Old Mother Hubbard

Textual Analysis - Differences in Versions of the Rhyme

There were only a few differences in the wording among the various versions of the rhyme. The word ?joiner' is used in the 1853 and 1897 versions but replaced with ?undertaker' in the 1951 and 1962 versions. An obvious explanation for this is the common language at the time they were written; "joiner" was certainly not a common term for an undertaker during the 1950s and 1960s but was used in England in the 19th century. The older version of the word ?seamstress' ( sempstress ) is also used in the first two versions, where the more contemporary spelling (seamstress) is used in the second two versions. This also likely has to do with the word's origin, and where the rhyme was written.

The other difference in choice of words may seem insignificant, but may not be in this case. The 1853 and 1897 versions use: ?He was smoking his pipe,? whereas the 1951 and 1962 versions use: ?He was smoking a pipe.? The first example indicates ownership of the pipe, as if it was something the dog had done before. The other line attempts to show a more politically correct view of the dog not smoking on a regular basis, which could be hazardous to his health.

Another significant difference in the way that the rhyme is written deals with the deletion and moving around of some of the stanzas. The fifth stanza appears in the 1853 and 1897 versions, but is missing in the 1951 and 1962 versions. A reason for this might be because the last line of the stanza mentions the dog licking the plate, which, if the dog represents the husband, or a man, would be considered improper manners. Thus, omitting this stanza would be more politically correct. Moreover, to make the rhyme more workable and flow better, the two later versions move the ?hatter's' and the ?barber's' stanzas after the ?tailor's' stanza, so (it can be presumed that) the food-related stanzas and the clothes-related stanzas would be together.

Historical references

The first two versions of the rhyme were written during the 19th century in England . Women in England during the 19th century were subservient to men, not unlike how Old Mother Hubbard is depicted running errands for the male dog. Women did not have many rights at that time. ( Landow , Social and Political Contexts) By the time the 1951 and 1962 versions were written, women had gained the right to vote, as well as most other privileges that only men had previously. However, not much has changed with the text of the rhyme. Old Mother Hubbard is still the dog's ?servant' in James Marshall's 1991 version of the rhyme. It seems odd that the dog would still be doing some tasks that a woman would generally be doing, though, such as feeding the cat and using a spinning wheel. In the more recent versions, the author is generally keeping with the tradition of the original rhyme, because spinning wheels are not used anymore in most places of the world. In the earlier versions, it may be noted that it would have been unusual for a woman to use spinning wheels during that time (before the Industrial Revolution), because they were often too large and bulky to be carrying around. (Thorn, Old Mother Hubbard)

Although poverty was very common among many lower class families in England during the 19th century, it would be unlikely that Old Mother Hubbard was poor once the reader gets past the cupboard being bare, since she is able to go out and buy her dog all of these things throughout the rhyme. ( Landow , Victorian Worker's wages) This would also assume that Mother Hubbard is of a lower working class, which is not known and often counterindicated by the images representing her and her home.

Social/political commentary

At least in the case of when the first two versions of the rhyme was written, women had virtually no rights in 19th century England . (Landow, Social and Political Contexts) Thus, it would be feasible to say that the dog represents a man or the husband who is doing things characteristic of that of which a human would do. At the end of the rhyme, Mother Hubbard says she is his servant, and the dog says ?Bow-wow.? From a subservient standpoint, this line could be read as: ?That's right.?