Review

Author(s): Donald P. Haase

Review by: Donald P. Haase
Source: Monatshefte, Vol. 79, No. 1 (Spring, 1987), pp. 114-117
Published by: University of Wisconsin Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30159330
Accessed: 06-08-2015 14:37 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Wisconsin Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Monatshefte.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 86.10.83.239 on Thu, 06 Aug 2015 14:37:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

114

Monatshefte

bibliothek PreuB3ischer
Kulturbesitzin West Berlin; and scholarlycommentary
is provided for each text. The volume resulted from a project undertakenby
Rolleke's seminarat the University of Wuppertal.No attemptwas made to transcribeall such materialavailablein the manuscripts;the aim was ratherthat "ein
Eindruckdessen vermittelt werden sollte, aus welcherArt Materialdie Grimms
ihre richtungweisendenund zeittiberdauerndenMirchen- und Sageneditionen
schufen" (4). The volume does fulfill this aim, if only in the negative sense that
the materialis of a sort that, for one reason or another,the Grimms were unable
or unwilling to use.
The texts contained here make interestingreadingfor students of folktale,
if not perhapsfor the generalreadingpublic. The book calls special attention to
this rejectedmaterialand invites furtherstudy of it. Thus, here too, as with his
synoptic edition of the 1810 manuscriptsand the versions of the original 1812
edition (Die diltesteMdrchensammlungder BrutderGrimm, 1975) and his new
Reclam edition of the Kinder-und Hausmdrchen(3 vols., 1980), not to mention
his many other publications in this area, R611ekehas come to the aid of more
criticallyand scholarlyminded readerswho wish to probe furtherinto the backgroundof the Grimms'collection.(The changesand additionsin this thirdedition
are minor, as was the case, too, with the second edition relative to the first.)
-James M. McGlathery
Universityof Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

One Fairy Story too Many: The BrothersGrimmand Their Tales.

By John M. Ellis. Chicagoand London: Universityof ChicagoPress, 1983. ix +
214 pages.
Fairy Tales and the Art of Subversion:The Classical Genre for Childrenand
the Process of Civilization.
By Jack Zipes. New York:WildmanPress, 1983. 214 pages. $ 9.95.
In the first 110 pagesof his book on the Grimms'Kinder-undHausmdtirchen,
Ellis arguesconvincingly for a view of the tales that will surprisesome, though
certainlynot all, readers.He demonstratesthat the KHM are not, as the Grimms
claimed, accurately recorded Germanic folktales collected from informants of
peasant origin. Rather, many are repeatedlyrevised and substantiallyrewritten
versions of tales that came to them througha variety of literatesources.Not only
did the brothersdraw on alreadypublished tales but also on those told to them
by educated middle-class informants of French, not German, background.By
destroyingtheir manuscriptsand writingmisleadingprefacesto early editions of
the KHM, the Grimms perpetrateda successfulfolklore fraud.
The evidence with which Ellis makes his case has been available for some
time. One needs only to compare the first edition with subsequenteditions of
the tales to recognizethe blatantuntruthof the Grimms'claim not to have altered
the stories in any significant way. By 1924 more corroboratingevidence was
available-including manuscriptsof some tales which had been sent to Clemens
Brentano-and Ellis does an importantservice by reconsideringthe evidence that
undermines the Grimms' credibility. He rigorouslyexamines and summarizes
the literate,non-Germaniccharacterof the brothers'sourcesand then shows how
substantial revisions were made to individual tales in an incessant process of

This content downloaded from 86.10.83.239 on Thu, 06 Aug 2015 14:37:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Book Reviews

