YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollections

Peter Rabbit Turns 100

August 15, 1993|JERRY GRISWOLD | Griswold is the author of a study of American children's books ("Audacious Kids") and a founding member of the San Marcos Land Conservancy

Sep 4th 1893

My dear Noel,

I don't know what to write you, so I shall tell you a story about four little rabbits whose names were--Flopsy, Mopsy, Cottontail and Peter.

So began a letter, 100 years ago, from Beatrix Potter to Noel Moore, the 5-year-old son of her former governess. It would later become "The Tale of Peter Rabbit," perhaps the most famous work of children's literature and what Graham Greene called "the finest story in the English language."

"I never tire of Beatrix Potter," Marianne Moore said, and over the years, others have agreed, among them British writers W. H. Auden, Christopher Isherwood and George Orwell. Potter herself, however, always insisted that her American readers understood her best.

What is there to understand? First of all, her style. Potter had a gift for understatement. When, for example, Peter's mother warns him not to go into Mr. McGregor's garden, she says simply: "Father had an accident there; he was put in a pie by Mrs. McGregor."

That is a fine line, though not so fine, perhaps, as the one in "The Tale of Ginger and Pickles" where Ginger (a cat) and Pickles (a terrier) run a grocery store that is sometimes patronized by mice: "Ginger usually requested Pickles to serve them, because he said it made his mouth water. 'I cannot bear,' said he, 'to see them going out at the door carrying their little parcels.' "

Which is to make another point about Beatrix Potter. Death is never far away in her books. While there is throughout a voice of comprehensive sympathy and understanding, Potter's is the natural world of predator and victim. There is nothing mamby pamby here. Remember Mr. McGregor and your heart, like Peter's, skips a beat. As Maurice Sendak has observed, the finest and most powerful illustration in all of the world of children's books appears in "Peter Rabbit" where a cat silently watches a goldfish in a pond.

This genius is evident in Potter's depiction of Peter because she was able to create both a well-drawn and realistic rabbit, and a figure for a misbehaving boy. Potter understood that pictures can't simply illustrate what is in the text, but must do something more. Words tell how Mr. McGregor retrieves Peter's discarded clothes and makes "a scarecrow to frighten the blackbirds," while the picture opposite makes clear just how frightened the birds are or aren't: They are seen lollygagging around the base of the scarecrow.

The special flavor of Potter's visual style is easy to recall. It is a world seen in miniatures, a dollhouse world, a world seen through the naturalist's microscope. For her, there is none of the splash and size and panorama of, say, Jean DeBrunhoff's Babar the elephant stories. Instead, Potter's pictures seem like cameos upon the page.

Smallness was important to her. At first, Potter had "Peter Rabbit" privately printed because she could not persuade publishers to bring the book out in the size she felt was appropriate for children's hands (5 3/4 by 4 1/4 inches).

I was reminded of all this recently as I toured an exhibit of Potter's work at Seattle's Pacific Science Center. Yes, at a Science Center! Beatrix Potter was a remarkable woman. In her early life and into her 30s, she was a brilliant amateur biologist who produced countless detailed drawings of plants and wildlife. She made more than 300 meticulous drawings of mushrooms and fungi, and she wrote scientific papers on these subjects--one of which was presented on her behalf to the prestigious Linnean Society, since women weren't allowed to be members. The studies of Potter the naturalist eventually led to "Peter Rabbit," "Two Bad Mice," "Jeremy Fisher," "The Tailor of Gloucester" and her other well-known books. Her income from these would later fund her pioneering work in environmental conservation.

As a child, Potter was almost a prisoner, kept in her parents' London home, educated by governesses, rarely traveling anywhere unaccompanied. Her great joy came in the summers, in vacation rentals in rural Scotland and elsewhere, where (largely free of parental supervision) she could indulge her naturalist's interests and capture and draw the woodland creatures she made pets of. It says something that she was 47 when she first moved out of her parents' home and married, over their objections. As her biographer Margaret Lane has observed, the great pain in Potter's life came from the clash between her responsibilities as a daughter and her desire for some happiness of her own.

Los Angeles Times Articles