least in the upper classes, could finally live out their childhood and develop better. But the toy was also often a substitute for the tenderness that nobody showed the children. The girls lived out these needs in their dolls, for example.

There were even differences between boys and girls when it came to toys. After all, the girls were later “only” responsible for the household and the upbringing of the children and for this reason did not have to take any other skills with them into their adult lives. Because of this, the girls didn't have much choice in their toy boxes. At this point I would like to list a few of the girls' toys:

> Puppets (which symbolized the later tasks)
> Doll prams
> Dollhouses
> Doll stove with cookware
> Sewing machines etc.

As you can see here, everything had to do with dolls. The girls were put into the role of mother from an early age, because the expectations of the future wife and mother were very high, but very one-sided.

The boys, on the other hand, had a further field of tasks to fulfill in their later life and, as men, had to “bring the money into the house” later on. The boys were therefore given toys with which they could practice and learn their technical and manual skills from an early age. Here are some examples of the boys' toys36:

> Clockwork railways
> Steam engines
> Anchor stone building sets and other building sets
> Drums
> Rocking horses and hobby horses

Later, when the industry was also working with steel or sheet metal, the first tin toys came onto the market. Here are a few examples as well:

> Hammer mills
> Mills
> Railways
> Carousels

But these things were only for the boys. In the past it would never have been an option that the girls would have played with the boys' toys.

When the war against France was won, the boys got soldiers in their game report. You should use it to “learn” war in a playful way. The boys, too, were forced into their roles from the start. What should be said about this new toy in contrast to the construction sets is that they “destroyed” this game with the tin solders, then learned this and considered it normal while they were learning with the construction sets to build something. So the boys were raised to a certain extent to destroy things and also other people and therefore later didn't find it so bad when they did that in reality. They weren't used to anything else.

But not all people of the time could afford good quality toys, because who else had enough money for this luxury other than the upper class of society. And that was just 20% of the population37. The children of the middle and lower classes also received something from their parents from time to time, but these were mostly tinkered or built themselves. However, the children of the lower strata of the population mostly had no time to play, as they were soon hooked up to work or because they simply had no space in the family's narrow living quarters to do so. The fact that the children did not have time to play was often due to the fact that the parents had little interest in the children being able to play, as they did not care much about the development and upbringing of their child. In the middle of the 19th century a "new attitude towards children" developed38 with new educational ideas. This manifested itself in such a way that a more intimate family life was finally led with the children. The children now received the long-awaited tenderness, affection and recognition that they would have needed a long time ago. For this purpose, Christmas was "invented" as we know it nowadays, so that the children receive presents at least at these festivals. As a result, the toy market boomed more and more and therefore more and more had to be manufactured. But more about production and the associated problems a little later. First of all, I would like to address another topic of the game world of that time: From the 19th century onwards, a large number of social, or in other words, board games developed. The children there mostly played among themselves and no longer with the adults as they used to be. Children used to have to play together with adults because they were already considered small adults (this is just a little excursion into the past).

From the beginning of the 19th century, more and more children were allowed to be children39. But as it was with almost all toys and games, only the children of the upper class could use these board games. When the Socialist Law was repealed, however, state schools were set up and the children played more on the streets than they used to do, and so they often came into contact with the children of the other classes40. When the children of the middle or lower class got to take part in these games, they once again felt like outsiders because they did not have as much knowledge in the games as the children of the upper class. In these games "there was often pressure to perform, envy and cheating"41 between the little ones and therefore there was always a lot of quarrel between the children.

In addition to all these educational and nice board games, war games were added very soon, which were used to practice some kind of war strategies in order to train the boys for their later life. These games were supposed to convey "fun in war". As already mentioned, the children were playing more and more on the street and there, too, the children themselves invented various games and passed them on to others. They could let their imagination run wild and decide for themselves what was played, none of the adults talked into it. They were games that are still being played in some cases to this day. Here some examples42:

> Blind man's cow
> Pot beating
> Jumping games (such as the well-known "heaven and hell")
> Marbles
> Leapfrog etc.

But things like flying kites, sledding or archery also became very topical during this time.

These large quantities of toys, which were now needed (mentioned again: mostly only for the upper class), were made in the so-called "home work". As a result, child labor in the working-class families was intensified, since the families needed every worker to survive. The children had to help with work very early on, and the poorer the family, the earlier the children had to work. Some of them had to do small wage jobs, such as delivering newspapers, and then some of them had to help out with the homework. For these reasons, the children were rarely able to go to school43. So it was an eternal cycle, because the children couldn't learn anything and therefore couldn't make more of their lives like the previous generation.

In 1874 the social legislation banned night work for children and in 1891 a ban on child labor under 13 years of age, but this was of no avail as it was simply impossible for families with the very low wages they received for working from home could survive without the children's labor. The little children with their small and dexterous fingers were able to do, among other things, much better the jobs that the adults failed or were too clumsy at because of their large fingers.

