SOURCE: "Folktale Characters," in The Brothers Grimm and Their Critics: Folktales and the Quest for Meaning, Ohio University Press, 1992, pp. 81-97.

MYTHICAL AND EPIC DIMENSIONS

Mythical and epic origins determined not only the deeper meaning of folktales but also the nature and dimensions of their characters, according to the Brothers Grimm. Folktale characters appeared in many forms, some human, some super-human, some in the shape of birds, fish, animals, plants, trees, or even stars and stones. Creatures of land, sea, air, and the very firmament above were animated and alive, spoke with a human voice, and had a human soul.¹ They laughed, wept, and took an active part in human thoughts and endeavors, assumed various human shapes, and ultimately returned to their original forms. A clear line of division between the animate and inanimate world did not exist among the folktale characters of long ago, for in one way or another they all shared in God's creation.²

Many folktale characters themselves embodied the mythical powers of good and evil. Whereas in myths and epics there had been gods and goddesses, in folktales often these were in human shapes while the magic power of the gods was transferred to heroes or to magic objects. In that sense, magic objects in folktales were mythical too, for they aided the hero in his struggle or protected him in times of danger. Wizards, witches, magic wands, magic potions, and magic spells all had their mythical counterparts in various cultures, and so did the very power capable of transformation used to perform great feats or to escape a foe. As the theme of metamorphosis was deeply rooted in world mythology, explained Wilhelm, so also the smaller magic objects like golden apples, the water of life, or the speaking well represented echoes of myths and epics. One might only recall the Edda's reference to Idun's magic apples, the water of Mimir's well, or the speaking falcon in the myth of Thjalfi to recognize their echoes in folktales.³

In his discussions of folktale heroes, Wilhelm Grimm drew upon many comparisons with heroes of German and Germanic myths and epics, especially while identifying forces of good and evil. Among others, he referred to Sigurd and Siegfried, who were kind, courageous, fearless, and strong, while seeking a symbolic power of evil and treachery in Loki and Hagen. Yet, he also sought out for his comparison some heroes of Greek mythology and epic, be they the glorious Odysseus, Perseus, or the infamous Ajax. In facing the human struggle against the forces of evil, he said, folktale heroes everywhere affirmed a folk belief in the universal need for justice.⁴

Like the world of myth and epic, the folktale world was governed by such universal laws of justice. If a protagonist was unable in this life to assert himself by good deeds and strong actions because perhaps he was treacherously slain, justice would follow after his death. Of course, there were some humorous tales to which this rule did not apply, but in most folktales sooner or later justice would reign. If humans did not carry out justice, some spirits might appear in the shape of animals, fish, or birds to set things right. In the folktale "The Juniper Tree," for example, the spirit of the dead mother appeared in the shape of a white bird to avenge the murder of the little boy. Corresponding to the mythical theme of resurrection, a dead soul might rise again from the waters of the river to seek its love or its due revenge. In that sense, the speaking head of the dead horse Fallada in "The Goose Girl" might remind one of Mimir's head in Norse mythology, just as talking ravens in the folktale "The Seven Ravens" might evoke the mythical image of Hugin and Munin (Thought and Memory), the wise birds of Wotan.

In folktales, as in myths and epics, the old God or Eternal Justice most often would come to the aid of those who were innocent. From the mistletoe to the dwarfs working with metals underground, numerous examples show how the folktale world sided with the one who was at a natural disadvantage. This aspect was an integral part of the universal folk belief in justice.⁵

Folktale characters also shared with characters of myths and epics certain exaggerated features that, at least to some degree, set them apart from reality. Often, they were very tall or very small, very clever or very dumb, very fast or very slow, very powerful or very weak. Whatever happened in folktales was not told on a human scale but rather in superdimensional or diminutive terms. With respect to human emotions and ethics, too, there were no in-between situations. A person was either very sad or very happy, very wicked or very good. Such an exaggeration, both in physical and spiritual terms, added a powerful emotional appeal to folktale characters and plots, because it enhanced with clarity the necessity and probability of any given situation while adding suspense to the folktale's action.

Wilhelm urged modern storytellers and editors of folktales to respect their element of exaggeration, as it represented a significant heritage of epic literature and the folk tradition. An attempt to reduce a folktale character or action to human size by cutting it down or softening some traits meant to deprive the folktale character of its mythical dimensions. In some cases such a reduction might even deprive the story of its emotional appeal and its innate sense of humor.

Another mythical quality of the folktale character was its reflection of naivete and purity, both of which were an integral part of Naturpoesie that was also evident in myths and epics. Characters possessing such radiant qualities remained untouched by the turmoil of event, they were immune to temptations and even to a head-on attack by the dark forces of evil. According to Wilhelm Grimm, it was the folktale character of Boots who best represented these qualities. As such, Boots certainly was not a modern invention but had numerous predecessors in myths, epics, folk books, and legends.

In trying to determine the most predominant characters in the common folktale, Wilhelm Grimm called attention to the following types: Boots (Dummling; Dümmling), The Giant and Tom Thumb (der Riese and der Däumling, Daumesdick, or dwarf), the Fool (der Narr, der Laienbürger, or Schildbürger), the Braggart or Liar (der Aufschneider or Lügner), the Thief (der Dieb), and the Practical Joker or Brother Jolly (Bruder Lustig).⁶ He pointed out in his analysis that especially Boots, the Giant, and Tom Thumb bore a strong relationship to characters known in mythology and some older literary sources, whereas the Fool, the Braggart, the Liar, the Thief, and the Practical Joker were more closely related to characters in the German Volksbücher (folk books) and other legends dating back to the Middle Ages, including Baron von Münchhausen and Merry Tyll (Till Eulenspiegel).

Boots was the "Dummling" or "Dümmling" in German folktales, a sort of male Cinderella. His name derived from the word dumm, which may mean naive or dumb but not necessarily stupid in the ordinary sense, for he was wise in his own way and usually also successful at the end. He was the abused fellow who was forced to sleep in the ashes or under the stairwell, to scrub the floors, and to do the meanest jobs. Yet even though he was kicked around, despised, ridiculed, and rejected, he never turned angry nor plotted revenge. Suffering silently, he remained kind, loving, patient, and sincere. The evil nature of others simply left his soul untouched.

In focusing on the quality of naivete that marked the character of Boots, Wilhelm compared him to the legendary British Perceval (Parzival), who was also called the tumbe klare, suggesting that even though both characters appeared to be dumb, dull, and a bit slow-witted to everyone around, they had in common a certain inner clarity and purity that set them apart from others and also above fate. Unrelated to worldly cleverness, their wisdom consisted of a pure heart and a clear moral vision. Both saw and judged the world only with the heart. Free from greed and vanity, they were unaware of their goodness and also free of calculation involving their own advantages.⁷

Wilhelm compared Boots to the naive character of Rennewart in an old French legend who, in spite of having to render the meanest services in the kitchen, never lost the innocence of his heart. Wilhelm also compared him in his innocence and kindness to the radiant Norse sun god, Balder, who was mortally wounded by the mistletoe yet, according to the Edda, had risen after death. There were also parallel traits in the characters of Sigurd and Siegfried, both of whom were remembered in folk tradition as innocent heroes who died at treacherous hands.

For centuries, Boots had always been a favorite folktale character among children and grown-ups, mainly because he was always good-willed, good-humored, and kind. When people and events turned against him, his inner strength and joyous disposition helped him to overcome all adversaries and fate itself. Somehow he always managed to come out on top, for usually a good spirit protected and saved him in a miraculous way. Even if he died in a folktale, his innocence and purity remained triumphant, for he would live on forever in the hearts of listeners.

Why was it Boots and not Ashputtel or Cinderella whom Wilhelm Grimm singled out as a predominant folktale type? Judging by the known variants in the oral and printed variants of related tales in the European folktale tradition, this character type was predominantly male, not female. Still, at his time, Boots was more dominant in folktales than Ashputtel, as far as this type of naive character was concerned. Undoubtedly, this conclusion was based on his definition of the type.

In Wilhelm's view, the "core" of the Boots tale did not involve a change of fortune or status (from rags to riches) but rather the character's retention of purity and naivete. He emphasized in this connection some dominant ethical dimensions derived from the theme of justice. Boots did not passively wait for his good fortune, he wrote, and neither was the happy ending merely a result of good luck. He was successful not because he was lucky, said Wilhelm, but because he deserved it. In such a reversal of fortune the folktale firmly expressed the folk belief in God's reign of justice—that justice would prevail whenever an innocent person was wronged or slain. Such endings ultimately gave proof of man's optimism in the eternal victory of good over evil. By no means was such a character as Boots to be understood as a weak person. By showing him as a naive and altruistic person who accepted poverty and hardships with humility and kindliness, the folktale marked his inner strength.

The same inner strength that marked the character of Boots was also present in Ashputtel. Wilhelm Grimm's analysis shows that good looks, however, were irrelevant to her character, unless the "fair face" and graceful appearance became true mirrors of a beautiful soul. Naive folktale characters became "beautiful" only when they mastered their fate without suffering damage in the purity of their souls. To qualify for the Boots type, it was also not sufficient if a character suffered abuse and ridicule or had to sleep in the ashes. Prerequisites were an inner radiance, a kind and joyous disposition, and a purity of heart. By such prerequisites, Disney's Cinderella would not fit under this type, as she was too pretty and not radiant enough from within. What she altogether lacked was naivete.

The big, clumsy Giant was another significant folktale type. Yet he did not come alone: usually a small fellow outsmarted him at the end. Wilhelm Grimm recognized this folktale character also in variants in Norse mythology and in folktales around the world. His physical prowess, ill matched by his slow wit, made him a rather ridiculous figure, especially when he was outwitted by a little fellow like Tom Thumb called Däumling, who was named after the Daumen or thumb. Däumling means "little thumb." Folktales involving the Giant as a type usually were humorous in nature, as they underscored his bigness by contrasting him with the physical and mental opposite, be it a small and clever dwarf, a featherweight Jolly Taylor, a dwarf, or a witty Däumling. As foils, both the Giant and the Däumling were well-liked character types in many countries, for young and old everywhere enjoyed how the little guy teased the big fellow. It was especially humorous when the Giant first bragged about doing some impossible things and then was frightened out of his wits by the littlest creature. In some cases, the little guy, too, was a braggart when he tried to overcome some physical disadvantages in this manner, but unlike the Giant, he was usually successful in resolving difficult problems, simply by putting to work his mind.⁸

Wilhelm referred to a broad range of variants in folktales, myths, and legends as he discussed such stock characters of the Giant and Tom Thumb. In doing so, he was free from all domestic considerations that later so much bewildered educators as they contemplated the ethics of folktale characters and their possible influence on children. Of course, he knew that it was neither well-mannered nor decent of the Däumling to brag, to lie, to cheat, and to steal, but he felt that young and old gladly forgave him his tall tales and misdeeds, because he used them by law of compensation as a means of self-defense. Instead of being angry with him, they laughed at how he tricked his enemy. Besides, he pleased the audience by the ways in which he cleverly managed to live up to some of his most incredible promises. In the interest of folk humor and folk justice, people had come to embrace gladly in folktale characters what in real life they looked upon with contempt, said Wilhelm. This type of humor had been accepted since the Middle Ages, and it still appealed at the present.

CCHARACTERS FROM FOLK BOOKS AND LEGENDS

The Brothers Grimm thought that folk books (Volksbücher or chapbooks) were one of the greatest sources of folktale characters, next to medieval manuscripts and epics. One of the most predominant character types that emerged from the folk books was the Fool. He was the silly character, known in German legends also as the Laienbürger (later called Schildbürger). Variants of this type could be found in the legendary Till Eulenspiegel (Merry Tyll), with his fool's cap, as well as in the Seven Swabians. In the German tradition, the female counterpart of the male Fool was dumb little Catherlieschen, who appeared in various folktales. In India, the male fool was known as Paramaria, in Finland as the giant Kullervo (in the epic of Kalevala), and in Ireland as Darly Duly.⁹ All of these characters pretended to be innocent while doing the most outrageous and absurd things. They carried out all orders literally yet in the wrong way, either because they didn't know better or because they truly enjoyed playing tricks on people. They appeared to be obedient to the letter of the law, and in spite of it, or because of it, they usually affected the very opposite. The humor arising from the related stories was derived from the stark contrast between what they hoped to achieve and what they actually did achieve. The endings of such fool's tales often held in store a surprise for the listeners: a completely unexpected turn of events that evoked cascades of laughter.

The Fool usually set out to do impossible things from the beginning to the end of the given story. He might climb to the sky on a thin blade of grass and slide down again on a rope made of hay. Wilhelm Grimm referred in this context to the tales numbered 112, 138, and 159 in the Kinder-und Hausmärchen, all of which focused on the Fool as the main character. He made reference to the legendary character of Baron von Münchhausen, but in comparative terms also to fools in several foreign collections, such as Norway or the Slavic countries. In Serbia the Fool appeared as King Beardless and in Ireland as Daniel O'Rourke. Still, Wilhelm felt that the Fool in some medieval tales of the tenth century emerged more convincingly than in all of these combined. As a genre, the fool's tale was unsurpassed in its humor, and as a character type, the Fool added life and laughter to folklore on the broadest scale.¹⁰

Another folktale character that could be traced back to the tradition of the Volksbücher was the Braggart or the Habitual Liar. He lied throughout the entire tale while maintaining the appearance of credibility. Granted, there were also some purely nonsensical tales in which eagles swam, fish flew, and hares skated on ice, yet in contrast with such stories or tales from the "Schlaraffenland," where the laziest man was king, the best liar's tales always retained some element of probability.

Many of the liar's tales depicted characters and used a language that were truly creative. By defying all laws of reason and logic, they had a liberating effect upon the listener's imagination. Wilhelm wrote that in such tales, "the human imagination satisfies the longing to use with full liberty that knife that cuts all restraints."¹¹ These comments show that Wilhelm Grimm was far ahead of the European didactic age in which educators tried to find a moral purpose in every story they heard or read. Instead of looking for a moral or purpose in folktales, he recognized the need for imaginative stories and emotional freedom. He knew from his studies of medieval literature, as well as from his own love of the oral tradition, that braggarts, liars, and fools had a legitimate place in storytelling. Their humor was needed to bring vigor and warmth to the heart. Remarkable were his insights into the need for nonsense—the upside-down world of tomfoolery in the storytelling tradition—that was not always considered legitimate literature for children in the nineteenth century.

Wilhelm felt that compared with epic literature and some medieval legends and poems, many folktales of the oral tradition gave merely a weak reflection of the humor contained in the printed sources. The Modus florum of Ebert's transmission (Vol. 13, 20), for example, or the tales of Merry Tyll (Till Eulenspiegel) and of Baron von Münchhausen were unsurpassed in their vitality and humorous appeal. Some medieval literary tales, such as the old folkbook story of the king who promised his daughter to the one who would tell the biggest lies, were told so vigorously that the best living storyteller would have a hard time competing with them.

He felt it especially remarkable to what degree the medieval German Volksbücher had retained traces of the old folk speech that transmitted the humor of the Middle Ages in such a lively, direct, and colloquial way. Compared with the language of the Volksbücher, the language of folktales was sometimes a bit pale and repetitious. These observations on the language of the old folk books and their sources for folktale variants give significant insight into the reasons why both Wilhelm and Jacob considered some medieval literary sources worthy of inclusion in their folktale collection.

The Thief was another folktale character who had been well-known in the medieval folk-book tradition. In the Kinder-und Hausmärchen this character found its best expression in the tale "The Master Thief." Wilhelm compared this character with the trickster in North American Indian tales, finding him compatible in terms of his cleverness. Folktales depicting the Thief as the main character were meant for enjoyment, not for teaching vices or virtues. The character of the Thief was as timeless and poetic in folktales as he had been in myths and epic poetry. In whatever folk tradition he might appear, he was always in a humorous context.

Finally, there was the character of the Practical Joker, who in German folktales was best known as Brother Jolly (Bruder Lustig). He not only fooled people of all ranks and classes but even played jokes on Holy Peter and the Devil himself. Yet instead of receiving his due punishment at the end of the tale, he sometimes reaped the highest reward. In one case, he even managed to gain admittance into Heaven—not because he repented or was forgiven but because he used another clever trick.

Such a seemingly antimoralistic outcome in a folktale, explained Wilhelm, could also be found in certain blasphemous folk comedies. The outcome was always to be understood within a humorous context and not otherwise. Tales of this type were simply not meant to convey a useful lesson. He admitted that a type like Brother Jolly certainly taught us nothing except resourcefulness, cleverness, a bit of cheer. Yet wasn't that enough for a good story? Granted, all that Brother Jolly cared about was having a good time. Yet even if he seldom, if ever, worried about the difference between justice or injustice, good or evil, he was never malicious or ill-natured himself.

Why was Bruder Lustig so well-liked by young and old? He was popular because his tricks were humorous but without malice and because he himself was basically good-hearted. Above all, however, they liked him on account of his freedom of action. Without bothering about possible consequences, he took liberties that no one else did take, disregarding all taboos, rules, or obstacles, jumping over hurdles, and doing exactly what was strictly forbidden. In that sense he resembled Shakespeare's Falstaff, said Wilhelm, who, as a Fool, was as well-liked in Germany and elsewhere as was the German folktale character. Whether Brother Jolly appeared in the company of God or Holy Peter or as the Bear-Skinner (Barenhäuter), he consistently took advantage of them all and usually escaped punishment and death. Even when he was finally caught, he remained undefeated in his spirit.

Laughter and wit were always on Brother Jolly's side. He possessed neither the innocence of a Perceval nor the purity and inner radiance of Boots, but the audience warmed up to him because of his cheerfulness, self-confidence, defiance, and cleverness. Above all, however, they liked him because of his undefeated optimism and spirit of liberation. All of these qualities, claimed Wilhelm, represented an integral, lovable part of the native tradition and should never be changed.

Wilhelm Grimm accepted the full range of human characters that had been popular in the oral and printed tradition. As he embraced the folktale characters' purity, innocence, and generosity of heart, so he also accepted their nonsense, tomfoolery, thievery, trickery, and practical jokes. Such characters as tricksters, braggarts, liars, fools, and thieves were, of course, no ideal models for character training, yet together with the Dummling and the other good-hearted creatures, they expressed the full, vigorous spirit of the folk heritage, both at home and abroad. This was the spirit of Naturpoesie that taught children to appreciate life and nature without preaching.

The Grimms thought that cosmetic modifications or added moralities most certainly would detract from the vitality of the characters' poetic substance.¹² They would also undermine the traditional folk humor that belonged to their substance. With all their exaggerated traits, both good and evil, these characters should be accepted just as they were and had been known for ages. He knew, of course, that some persons would raise objections. The Giant, believing in might above right, was often too rude and too crude; Tom Thumb showed off, lied, stole, and used sly tricks; and the Fool, the Braggart, the Liar, the Thief, and Brother Jolly were constantly engaged in outrageous, irreverent, and unlawful things. Yet essentially folktale characters yielded no more than what was already present in nature and life itself and also no more than what could be found in myths and epics. To soften such character traits even mildly meant to go against nature and against life as well, but especially against the folk tradition. It was a different matter, insisted Wilhelm, if one modified some crude expressions contained in the folk books and other medieval sources, for these were unrelated to the major characters or a given tale's substance. In referring to crude expressions Wilhelm had in mind the bawdy and crafty language used in some medieval sources, such as the works of Hans Sachs and Johann Fischart, which in an undiluted form might still shock some readers in our time.

Within the context of their medieval literary studies, both Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm concerned themselves intensively also with animal characters, especially with those related to the verse poem of Reynard the Fox. They looked for parallel characters in the oral folk tradition, be they in regard to the slyness of the fox, the viciousness of the wolf, or the gentleness of the dove. When, in cooperation with his brother, Jacob published in 1834 his six-hundred-page edition of Reinhart Fuchs (Reynard the Fox), he observed in his preface that the character types among the animals were modeled upon human types. Yet, they differed from human characters in that they admitted neither change nor development: a fox always remained sly, just as a wolf remained vicious and a dove gentle. The same was true for the animal characters in folktales, where, very much like in fables, some exaggerated human traits remained fixed to them throughout the ages and also throughout proverbs and stock expressions. In an essay "The Nature and Origin of Animal Tales,"¹³ Wilhelm emphasized the creatures' unchanging characters, noting that nothing else was said about their sins or virtues that fell outside of these stereotypes. In their actions, the animals usually followed their natural instincts. In spite of many variants and developments throughout history, their characters had essentially remained the same.

Both Brothers Grimm agreed that such characters should not be changed in the editing process either, as they were deeply rooted in epics, myths, and medieval folk literature. They searched in these animal epics, like in folktales, for some traces of Naturpoesie. In Wilhelm's essay "On the Mythological Significance of the Wolf,"¹⁴ which he published in the Zeitschrift für deutsches Alterthum in 1865, he called attention to the unchanging symbolic nature of animal characters that took on an almost fable-like rigidity. He also noted parallel traits based on tradition in fables, folktales, myths, and epics but especially with the animal characters in the fables of Aesop and Babrius.

In an essay that Jacob wrote in 1812 for Friedrich Schlegel's Deutsches Museum,^l5 he presented his findings of a detailed comparative study of Reynard the Fox in various cultures, including France and the Netherlands. In discussing the language and motifs of this epic, he acknowledged its rootedness in various cultures and traditions. Among others, he referred to the Latin version of Echasis captivi (1043-1046), the Flemish Isengrimus by the poet Nivardus (about 1150), the Old French epic Roman de renart (between 1174 and 1250), and the Dutch version of Van den Vos Renarde (thirteenth century), comparing them to folktale variants that existed within a widespread naturally grown structure that resembled that of "branches and buds." His German sources, to which he also alluded with this organic simile, were the Middle High German Reinhart Fuchs by the poet Heinrich den Glichezare ( 1182), the Low German Reynke de Vos (1498), and some folkbook versions of the Middle Ages.

When Jacob responded to the animal epic in terms of expressing a feeling for home and country by writing: "It appears to me that I still sense in this epic the Germanic fragrance of the forest in the essential qualities and structure of these tales. . . ,"¹⁶ He did not think it was possible to tell which of the various epics had preceded the other, as far as the origin of the folktale characters was concerned. Rather, it satisfied his scholarly and personal interest to discover as many European variants of the tale as possible.

In France Jacob had prepared handwritten copies of the Old French Roman de renard, of which he attached to his essay a sample of his own vivid translation. In reflecting about the animal characters in this epic, he expressed his surprise at their correspondence with those of a Hessian folktale and also with respect to certain motifs that he had not seen in either the Low German, Flemish, or Dutch versions of the tale. Upon presenting to his readers the need for a more systematic exploration of animal-tale variants in the folk tradition, he appealed for their cooperation to collect for him stories in poetry, song, or prose, in a complete form or in fragments, about such creatures as the fox, the wolf, the bear, the dog, the cock, the sparrow, and the cat. He urged them to search for these in "remotely situated mountain and forest villages, where nature itself has granted something like a refuge even for the old customs and traditions."¹⁷ This appeal was similar to another one, designed on a much broader scale, that Jacob sent out as a Circular-Brief three years later, also with respect to his request for accuracy in the recording of such tales.

It is evident from both Wilhelm's and Jacob's discussion of animal characters that they considered them an integral part of the Kinder-und Hausmärchen.

HUMANE AND POETIC CHARACTER TRAITS

The Grimms' various essays on folktale characters and types show that they were looking with particular interest for German and Germanic sources in order to obtain the native flavor of traditional folk characters in relation to their naivete and purity, a vigorous folk humor, or the symbolic language of Naturpoesie. In this connection, they used both oral and literary sources in complementary terms. In their editing and translation work with medieval literary sources, they were often informed by their oral folktale collections, and in their work with folktales, they were enriched by a close reading of medieval manuscripts and epics. The poetic and symbolic nature of myth and epics was common to both.

The Grimms were delighted whenever they came across a homey flavor in folktales, be it in the image of a native character, in a motif, or in a colloquial expression, one that, as Jacob put it, still carried the "fragrance of the native forest." On the other hand, their search for Naturpoesie in folktales was as universal as folk poetry itself, and they never lost sight of international and comparative perspectives. It is this broad-minded attitude that added a humanistic touch to their scholarship, also within the realm of folktales.

The humane aspects of folktales were derived from their rootedness in the reality of the past. They emanated a warm and intimate feeling for the Middle Ages, the countryside, the small towns and villages, and the simple life within them. Viewed from this perspective, folktale characters, too, could be partially considered a reflection of the Middle Ages, for they concerned themselves intimately with the life of the simple folk in forests and valleys as well as of kings, queens, princes, and princesses residing in hilltop castles and landed estates. As Wilhelm saw it, the main heroes and heroines of folktales were mainly descendants of simple peasants, shepherds, charcoal burners, fishermen, shoemakers, blacksmiths, and various other craftspeople, most of whom were engaged in a quiet and steady occupation.

As the folktale dwelt on exaggerated types rather than on unique individuals, it was self-evident that the historical reality of such characters had some definite limitations, but the setting, the structure of society, and the common-folk environment in villages and towns were reflections of reality. This was especially true in regard to the ways in which it mirrored poverty and hardships encountered by many characters at the beginning of the tales. To a large degree, such adverse conditions reflected the life of the common man as it had been throughout the centuries and as it still is to some extent today. Poverty in folktales, like cruelty and war, brought about suffering, tears, and unhappiness. Such conditions reflected the reality of life, and they belonged to the folktale world as they belonged to life because they always had been an integral part of the true experiences of mankind. Reading about such harsh life conditions would make us more humane, as it would induce us to take part in the life of others who were less fortunate than us.

In contrast to epic heroes who often were descendants of gods or kings or both, folktale heroes were mostly simple fellows and young girls of humble origin. They were unspoiled, innocent, and content with the bare necessities for survival. Yet poverty never made them greedy but rather fostered their altruism. They were used to getting along on a crust of bread, asked little or nothing for themselves, and were ready to share what little they had with others. Their ancestry was unknown, they inherited nothing, and they struggled for survival from day to day. Sometimes they were poor young orphans or semi-orphans forced to wander into the wide world to earn their daily bread. The little girl in "The Twelve Months" had to walk into the snowy woods with bare feet, clad only in a paper dress, to search for strawberries in the middle of the winter. The Star Child parted with her shirt and shared her last crust of bread to help a poor stranger; Hansel and Gretel were neither bitter nor angry when their parents deserted them in the dark forest, but understood their plight and prayed for God's help.¹⁸

Reminders of life's harsh reality were ever-present in folktales, said Wilhelm Grimm. This was so because they represented a truth with which the storytellers themselves had been well familiar. Having customarily come from the peasant class or the lower classes of society, they had experienced first-hand what it meant to be poor, thus projecting their own problems into the stories. Simple folk had always known such hardships, and in the past had not objected to rediscovering them again in the folktale world, because hardships made the stories more credible. Within the context of human hardships, even the character of the stepmother was realistic too, said Wilhelm Grimm. On and off, one could still hear and read reports in the newspapers about child abuse and child desertion that made one shiver. In such cases, it was usually extreme poverty, not an evil nature, that drove some parents to abandon their children—unfortunately even at the present time. In that sense, the stepmother represented some realistic traits derived from adverse conditions of the life of common folk rather than the portrayal of a monster.

But folktales also showed the bright side of life in terms of miracles, rich rewards, and happy endings that transformed all sadness into happiness: a dwarf would help the freezing little girl in the paper dress; a good child would be blessed by a rain of golden coins or a radiant new shirt embroidered with stars; and Hansel and Gretel would return to their father's house with boxes full of money to last them a lifetime. Such transformations of fate were not merely wishful thinking but rather a reflection of common-folk optimism based on their faith in eternal justice. Regardless of how cruel the human condition might be, they believed that justice would come to set things right.

Moreover, a struggle against the harsh reality would set the stage for the folktale character's courageous actions. Thus it was not the background of action but rather a needed challenge that brought out the best in the protagonists. It gave rise to hope, strength, and determination but especially to the power of love, which was capable of overcoming all powers of evil. In that sense, folktales did not present poverty and hardships as permanent conditions, for they were meant to be overcome. In struggling against the odds, folktale characters were blessed with hopeful actions but not crushed by the spirit of resignation. Sometimes they were assisted by helpers and miracles, but mostly they fended for themselves.

Folktale characters often had very little education, yet they were close to nature and possessed a fine intuition, a good common sense, and a remarkable wit. Some were more serious in nature whereas others were more humorous, but they all struggled against the odds and in the end usually overcame all obstacles—even if it meant to outwit the Devil himself. The folktale's portrayal of such a successful struggle showed, said Wilhelm, that the storytellers had a deep faith in the resourcefulness, wit, and ingenuity of the common folk.

Would some traditional folktale characters frighten children listening to the tales? Wilhelm did not think so. He emphasized that the reflection of adverse conditions of life would lead children to a strong feeling of empathy for those who were lonely, frightened, and abused and thus would humanize children in the best sense of the word. Such an effect could also be expected from listening to folktales involving evil stepmothers. In this connection, he referred to a legend of Stiefmütterchen (Little Stepmother),¹⁹ which is the German name for the pansy. The legend esssentially called attention to the plight of poor children by relating the story that the yellow and purple flower petals were the chairs for the mother's real children, while the small green leaves supporting the flower petals were the seats of the deprived children who had no chairs. What did this legend mean? Wilhelm thought that it reminded children of the lot of unfortunate creatures. Some children had no mother and were so poor that they didn't even have a chair to sit upon. The young listeners would realize by themselves, he thought, that these poor children did not deserve such a fate, and upon experiencing such a realization, they would extend to the children a feeling of warm sympathy in their prayers.