115

rewriting.(Pages 111-94 reproducevariousversions of threetales in both German

and English-a featurethat makes the book particularlyuseful.)
As Ellis acknowledges,he actually makes no new discoveries but merely
reviews evidence that has been long available. For this reason he finds it all the
more upsettingthat the "fairystory"concerningthe tales' natureand origin still
persists, even among Grimm scholars. In fact, much of Ellis' text traces the
development of this myth and attemptsto account for the reluctanceof scholars
to reach the same obvious conclusion he has: namely, the Grimms lied. This
review of researchwould be very instructivewere it left at that;but Ellis' polemic
soon becomes redundantcomplaining, and his incredulousshock at the failure
of others to see what he finally has seen gives an unfair picture of perfectly
respectablescholars.Ellisnot only chastisesHeinz Rollekefor not goingfar enough
in his importantrevision of the Grimms' image, he even takes the reviewersof
Rlleke's 1975 book to task for giving him too much credit and accuses them of
"skirt[ing]the issue of the Grimms'clearlydeceptive statements"(35). Although
Rolleke has reissued much of the important data that has in fact encourageda
soberlook at the Grimmsand the evidence surroundingthe KHM,Elliscomplains
that this foremost Grimm scholar"can only bring himself to say: 'All these facts
show the Grimms' collection of fairy tales in a quite [entschieden]differentlight
than scholarshipor commonly accepted traditions have seen them" (16). This
seems a curiouscriticismby someone who a pagelaterconcludesthat the evidence
just examined "throwsan entirelydifferentlight on the status of the KHM"(1718). Elsewherewe are told not merely that the logic of Rolleke's argumentis
weak, but that he is practicing"logical sleight-of-hand"and "tryingto shift our
attention to an irrelevance"(107). IngeborgWeber-Kellermannis credited with
some valid perceptionsbut fails to declarethe Grimms deceitful,promptingEllis
to chide that her "nerveeventuallyfailed too" (34). Let there be no mistake:Ellis
is correct to observe that some critics seem reluctant to admit the apparently
intentionalnatureof the Grimms'fraud;but his exaggeratedad hominempolemic
is not only unfair but does little to elucidate the tales for us, which is what one
hopes for in a book by so subtle a readeras Ellis.
This captious criticism of other scholarshas its counterpartin Ellis' desire
to judge the Grimms and put them, too, in their proper place. The book's penultimate chapter becomes a scholarly courtroom where the Grimms' case is
compared with that of James Macphersonand his Ossian forgeries.The verdict
is handed down that "The facts..,. should have made the Grimms subjectto far
more severe criticism than Macpherson;yet ... the Grimms are still excused,
and are never judged by the standardused in Macpherson'scase" (98-99). This
offendedsense of justice and plea for vengeanceon the Grimms diverts attention
unintentionallyfrom the truly significantimplications of Ellis' importantthesis.
After all, does it really matterwhetherwe give the Grimms "severecriticism"or
refuseto grantthem forgiveness?It seems to me more importantthat we recognize
the literarynatureof the tales and begin to treat them accordingly.Interestingly,
Ellis does not once referto the tales as Kunstmirchen,or literaryfairytales, which
is what he essentiallyproves them to be. It is the ultimate disappointmentof this
nonetheless useful volume that Ellis, who is unquestionablyone of our best close

This content downloaded from 86.10.83.239 on Thu, 06 Aug 2015 14:37:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

116

Monatshefte

readersof literarytexts, does not explore-or even suggest-what the new status
of these tales means in terms of their interpretivepotential.
Jack Zipes' approachto the KHM in Fairy Tales and the Art of Subversion
puts Ellis' concern with the state of Grimm scholarshipinto perspective. Proceeding from the apparentlyobvious premise that the Grimms' tales are literary
creations,Zipes cites both R611ekeand Weber-Kellermannto supporthis matterof-fact claim that the myths of the tales' origins "have been proven false" (47).
What Ellis takespains to prove, Zipes considersalreadywell established.Whereas
Ellis maintains that the Grimms deceived their readersbecause they "wantedto
create a German national monument while pretendingthat they had merely discovered it" (100), Zipes implies a slightlymore subtle ideologicalmotivation. He
says that in rewritingthe tales the brothers'"intentions were honorable:they
wanted the rich culturaltraditionof the common people to be used and accepted
by the rising middle classes" (47). In other words, like their literate informants,
"the Grimm Brotherscontributedto the literary'bourgeoisification'of oral tales
which had belongedto the peasantryand lower classes."When Zipes agreeswith
Weber-Kellermannthat the KHM was "a work which was both 'bourgeois'and
'German'" (48), he is not succumbingto the cliche but suggestingthat the tales
were rewrittenby the Grimms not simply to reflecttheir own moral sensibilitieswhich is what Ellis rathergenerallyconcludes-but more specificallyto embody
the bourgeoisvalues and standardsof nineteenth-centuryGermany.When Zipes
calls the Grimms' intentions "honorable,"he is not singinga hymn of praisebut
viewing the Grimms in a socio-historicalcontext and acknowledgingthe tales
were written as pedagogicaltools to be used in the process of civilization. Like
Shakespeare'sAntony, Zipes knows all about honorablemen.
Indeed, the purpose of Zipes' book is to show how the literary fairy tale
has been consciouslyused since the 17thcenturyas a means of socializingchildren
in a bourgeois society. He is not arguing,of course, that the writers of literary
fairy tales "had nefariousplans and conspired to fill children'sheads with false
illusions" (16), but he does contend that "fairy tales operate ideologically to
indoctrinate children so that they will conform to dominant social standards
which are not necessarilyestablishedin theirbehalf' (18). His argumentproceeds
historically:CharlesPerraultshapedfolk materialsinto the classicalliteraryfairy
tale and began setting standardsof fairy tale discourse and of civilization that
influenced writers to come. Perrault'sideological intention was shared by the
Grimms in their KHM, where characters,events, and themes, were constantly
altered in order to reflectbetter the rigid standardsof bourgeois society, and by
Hans ChristianAndersen, whose personal struggleto ascend the social ladder
instilled in his tales a distinct ambiguityvis-g-vis the dominant class. The enormous influence of these writers,however, encouragedlater 19th-centurywriters
such as George MacDonald, Oscar Wilde, and L. Frank Baum to turn the fairy
tale against itself and to question and subvert the values it had come to promulgate. In describing the power struggleover fairy tale discourse during the
Weimar and Nazi periods, Zipes then shows just how conscious both "conservative" and "progressive"writershad become of the fairy tale's socializingpotential.