During this time the whole family had to help to at least secure the subsistence level or survival. But the situation for these people did not get any better; it got worse steadily and drastically. Because of this, child labor became more and more appalling for the children. The parents had to exploit their children more and more44, but what else could they do? It was just a matter of life and death. Because the people got no support from anyone. And so the development went more and more in the direction that only a small part of the children in the population had time and money to play with toys and more and more children had to work for them.

But the children didn't just have to do such work. In Europe, as in North America at that time, they had to work en masse under the most deplorable conditions in mines and factories. Many of them died very soon and others suffered from severe chronic illnesses45.

In 1904 a law came out stating that children were no longer allowed to work at home. This was the next positive step for the lower class of society. As a result, the workers demanded wage increases, because without these the family's livelihood simply could not be secured in the future. What is more, the families were for the most part no longer viable at that point in time. It was a very bad time and nothing was done for the families until a long time later. The poor in our society, who should have always been supported, were thought of far too late.


17th century to 19th century

At this point I would like to briefly make another leap into the past. In the Middle Ages, orphans were cared for in poor relief institutions set up by the churches. The churches were the first to care for the poor. But women of the aristocracy and the upper classes soon also took part in this aid. During this time it was mainly about caring for the poor, the sick and the elderly, as well as for orphans and children born out of wedlock46.

It was only later that the poor and sick were cared for by territorial princes and the imperial cities. At around the same time, guilds and guilds established schools for the poor, vocational training institutions and hospitals. The young people were also accommodated there because the population saw it as a danger if they lived on the street, but also to protect them themselves from the dangers that the cold temperatures in winter alone brought. The first real beginnings of youth welfare took place in 1833. The "Rauhe Haus" of Wichern was set up for the orphans. Johann Heinrich Wichern was the first to bring up these children. That is why this facility can also be described as the forerunner of the later educational homes. Wichern wanted to raise the children so that they could really grow into society47. In 1840 a private initiative was taken again. The first German kindergarten was founded by Froebel. But this was not the only one for long; industrialization meant that even more facilities of this type were developed, because otherwise the children were at home alone all day, as the parents had to work from morning to night48. In 1922 the Reich Law for Youth Welfare (RJWG) was passed. It has now been stipulated that every German child has a right to education and that an official guardianship should be set up for illegitimate children. This law also included the establishment of a youth welfare office in every city or district. However, this was a very idealistic law and a lot had to be deleted a little later because it was not financially viable for the society of the time and therefore not sustainable. In addition, at that time people did not put too much emphasis on giving support to the weakest in our society.

At the time of National Socialism, Hitler wrote a new law that was based on this. Then nothing was done for youth welfare for a long time because there was war in Germany and the children had to fight in this war. Only in 1953 was there a post-war amendment in this direction in which the restrictions before World War II were lifted again. More was being done for orphaned children49. And so today's child and youth welfare law slowly developed as it is legally valid today.

Children's clothing

17th century to 19th century

As mentioned briefly earlier, children used to dress like little adults at a young age. This was not very conducive to their freedom of movement, because the long and wide dresses with the petticoats restricted it very much. For this reason, the children learned to walk very late. The boys also had to wear this clumsy clothing, because very small children were considered sexless. Another reason was probably the laziness of the adults: The children did not wear underwear or anything like that under their clothes and it was easier and more convenient to “care for the children”. Only when the boys were “clean” did they get their first pair of pants. This was an important event in the family because it marked a new phase in the life of the boy: from gender-neutral toddler to boy. This event was usually also celebrated50.

In those days, the children should always look like little "fairy tale kings or princesses"51 be dressed. This was very important to the adults of the upper classes, because only they had the money to do this expense for the children's clothing.

The most common color of children's clothing was white.Firstly, it was considered a sign of purity and innocence and secondly, it was something special to wear white back then, as it used to be very difficult to clean white clothes. Not everyone could afford this.

The white dresses were mostly shorter and therefore the children had more legroom. The only advantage with them was that the freedom of movement was not restricted as much as with the “princess dresses”. On the other hand, there was a serious disadvantage for the children: they had to wear white socks and dresses even in winter and often had to freeze miserably. The children were "toughening up"52 dressed like that, because at that time the child's well-being was not taken into account. The whole thing even went so far that the children teased each other if they could not stand this "toughening" and secretly put on knee socks on the way to school so as not to freeze so much.

These children’s clothing, which we do not understand, was carried a little differently in the village: The children were always put on all the clothes and rags they owned, as the parents did not have the time or desire to move the children when the weather conditions changed53. The children were always too warmly dressed in summer and their freedom of movement was also severely restricted.

The so-called dress code that existed at that time also did not allow the village and working class children to wear anything else that was prescribed for their respective class. On the one hand, however, there was talk of "equality and brotherhood"54but on the other hand, this difference between the stands was still not changed. The children of the lower classes still had to wear what was prescribed for their class. They were only allowed to go to church in fine clothes, but again not all could afford that, because most of them did not even have shoes. That was one of the many injustices at the time.

I would now like to go into more detail about one of the many children's fashions. It came up in 1896 and guaranteed child-friendly clothing that even less well-off parents could afford55: The sailor suits. Even before 1800 they were considered a sign of something childlike. These clothes were very different from adult clothes and for this reason, so to speak, prolonged childhood. On the other hand, it was somehow again a sign of the order of the class, because the children of the upper class wore these sailor suits much longer because they could go to school longer and thus were children longer.


Ariès, Phlippe "The story of childhood"

Kreher, Marianne, script for the lecture “Child and Youth Welfare Law”, 2001

Weber-Kellermann, Ingeborg “Childhood. A cultural history “GEO, September 1993 / No. 2


1 Reader’s Digest: The Brockhaus

2 Quote: GEO Wissen, September 1993 / No. 2: p.103

3 Cf.: Phlippe Ariés “The Story of Childhood”, pp. 458-459

4 Cf.: Phlippe Ariés “The Story of Childhood”, p. 461

5 Cf.: Phlippe Ariés “The Story of Childhood”, p. 463

6 Cf.: Phlippe Ariés “The Story of Childhood”, p. 462

7 Cf.: Phlippe Ariés “The Story of Childhood”, p. 461

8 Cf.: Ingeborg Weber-Kellermann “Childhood. A cultural history ”p. 108

9 Quote: Phlippe Ariés “The Story of Childhood” p. 462

10 Quote: Phlippe Ariés “The Story of Childhood” p. 462

12 Quote: Ingeborg Weber-Kellermann “Childhood. A cultural history ”p. 110

13 Quote: Ingeborg Weber-Kellermann “Childhood. A cultural history ”p. 110

14 Cf.: Ingeborg Weber-Kellermann “Childhood. A cultural history ”p. 110

15 Quote: Phlippe Ariés “The Story of Childhood” p. 214

16 Cf.: Ingeborg Weber-Kellermann “Childhood. A cultural history ”p. 111

17 See: GEO Wissen, September 1993 / No. 2: p. 210

18 See: Phlippe Ariés “The Story of Childhood” p. 211

19 Quote: Phlippe Ariés “The Story of Childhood” p. 211

20 Quote: Phlippe Ariés “The Story of Childhood” p. 216

21 Cf.: Manfred Markefka / Bernhard Nauck “Handbuch der Kindheitsforschung”, p. 192

22 Cf.: Phlippe Ariés “The Story of Childhood”, p. 217

23 Cf.: Phlippe Ariés “The Story of Childhood”, p. 217

24 See: GEO Wissen, September 1993 / No. 2: p.108

25 See: GEO Wissen, September 1993 / No. 2: p.108

26 Quote: Phlippe Ariés “The Story of Childhood” p. 212

27 Quote: Ingeborg Weber-Kellermann “Childhood. A cultural history ”p. 95

28 Quote: Ingeborg Weber-Kellermann “Childhood. A cultural history ”p. 95

29 Quote: Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach from one of her stories

30 See: Ingeborg Weber-Kellermann “Childhood. A cultural history ”p. 186

31 See: Ingeborg Weber-Kellermann “Childhood. A cultural history ”p. 139

32 See: Ingeborg Weber-Kellermann “Childhood. A cultural history ”p. 139

33 See: Ingeborg Weber-Kellermann “Childhood. A cultural history ”p. 143

34 Quote: Ingeborg Weber-Kellermann “Childhood. A cultural history ”p. 192

35 Quote: Ingeborg Weber-Kellermann “Childhood. A cultural history ”p. 193

36 See: Ingeborg Weber-Kellermann “Childhood. A cultural history ”pp. 199-200

37 See: Ingeborg Weber-Kellermann “Childhood. A cultural history ”p. 206

38 Quote: Ingeborg Weber-Kellermann “Childhood. A cultural history ”p. 208

39 See: Ingeborg Weber-Kellermann “Childhood. A cultural history ”p. 218

40 See: Ingeborg Weber-Kellermann “Childhood. A cultural history ”p. 160

41 Quote: Ingeborg Weber-Kellermann “Childhood. A cultural history ”p. 218

42 See: Ingeborg Weber-Kellermann “Childhood. A cultural history ”pp. 223-224

43 See: Ingeborg Weber-Kellermann “Childhood. A cultural history ”p. 174

44 See: Ingeborg Weber-Kellermann “Childhood. A cultural history ”p. 212

45 See: GEO Wissen, September 1993 / No. 2: p. 107

46 Script by Marianne Kreher, "The development of youth welfare law"

47 Script by Marianne Kreher, "The development of youth welfare law"

48 Script by Marianne Kreher, "The development of youth welfare law"

49 Script by Marianne Kreher, "The development of youth welfare law"

50 See: Ingeborg Weber-Kellermann “Childhood. A cultural history ”p. 113

51 Quote: Ingeborg Weber-Kellermann “Childhood. A cultural history ”p. 121

52 Quote: Ingeborg Weber-Kellermann “Childhood. A cultural history ”p. 128

53 See: Ingeborg Weber-Kellermann “Childhood. A cultural history ”p. 174

54 Quote: Ingeborg Weber-Kellermann “Childhood. A cultural history ”p. 160

55 See: Ingeborg Weber-Kellermann “Childhood. A cultural history ”p. 125