Wilhelm's views on reality undoubtedly reflected the Romantic vision of the child. With his own kindness he projected nothing but kindness into others, always believing that good would prevail.²⁰ It is important to realize his own innocent and naive perspective on the world that was far removed from the perspective of gore and evil of which some critics are still accusing him in our time. His detached mythical view of the subject seemed to tame the dark and threatening forces in folktales, for he considered them merely an antithesis to the powers of love, goodness, empathy, and justice. Who but Wilhelm Grimm would have thought that the characters of a dragon or an evil stepmother were needed to arouse the listener's love and empathy for the suppressed? In this context, the unpleasant and potentially fearful aspects of folktale characters were not merely reflections of folk reality; they served to develop the child's sensitivity and love for others. The symbolic and literary interpretations of Max Lüthi, the aesthetic views of Hermann Bausinger, and the psychological views of Bruno Bettelheim²¹ are not so very far removed from such thoughts, although they are based on different premises and also follow different lines of argumentation.

Wilhelm not only addressed with his discussion questions of ethics and folklore in general but he also anticipated the needs of the child. Children exposed to such harsh characters and events would not at all feel depressed and dejected, he wrote, but liberated and free, for in the folktale hero's struggle against evil they would rediscover in their own soul a spark of warmth and affection for those who suffered or were lost or abandoned. These were the gentle and liberating forces of folktales that had a positive effect upon the child's soul. Folktales had a strange yet fascinating way of blending history with the present conditions of simple life, he observed, and, even more so, of transforming the world of reality by the power of the soul.

To the child, the folktale world was really a gentle world, he said, for if it seemed that "might was right" and that evil powers gained the upper hand, one should wait for the power of love and magic to take their effect. Folktales also had frail and gentle characters, those who merely smiled and transformed the world. These were the ones who won the greatest battles. The folktale's most touching moments were the ones that appealed to the heart. It was the greatest miracle of all when the innocent laughter of a frail little princess banished an evil spell or when a simple truth spoken by a small child destroyed a mighty castle of falsehood and pretense. A single tear, wept in sympathy for a suffering creature or human being, transformed a fearful monster into a loving prince. Such was the power of love that it changed the world. In this gentle, humanizing touch lay embedded the true magic of the folktale. Such thoughts, he said, were no idle dreams of an idealist. Feelings were as much a reality as the world outside, and the feelings that a child experienced in listening to a story were a powerful reality indeed.

A most humane aspect of the folktale was its power to console. In the folktale world no harsh reality would ever be present without its counterpart: hope, brotherly love, pity, empathy, or simple sharing. When, after a long and lonesome walk through the dark forest, Hansel comforted Gretel and both sent their prayers to God, all fear was wiped away and the listeners glowed in a feeling of warmth and affection. There was also faith in God, who would help those asking for his support, provided their hearts were innocent and pure. It was this faith that dominated the impression that a child would gain from a folktale, not the image of the harsh and cruel life conditions affecting the common man. As the protagonists struggled toward freedom, their love and resourcefulness would dominate in the end and push back the harsh reality with its powers of evil. In the focus of attention was the struggle itself, led on by hope. In that sense, folktales had much to offer to make the world more gentle and more humane.²²

Sometimes folktale characters would only partially succeed in gaining such a freedom. In such a case, a character might discover to his dismay that he had retained the wing of a swan instead of an arm or that he had lost an eye along with his tears. Such elements were not arbitrary inventions of individual storytellers, claimed Wilhelm, but expressed symbolically traditional images revealing the loss of inner purity or the loss of a truth. Their origin could be traced back to myths and epics, where human symbols abounded within a sphere of vivid images of this kind. Such folktale symbols were as true to life as were the images of reality contained in others. No effort was needed through sermons or long explanations to convey their meaning to the child, because they spoke a language of true human experience that appealed directly to the heart.

The most significant thing that folktales had to offer, said Wilhelm, was that they taught us about ourselves, our inner resources, altruism, kindness, empathy, and genuine strength. This, too, was a reality, as it focused on the hidden powers of all humane aspects in this world that lay embedded in our souls. The folktale helped us to rediscover it and put it to work. There was poetic justice in the tale in which the Dummling gained at the end all of the fortunes, for he had suffered from abuse and ridicule. Yet it was more than that, said Wilhelm, namely "a lesson in poetry itself," for it spoke of the power of purity, goodness, truth, innocence, compassion, and love. Wherever such powers were evident, there was sunshine, there was Naturpoesie.

Finally, Wilhelm warned readers not to make folktale characters the object of a lesson or a moralistic example. Folktales never preached. Lessons derived from folktales were lessons in poetry, not in morality.²³ Even though this poetry had not been the folktale's original purpose and the folktale was not told because of it, poetry was its natural attribute and the secret of its universal appeal. It developed from the folktale "as a fruit grows from a healthy blossom—without any additions" by a storyteller. The vivid images and symbols of this poetry needed no explanation, as the listening child would instantly recognize in them his own experiences, his compassion for others, or his own true self and his soul. Such a discovery gave the reader a feeling of elation while making him rejoice in his own better self and, above all, in his newly won relationship with others. In reading folktales, he would cast off the bondages of selfishness and falsehood and commit himself to the spirit of light, truth, and freedom.

Notes

¹ Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm, Kinder-und Hausmärchen (Berlin: Reimer, 1812). Preface.

² The Grimms shared such Romantic thoughts with other German Romantic writers. These ideas were especially close to the philosophy of Friedrich W. J. Schelling. See Burton Feldmann and Robert D. Richardson, eds., The Rise of Modern Mythology: ¡680-1860 (Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1972), pp. 302-05.

³ Wilhelm Grimm, "Über das Wesen der Märchen," in Kinder-und Hausmärchen, 2d ed. (Berlin: Reimer, 1819), Introduction, pp. xxi-liv. The analysis of Wilhelm's ideas in relation to folktales is based on the unabridged text of his essay in the 1819 edition.

⁴ Wilhelm Grimm, "Über das Wesen der Märchen," in Gustav Hinrichs, ed. Kleinere Schriften von Wilhelm Grimm Vol. I (Berlin: Ferdinand Dümmlers Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1881), pp. 344-48; 350-51. For the reader's convenience, page references are given to the shorter version of this essay that is more readily available in Hinrich's edition.

⁵ Ibid., pp. 332. (See Wilhelm's notes on this account.)

⁶ Ibid., pp. 355-587.

⁷ Ibid.

⁸ Ibid., p. 335.

⁹ These detailed comparisons appear only in the original 1819 edition of the Kinder-und Hausmärchen but not in Hinrich's abridged versions of the introductory essays in Kleinere Schriften.

¹⁰ For a comprehensive discussion of German Volksbücher and their relevance to an understanding of the Grimms' concept of Naturpoesie, see Max Lüthi, "Europäische Volksliteratur" in Albert Schäfer, ed., Weltliteratur und Volksliteratur (Munich, Beck, 1972), pp. 55-80.

¹¹ Wilhelm Grimm, "Über das Wesen der Märchen."

¹² In the preface to the same edition Wilhelm wrote his famous words about an education in Naturpoesie (nature or folk poetry), which frequently have been mistranslated or misinterpreted as a didactic message: "Wir wollten indes durch unsere Sammlung nicht bloss der Geschichte der Poesie einen Dienst erweisen, es war zugleich Absicht dass die Poesie selbst, die darin lebendig ist, wirke: erfreue, wen sie erfreuen kann, und darum auch, dass es ein eigentliches Erziehungsbuch daraus werde." ("We wish to offer with our collection not only a service to the history of poetry but simultaneously the intention to make effective the poetry itself that is alive within it: to delight those who are capable of enjoying it. It is for this reason that it (the Kinder-und Hausmärchen) should become a true book of education."

¹³ Wilhelm Grimm "Über das Wesen und den Ursprung der Tierfabeln" and Grimm vol. 4 (1887), and Wilhelm Grimm, "Die mythische Bedeutung des Wolfes," Ibid. This essay was first published in Grimms' journal Altdeutsche Wälder (1813-1816). See also Jacob Grimm, Reinhart Fuchs (Berlin: Reimer, 1834).

¹⁴ See Dieter Hennig and Bernard Lauer, eds. Die Brüder Grimm. Dokumente ihres Lebens und Wirkens (Kassel: Verlag Weber & Weidemeyer, 1986), especially pp. 475-84 in reference to various works by the Brothers Grimm pertaining to "Reinhart Fuchs" (also called Reineke Fuchs or Reynke de Vos in fables) and related animal fables. The sources listed and discussed in this work were prepared on the basis of exhibits in the Museum Fridericianum in Kassel, as well as in Berlin and Hanau, between 1985 and 1986.

¹⁵ Jacob Grimm, "Über das Wesen der Tierfabel," Aus den Kleineren Schriften von Jacob Grimm; Die Schriften der Brüder Grimm in einer Auswahl für das deutsche Volk (Berlin: Meijer & Jessen, 1911), pp. 343-63.

¹⁶ Ibid.

¹⁷ Jacob Grimm, "Reinhart Fuchs" Kleinere Schriften von Jacob Grimm vol. 4 (Berlin: Dümmler, 1869), pp. 53-63.

¹⁸ Hennig and Lauer, eds., p. 333.

¹⁹ Ibid., pp. 334-35.

²⁰ Hermann Grimm, "Jacob und Wilhelm Grimm," in Literatur trans. Sarah Adams (Boston: Cupples, Upham & Company, Publ., 1886), pp. 254-85.

²¹ The ideas of these critics and others are discussed in Chapter 10.

²² Hennig and Lauer, eds., p. 335.

²³ Ibid., pp. 336-37.