|
Author
|
Comment
|
DividedSelf
Registered User
(8/19/05 6:00 am)
|
Allerleirauh vs Allerleirauh
I'm puzzled by the differences between the versions of Allerleirauh in the 1st and last editions of the Grimms. In the latter, the princess flees from marriage with her father to another kingdom, where she plays tricks with bread soup, and eventually hooks up with the second king. In the earlier version, she's brought to the palace of "her betrothed", plays tricks with bread soup and hooks up with him... and lives happily ever after...
I'd assumed this "king to whom she was betrothed" had to be her own father... in which case... WHAT'S GOING ON...???!
Surely I must be missing something obvious here. I don't want to be asked to believe by the narrator that such an incestuous union can be anything less than a big mistake.
I wondered if I'd misread it, since before she escapes, the king and the princess are referred to as "her father" and "his daughter"; afterwards it's "her betrothed" and "his bride", and there's no explicit reference to his being her father. So it's as if they're two different kings, as if we're supposed to infer that there was this second king to whom the princess was betrothed before her father made his advances.
But then, if that were the case, there's a puzzle about the later version of the tale. In the first version, the bread-soup-king says, "How this beautiful, strange princess resembles my dear bride." In the later version, this becomes, "My eyes have never yet seen any one so beautiful!" The fact that the Grimms felt the need to make the father-king and the bread-soup-king explicitly non-identical suggests that they were aware of at least an ambiguity in the earlier version.
I guess my question is: is the early version an accidental ambiguity, or was it intended that the bread-soup-king was her father? If it's an accidental ambiguity, and the bread-soup-king in the early version is another king to whom she was first betrothed, why is it necessary for her to hide from him? If it's not an accidental ambiguity, why the change in the way the two characters are referred to before and after the escape? AND... why the bejesus is this "a happy ending"?
(Aside: Is a story about incest suitable for children? - I'd genuinely like to know what people think. My instinctive reaction is to flinch from it - Yet there are obviously many children for whom such a story would be all too apt.)
Edited by: DividedSelf at: 8/19/05 7:08 am
|
Writerpatrick
Registered User
(8/19/05 8:34 am)
|
Re: Allerleirauh vs Allerleirauh
The version on SurLaLune refers to the King having a "violent love for her", which would indicate a clear incestuous attraction. It may have been a parody of the incestuous nature of royalty. I've found that much of the humour in fairy tales has been lost with translations and retellings. (It's sort of like reading Shakespere.)
I doubt the original story was intended for children. The Grimms only refashioned the stories for children. The Grimms may have come under pressure by earlier readers to change it.
There's a verson of this in Jim Henson's Storyteller called "Sapsorrow" which invoves a ring. The King promises to wed whoever wears the ring, but one of his daughters puts it on and by his own law puts him in a situation where he has to wed his own daughter. But there is no "violent love".
|
kristiw
Unregistered User
(8/20/05 12:51 am)
|
for children
Something like this came up at the UCLA folklore conference: whether or not the stories had been collected and intended--bloody shoes and all--for an audience of children. Maria Tatar, I believe, fielded the question and said the earliest versions were not thought of by the Grimms as children's fare. Still, as the collection went through various editions they could hardly help realizing it was popular bedtime reading and they tailored it accordingly. Funnily, while sexual references were filtered out the stories were apparently made even bloodier for the younger readers. Considering the effectiveness of characters like Struwwelpeter in terrifying kids into good behavior, I suppose it isn't that surprising.
|
DividedSelf
Registered User
(8/20/05 4:55 am)
|
Re: for children
Yes, but the problem I'm having is not that the original story is unsuitable for children, but that it's scarcely suitable for adults.
I suppose I'm assuming something about the nature of fairy tale endings, that the lack of irony implies a statement of a desirable state of equilibrium.
In that case, I just don't understand the mindset that would create such a story. Please don't get me wrong - I'm perfectly happy with perverse endings, so long as they encompass an acknowledgement/reflection of their own perversity.
But if this reading of the early version of Allerleirauh is correct, it not only doesn't acknowledge it, it actually attempts to deny it, by this cloaking use of reference language.
In fact, this combination of incest, fairy tale ending and absence of irony seems simply wrong to me - on every level: aesthetically, psychologically and morally.
I find it difficult to believe that this is what was intended, (although maybe it was?). The only other alternatives I can see are that it was intended as ironic (which also doesn't seem likely) or that it was some kind of mistake.
But what mistake?
|
Heidi Anne Heiner
ezOP
(8/20/05 6:19 am)
|
Re: for children
DividedSelf,
Also consider that you are reading and interpreting a literary version of a folktale that was told by many tellers with their own facial expressions, asides, and other clues as to their own feelings about the tale. The tales as recorded were not given those flavors. They have a scholar's attention to the tale's plot, characters, etc. but not as faithful to the tone which would vary considerably from teller to teller. Consider how most jokes are much funnier when told by a good teller instead of read on paper. These morally ambiguous tales have much more impact when presented orally.
Heidi
|
DividedSelf
Registered User
(8/20/05 7:07 am)
|
Re: for children
Heidi - Do you believe then that there was originally a flavour of irony in the story, and that the Grimms simply failed to capture this on paper?
Okay, but in that case, why the change of reference from father/daughter to king/bride? In this context, it seems an obfuscation, as if the Grimms were trying to have us put the kin relationship to one side.
It just seems an odd solution. The change of language does seem to suggest some awareness of a narrative problem on their part. But, for me, the problem would have been solved simply by the removal of the word "happily" from the last sentence or, better, substituting something more acerbic.
Since the Grimms weren't averse to the occasional chilling conclusion, I don't know why they would want to assert this incestuous union as happy, while at the same time disguise it with a change of language.
I have to say I find it implausible that the Grimms were incapable of representing irony or satire on the page, at least to some degree. (It's not such a difficult thing to do!) Is it possible it was more that they felt uncomfortable about presenting their stories in any overt satirical context?
Attempting to record a satirical tale faithfully, but minus the satire would certainly lead to some odd conclusions.
Even so, I still wonder at their asking us to believe the union happy.
|
janeyolen
Registered User
(8/20/05 7:36 am)
|
Underpinnings
When I read the Grimm, I read it as a second (neighboring) young king to whose kingdom our girl has fled. Really another version (though an incest one) of "Love You As Meat Loves Salt" which was a precursor to King Lear.
But when I wrote a redacted tale for Terri Windling's ARMLESS MAIDEN collection, something in the underpinnings of the story propelled me to a different "reading" of the tale. A much bleaker story came out, one with a dark ending of continuing abuse. So I think being a divided self on the reading of this story is understandable.
Jane
|
DividedSelf
Registered User
(8/21/05 3:07 am)
|
Re: Underpinnings
Ha, well, some of us are divided selves in a lot more ways than that, I'm very sorry to say...!
Continuing abuse - Yes, I think that's why, even if you read the early version of the Grimms' story as a return to the abusive father, it still has fascination and power despite its apparent approval of the outcome. Incredibly important stuff.
|
Don
Registered User
(8/21/05 1:04 pm)
|
Re: Underpinnings
This explanation, which I posted in April 2004 (see the archived string of 4/23/04), might help answer the question about who the lord of the forest is in Grimms' "Allerleirauh":
"There is, if you'd like there to be, ambiguity in the Grimms' version. Whether the 'the king who was lord of this forest' is her relative or not depends on whether one takes the relative clause as restrictive or nonrestrictive. In German, the relative clause is always set off by a comma. So it's not entirely clear whether it's 'the king who was lord of the forest' (i.e., a new king other than her father) or 'the king, who was lord of the forest' (i.e., the king who has already been mentioned--that is, her father--who, by the way, was lord of the forest she had fled into). This tale type, of course, is based on the father's incestuous desires, and this ambiguity only intensifies it. In English translations it's a question of whether the translator uses a comma before 'who' or not."
Edited by: Don at: 8/21/05 1:05 pm
|
DividedSelf
Registered User
(8/21/05 3:19 pm)
|
Re: Underpinnings
Thanks for that. I'm retreading old ground - and of course, why wouldn't I be... It's what old ground's for...
But yes, when I read the later version of the story I too read it as two kings.
But in the version from the 1st edition of the Grimms - or at least the translation of it I have - the ambiguity doesn't reside in whether the "lord of the forest" clause is restrictive or not. In fact, this clause doesn't appear in my translation. It's the forest of her "betrothed". There are several other passages where it seems explicit that they are the same king - i.e. that she does indeed marry her father. We are told the bread-soup-king recognises his bride, for example. He also recognises the sequence of gifts he gave her. The only thing that belies this is the change of reference from "father" to "king" and "daughter" to "bride".
On the assumption that the translation I have is reasonably faithful, I don't understand why the "two kings" reading is supposed to be the one that's generally accepted.
|
Veronica Schanoes
Registered User
(8/21/05 3:44 pm)
|
Re: Underpinnings
Are there other translations of that edition you could check out? Perhaps your translation is introducing elements that weren't there in the German?
|
Rosemary Lake
Registered User
(8/21/05 4:09 pm)
|
misc
Well, first, fleeing and taking refuge with some sort of 'forest king' or 'wildwood king' occurs in several tales of different types. Iirc sometimes this leads into an adventure of having to escape from the 'wildwood king' (on someone else's advice, as he hasn't actually done anything threatening yet). I don't recall these involving game playing.
One light and happy tales has a motif of playing disguise games with a prince (this was an Italian comic Cinderella who went down her well to play pranks). In some versions of 'leave home and take service' Cinderella she seems to play such games for no particular reason, with an inoffensive neighboring prince.
On the OP question, what about posting all four versions in a table or something, with the differing passages side by side: early Grimm and translation beside later Grimm and translation. And as someone said, check the translation.
I'd be quicker to expect a minor error in transcription one place or another, than a story in Grimm ending with an incestuous marriage (happy or not).
|
DividedSelf
Registered User
(8/21/05 6:08 pm)
|
Re: misc
Here's a link to the 1st edition version of the story on the Ashliman site.
He has a note stating that the king she marries is a different king, on the basis of the later versions - but that still begs a few questions.
Edited by: DividedSelf at: 8/21/05 6:09 pm
|
Don
Registered User
(8/21/05 6:10 pm)
|
Re: misc
Divided Self, it's true that in their first edition of this tale (that is, in the first volume of the 1812 edition), the identification of father and betrothed is much clearer (or much less indistinct). You might want to follow up on this by looking at the article "A Case Study of Editorial Filters in Folktales: A Discussion of the Allerleirauh Tales in Grimm," Fabula 27 (1986): 12-30. What the authors (Cay Dollerup, Iven Reventlow, and Carsten Rosenberg Hansen) deal with pertains to the questions your posing.
Edited by: Don at: 8/21/05 6:11 pm
|
Rosemary Lake
Registered User
(8/21/05 7:04 pm)
|
versions
It could make a good story either way. If it's her father who finds her in the tree and who throws his boots at her, and then catches her when she tries to escape in the last paragraph, that would be a nightmarish pattern. Tho it wouldn't be clear why she didn't try again to escape instead of giving him clues; she seemed to have plenty of freedom.
Overall the 1812 version at Ashliman, at the link you gave, www.pitt.edu/~dash/type0510b.html#boots,
strikes me as a story with two different kings, clumsily told. First it is 'her father', 'his daughter', etc. Then suddenly it is 'her fiance', 'his fiancee'; the language sounds like it's talking about a different, outside king. So do the mentions of gifts the outside king had given her -- ring etc -- which weren't mentioned earlier.
Here's something that seems clearly an error, emphasis mine:
"However, when the cook went upstairs, the king asked him who had made the soup, because it had been better than usual. The KING [Cook?] had to confess that it had been All-Kinds-of-Fur. Then the king had her sent up to him."
I'd look for other versions, pre-Grimm, where there was clearly only one king, before drawing that conclusion. Even a version that left out the incest but had the same motifs of the estranged daughter in disguise in her own home castle, would be a clue. A story without taboos might go something like, Silly quarrell (about salt or whatever); daughter leaves; daughter returns in disguise; to see if her father's anger has softened, she plays games returning his old gifts.
|
DividedSelf
Registered User
(8/22/05 5:57 am)
|
Re: versions
Don - excellent, thanks.
Rosemary...
Quote:
Overall the 1812 version at Ashliman, at the link you gave... strikes me as a story with two different kings, clumsily told.
I imagine you're probably right... but if so, it's very clumsily told... That's why I think it might be more of an error. It seems like the kind of mistake you'd make if you'd lopped out a storyline and then didn't proof-read it properly afterwards.
|
storygirl
Unregistered User
(8/22/05 12:09 pm)
|
Donkeyskin
Donkeyskin is another variant of this story, and is incestuous as well. But, at the end of the story, the king realizes the horribleness of his mistake in wanting to marry his daughter (she was the spitting image of her dead mother).
Robin McKinley tells a wonderful version (though graphic at times) of this but it is definitely not for children.
|
Rosemary Lake
Registered User
(8/22/05 10:44 pm)
|
mistakes
-------
It seems like the kind of mistake you'd make if you'd lopped out a storyline and then didn't proof-read it properly afterwards.
-------
Yes, or jumbled two different versions together. I've seen references to parts of different tales getting more or less accidentally joined and continuing as a new hybrid tale.
If the Grimms worked from an oral informant, then if she made a mistake while reciting to them, perhaps a garbled version could have gone into their book. I don't know how much quality checking they did. The fact that they changed the story later also suggests mistakes.
I suppose Don's reference might settle it. I wish someone would post a summary of that.
|
DividedSelf
Registered User
(8/23/05 3:29 am)
|
Re: mistakes
Well, reality has stabilised and the Grimms aren't endorsing incest - that's the main thing! Phew...
I've been trying to get hold of that article, but it doesn't look like it's available online (at least not cheaply).
|
Lamplighter
Registered User
(8/23/05 4:25 am)
|
Re: mistakes
This is a interesting thread in so many ways.
One question: was incest the taboo that it is today at the time of compilation of the story? Might an answer to this question shed more light on the apparent insinuations in the story?
|
Veronica Schanoes
Registered User
(8/23/05 4:35 am)
|
Re: mistakes
Incest of the immediate family variety tends to be taboo in almost all cultures, to make a vast generalization, and nineteenth-century Germany was not so very different from our own culture as to be comparable to the pharoanic brother-sister marriages of Ancient Egypt, for example. So yes, incest was taboo at the time of the compilation, and not just taboo--shocking and horrifying, much as it is today. For instance, in 19th-century Vienna, the concept of sexual abuse of daughters by their fathers was so horrifyingly unbelievable to Freud, that after beginning by believing the experiences told to him by the young women he was treating, he retrenched and came up with the concept of seduction fantasies to explain away their stories without having to believe them, and even this was disgusting enough to 19th-century European society that psychoanalytic theories such as the Oedipus complex were roundly disparaged and considered absolutely appalling.
Edited by: Veronica Schanoes at: 8/23/05 4:41 am
|
|