This content downloaded from 86.10.83.239 on Thu, 06 Aug 2015 14:37:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Book Reviews

117

Although Zipes admits the difficulty,if not impossibility, of determining

exactly how children do read and respond to fairy tales, he nonetheless asserts
that they do play a significantrole in socializingchildren.Thus, his final chapter
argues for the liberatingpotential of subversive fantasy literaturethat does not
prescribesocial behavior but instead encouragesthe development of autonomy
and holds out hope "for the concrete realization of utopia" (178). Given his
admission that it is next to impossibleto determine"the effectthat the tales have
on the psyche of children and consequently on their social attitudes, behavior,
and creativity" (135), it is easy to charge that his theory concerning both the
perverse and liberating functions of fantasy is only so much speculation. The
readerwill have to weigh the evidence and decide.
However, his insight that the literaryfairy tale has in fact been intended
as a socializingtool undeniablygoes a long way towardsexplainingthe Grimms'
revisions of their tales. For example,althoughboth he and Ellis compareversions
of the Grimms' tales, Zipes draws much more specific and fruitful conclusions
than does Ellis. Whereas Ellis merely concludes that the development of the
Grimms' text enabled them to purge "the KHM of content they found objectionable"(91;also 90 and 92), Zipes can concludethat "thechangesin the versions
reveal social transitionsand class differenceswhich attest to their dependencyon
the gradualascendancyof bourgeoiscodes and tastes" (51). Zipes is only barely
too restrictive to argue that "the revisions in word choice, tone, and content
cannot be understoodunless one graspsthe substance of education and socialization in the first half of the nineteenth century"(52).
Still, Zipes' interpretationsare based too often on plot summary, which
can rendertoo superficialreadingsand precludesattention to other, more subtle
dimensions of the literarytext. Knowingthat the Grimms'stories are the product
of individual writers,we still need to explore to what degreewe can legitimately
and profitablyread these texts with the same perspectiveswe bring to bear on
the works of writers such as Ludwig Tieck and E.T.A. Hoffman. Ellis has once
and for all made known the truth about the status of the KHM, and Zipes has
already made a start towards applying that knowledge to their interpretation.
Much, however, remains to be done.
-Donald P. Haase
Wayne State University

Desire's Sway: The Plays and Stories of Heinrich von Kleist.

By James M. McGlathery.Detroit:WayneState UniversityPress,1983. 255 pages.
$17.95.
The riddlesomecharacterof Kleist'sworkshas been and still is a formidable
challengeto its baffledinterpreters,who are forevertryingto decode the thematic
essence or "thoroughbass," in Kleist's own phrase,of his ruvre.Quite often, in
these attempts one can hear the figurativebass well enough, though the melodic
line that gives a work its particular"Kleistian"sonority may remain barely audible, as is the case in this newest entry into the critical literature.
McGlatheryadoptsan iconoclasticviewpoint avowedlydirectedagainstthe
many "ideological"critics, who in his judgment have often indulged in unwarranted metaphysicalor "existentialist"speculations, though he does that with

This content downloaded from 86.10.83.239 on Thu, 06 Aug 2015 14:37:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions