> saying stories were or were not intended for children is a modern anachronism Well, modern is relative but quick reading of wikipedia points out that people

> saying stories were or were not intended for children is a modern anachronism Well, modern is relative but quick reading of wikipedia points out that people have been writing stories specifically for children since late 17th century, and definitely solidified as a category in the early 19th centuryt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_literature#Early-modern_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_literature#Early-... Picking a slightly more scholarly source we find this statement > Already during the 1690s, Fénelon, the important theologian and Archbishop of Cambrai who had been in charge of the Dauphin’s education, had written several didactic fairy tales as an experiment to make the Dauphin’s lessons more enjoyable. However, they were not considered proper and useful enough for the grooming of children from the upper classes to be published. They were first printed after Fénelon’s death in 1730. From that point on it became more acceptable to write and publish fairy tales for children, just as long as they indoctrinated children according to gender-specific roles and class codes in the civilizing process. The most notable example here, aside from Fénelon’s tales, is the voluminous work of Madame Leprince de Beaumont, who published Magasin des Enfants (1756), which included “Beauty and the Beast,” “Prince Chéri,” and other overtly moralistic tales for children. (When Dreams Came True: Classical Fairy Tales and Their Tradition 2nd ed., p16-17)