Zohar Shavit,
Poetics of Children's Literature,
The University of Georgia Press,
Athens and London, 1986 ©

Chapter One

The Notion of Childhood
and Texts for the Child

Today it is difficult to imagine the book industry without
its huge output of children's books. The mass produc-
tion of children's books is taken for granted as a promi-
nent and indispensable part of publishing activity. The
twentieth-century cultural (and conceptual) obsession with the phys-
ical, mental, and sexual problems of childhood is also readily accept-
ed. Society views childhood as the most important period of life and
tends to account for most of adult behavior on the basis of childhood
experience. Society is so used to its un standing of what childhood
is, as well as to the existence of books for children, that it forgets that
both concepts, childhood and books for children, are relatively new
phenomena; that is, society's present view of childhood is far re-
moved from that which was held only two centuries ago. Moreover,
children's literature began to develop only after adult literature had
become a well-established institution. Books specifically for children
were seldom written until the eighteenth century, and the whole in-
dustry of children's books began to flourish only in the second half of
the nineteenth century.

The connection between these two facts is neither random nor
insignificant, but rather the creation of the notion of childhood was
an indispensable precondition for the production of children's books
and determined to a large extent the development and options of
development for children's literature. This chapter will discuss how
and when this process took place.

Before children's literature could begin to develop, a total reform
in the notion of childhood was required, a reform that was described
in the pioneering and well-known work of Philippe Ariès (1962) and

3


in recent research (see Weber-Kellermann 1979, Plessen and von
Zahn 1979). Before this reform surfaced in the nineteenth century
society held a different view of childhood, which began to change
during the seventeenth century. Before this, before children's needs
gained recognition and legitimation as distinct and different from
adults' children's literature could not have existed. As Townsend
states: "Before there could be children's books, there had to be chil-
dren -- children, that is, who were accepted as beings with their own
particular needs and interests, not only as miniature men and wom-
en ' (Townsend 1977, 17).

The View of Childhood Until the Seventeenth Century:
From Unity to Polarity

I do not intend to survey Ariès's work nor that of his followers in this
study, but rather to elaborate on the aforementioned connection be-
tween the development of the notion of childhood and that of chil-
dren's literature. Yet, in order to trace this connection, one of Ariès's
most important contentions (an uncontradicted one, despite quite a
few attempts to dispute it; see, for instance, deMause 1975), must be
accepted as a basic premise.

Before discussing Ariès's thesis, a short digression must be made.
This book basically accepts his thesis and even takes his description
of the evolution of the notion of the child as its beginning point.
However, since his thesis is so comprehensive, certain modifications
and a few reformulations are required. For instance, Ariès's theory is
strongly built upon the French case. When other cases are examined
(Germany, England) they are not parallel either in time or in the way
the same historical phenomena evolved. Nevertheless, it can still be
argued that the same process of development of the notion of the
child occurred throughout Western Europe. When the development
of the notion of the child is examined, one can consistently discern
how around the beginning of the sevententh century (in some cases
earlier, in some later), a totally new understanding of "childhood"
developed, which consistently created two new cultural institutions: a
new system of education, the school system, and a new readership
that produced an unprecedented market for children's books.

4


Hence, Ariès's basic thesis that cultural understanding of child-
hood has greatly changed in Western society is, in my view, indisputa-
ble. Those who try to challenge it, especially the recent study of
Pollock (1983), simply do not understand either the implications of
his study or the mechanism of historical developments and historical
changes. Attacking Ariès's thesis by claiming that the same notion of
childhood always existed, implies a total misunderstanding of the
meaning of a new historical phenomenon.

A new historical phenomenon does not necessarily mean -- in fact,
it never means -- that a certain element or group of elements abruptly
changes overnight, or that a new phenomenon is totally new in all its
components and functions. Quite the contrary, any historical change
requires time before cultural consciousness has recognized it as a
change, and normally, it is enough for any historical phenomenon to be
considered "new" when only some of its components are changed.

In summation, to accept Ariès's thesis does not imply an absurd
understanding of historical processes; it does not mean that suddenly
all Europeans understood differently what a child was and what his
specific needs were. It does, however, mean accepting a description
of historical development that began in the seventeenth century and
culminated in the nineteenth century, during which time a new un-
derstanding evolved of what childhood is and, consequently, what the
needs of the child are. Ariès argued that until the seventeenth cen-
tury children were not considered different from adults. It was as-
sumed that they had no special needs, and as a result, there was
neither an established educational system, nor were there any books
for children.

In medieval society and in the centuries that followed, the prevail-
ing theological approach, as well as conditions of life, left no room for
the extravagance of childhood. The conceptual framework of society
ignored the characteristics distinguishing a child from an adult. Of
course, differences did exist, but they were simply not recognized.
On the theological plane, it was believed that the cycle of life -- anal-
ogous to that of nature -- consisted of birth, life, and death, thus leav-
ing no room for the stage of childhood. Moreover, the conditions of
life, including a high rate of child mortality and a short life span,
contributed to reinforcing the conceptual ignorance of childhood:
childhood was too "fragile" a period and the children that survived it

5


had to leave childhood early and enter manhood because the life
span was so short. Accordingly, once the child left his swaddling, he
was considered an integral part of adult society, sharing adult dress,
work, and leisure. However, by the beginning of the seventeenth
century, this unity in the world of the adult and the child began to
undergo polarization, resulting in a new concept of childhood.

This new concept emerged in society because of certain occur-
rences, among which the most important were changes in the current
ideas of the time. Surprising as it may seem, they preceded the well-
known changes in social conditions usually linked with the emer-
gence of childhood, such as the Industrial Revolution, the emergence
of the bourgeois class, and the drop in the child mortality rate. Un-
doubtedly, these things also played a role in the development of the
notion of childhood; yet the changes in the ideological sphere in
which a distinct view of the child began to develop came more than a
century before the material changes.

For the first time, children were described as having special dis-
tinguishing characteristics, such as innocence, sweetness, and other
angelic qualities. These new ideas of children, as Ariès claims, can
be traced back to the late sixteenth century to religious paintings that
used the child for religious purposes (to symbolize the child Jesus,
Jesus and the angels, and others). Later, this iconography acquired a
more decorative function (as opposed to religious) in the form of the
putto. In fact, as paintings of children took on nonreligious themes
and began to dominate art and iconography, the idea of childhood as
an independent stage was absorbed more and more by society. These
paintings expressed the special traits children were now seen as pos-
sessing. No doubt they were partly responsible for society's new
awareness of children's special qualities of sweetness and innocence.
These qualities led to the child gradually becoming a source of
amusement and relaxation for adults, thus negating the former view
of children as merely small adults. In this way, the unified world of
adults and children underwent polarization. Several elements, such
as toys and dress, previously shared by both adults and children, now
became the child's monopoly, although usually through a process of
reduction and simplification. Soon after, they also became elements
with a distinguishing function, pointing to the new border between
adults and children.

This new view of the child was first propagated within the family

6


circle. In quite a short time, parents would no longer hesitate to
admit the pleasure they obtained from their children. Furthermore,
they would refuse to stop mollycoddling them. In a way, children
were treated like pets -- a constant source of amusement for adult
company -- which made Claude Fleury protest in the following man-
ner: "It is as if the poor children had been made only to amuse the
adults, like little dogs or little monkeys" (Ariès 1962, 131). Not long
after this idea of childhood as a source of amusement came to be
accepted by society, a new view that accepted the original contention
of differentiation, but objected to its errant course, began to develop,
especially among moralists and pedagogues within the church. They
agreed that children were different from adults, but drew the conclu-
sion that innocent children and creatures close to god should be
isolated from the corrupting company of adults. Thus evolved a sec-
ond notion of childhood. This notion was mainly concerned with the
spiritual well-being of the child and held that children should be
educated and disciplined; furthermore, it prescribed a new role for
adults in which they were responsible for the spiritual well-being of
the child. In this new conceptual framework arose for the first time
serious psychological interest in the child, as well as demand for an
organized educational system. Children were now regarded as deli-
cate creatures who had to be reformed and safeguarded; and the way
to reform them was through education and through books issued
primarily as pedagogic vehicles. Hence, the society's new perception
of childhood created for the first time both the need and the demand
for children's books. This second notion of the child -- the educa-
tional -- eventually provided the framework for canonized children's
literature. That is, from its inception children's books were written
with a certain idea of the child in mind; when this idea changed, the
texts for children changed as well.

In the same way that people assumed a child needed different
dress, toys, and games, it was also assumed that a child reader dif-
fered from the adult, both in his capacity to comprehend, as well as in
his educational needs. Accordingly, it was essential that the texts pro-
duced for him should respond to his needs and capacities. Of course,
the understanding of these needs and capacities was not fixed, but
changed from period to period, consequently changing the character
of the texts for children as well.

In order to understand how concepts of childhood determined the

7


character of the texts produced for the child, various versions of
"Little Red Riding Hood" will be examined. This specific text was
chosen not only because of its status as a children's classic, but be-
cause its numerous versions -- written at different points in time (sev-
enteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries) -- reveal most clearly
the diverse ways in which childhood was perceived by society in dif-
ferent periods, both in assumptions about the child's capacity for
comprehension and society's belief about what the child should be
exposed to. The drastic changes in these perceptions during the last
three centuries can be traced by following the transformation of
Little Red Riding Hood" from the "coddling" version of Perrault to
the "reasoning" version of Grimm, and finally to the modern "pro-
tective" versions of the twentieth century.

Test Case: "Little Red Riding Hood"

THE ATTITUDE TOWARD FAIRY TALES
IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY

As toys and dress items were transferred to the child's world with the
emergence of a new concept of childhood, so also fairy tales were
gradually accepted as belonging in the child's realm and became the
child's monopoly. This is not to say, of course, that before the seven-
teenth century children were not acquainted with fairy tales -- ob-
viously they were. I Before fairy tales became the monopoly of chil-
dren, they were read and recounted over the centuries both by adults
(even of high social class) and by the children who shared their com-
pany. But although children were acquainted with fairy tales, fairy
tales were not initially considered as especially intended for them (for
 

1 Perrault's or Grimm's texts are not "pure" oral fairy tales but rather literary p
ucts arranged by the writers to suit various purposes. Since both Grimm and Perrault
were presenting literary products (see Zipes 1979b, 23-24), it seems useless to dis-
tinguish throughout the discussion between oral fairy tales and fairy tales (Volks-
märchen). Yet a distinction between fairy tales and fantastic narratives must be made
for our further discussion of fantasy. Fantastic narrative is regarded here as a text
though not necessarily based on fairy-tale model, rejects realistic bias. Indeed its
model for presentation of the world tries to challenge such a bias and to offer an
alternative.

8


a similar case of transformation of genre, see Brockman's most in-
teresting analysis of the transformation of the romance into the chil-
dren's literature [Brockman 1982]).

After the middle of the seventeenth century, however, an interest-
ing and complex change ensued, involving attitudes toward fairy
tales. Highbrow society, which previously did not hesitate to admit
the pleasure derived from fairy tales, began to regard them as suit-
able only for children and people of the lower classes, claiming that
they were too simple and naive for anyone else. At the same time, a
new interest arose in fairy tales, which made them a fashionable and
artistic genre. This new interest was the motivation behind the cre-
ation of fairy tales based on the model of the traditional naive texts.
However, an indispensable precondition was required for the "fash-
ionable" writing of fairy tales; although they were in vogue, it was
necessary for both writers and readers to assume that fairy tales were
written for the lower classes and children. Thus adults of the upper
classes could enjoy fairy tales only by pretending that they were ad-
dressing children.

Adults exploited the opportunity to enjoy fairy tales during the
seventeenth century through the recognition of the child's culture as
distinct from their own and the use of children as a source of amuse-
ment. Therefore the reading of fairy tales by highbrows was based on
a silent agreement (between them and the writer) about two implied
readers -- the child and the highbrow adult -- and on a tacit agree-
ment about the writer's intentions, leaving much room for the writer
to play between them. This sophisticated use of the special status of
fairy tales can be seen in Perrault's "Little Red Riding Hood," es-
pecially in regard to the obscure identity of the writer and the ambi-
guity of the text.

PERRAULT AND THE CONCEALED IDNTITY OF THE WRITER

The attitude toward the culture of the child served as background, as
well as motivation and legitimation, for Perrault's Histoires ou Contes
du temps passé. Perrault published this collection of fairy tales in 1697,
some of which, like "Little Red Riding Hood," were previously un-
known as written texts. Perrault's collection was only one among a
prolific flow of fairy tales that flooded French literature in the late

9


seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries (others included the fairy
tales of Mme. d'Aulnoy, Mlle. Lhéritier, and Mme. Jeanne le Prince
de Beaumont). Les Contes aroused controversy from the very begin-
ning, not only because the stories officially addressed children (and at
the same time were sophisticated and ironical), but mainly because
they were not signed by Perrault. Les Contes was attributed to his son,
Pierre Darmancour, who was seventeen at the time of its writing and
nineteen at the time of publication. The nature of the text and its
obscure attribution raises at least two questions: First, why did the
attribution of the text remain obscured? Secondly, to whom did the
text really address itself?

The question of the text attribution has remained unsolved for the
last three centuries, with scholars still disagreeing over the identity of
the author. Despite the fact that the texts were signed by the son of
Perrault, they were already attributed to Perrault in his lifetime and
have been by many since then. In two of the volumes, 1 and 37, of Le
Cabinet des Fées (a voluminous collection that indicates the popularity
of fairy tales at the time), it was claimed that Perrault himself wrote
the texts, though he "attributa ses contes de fées à son fils" [attri-
buted his fairy tales to his son] (Soriano 1978, 38).2

Soriano claims that the book was often attributed to Perrault due
to its widespread fame and the need for an attractive name. But this
argument neither explains why the text was attributed to Perrault by
his contemporaries before it gained worldwide recognition, nor why
Perrault himself never bothered to announce his authorship, as the
dispute began even in his own day: "L'Académicien savait la vérité
sur cette affaire. Mais il n'a rien fait pour ?liminer la doute" [The
member of the French Academy knew the truth about this affair but
did nothing to eliminate the doubt.] (Soriano 1978, 69). Rather, it
could be claimed that the opposite is true. It seems that Perrault did
his best to conceal the identity of the writer.

Perrault did not deny that he was himself a writer. He signed his
own name on "La Marquise de Salusses ou la Patience de
Griselidis," which was published in Mercure Galant, along with a note
that it was read in a lecture at the French Academy (1691); his name
appeared also on "Les Souhaits ridicules" (Mercure Galant, 1693).
 

2 All translations, unless otherwise specified, are mine. I am grateful to Nitsa Ben-
Ari for her help.

10


But at the same time, Perrault did his best to confuse the identity of
the author of Les Contes. Among the various means Perrault used was
the following: In 1696, he published a revised and enlarged version
of "L'Histoire de la Marquise-Marquis de Banneville" in Mercure
Galant. The text was published in two installments, and in the sec-
ond, a long and sarcastic digression appeared, referring to the writer
of "La belle au bois dormant," which was published earlier in Febru-
ary 1696:
-- Avez-vous lu La Belle au bois dormant?
-- Si je l'ai lue? s'ecria la petite Marquise. Je l'ai lue quatre fois et ce
petit conte m'a raccommod?e avec Le Mercure galant où j'ai ?t? ravie de
le trouver. Je n'ai encore rien vu de mieux narr?; un tour fin et d?licat,
des expressions toutes naives; mais je ne m'en suis point étonnée
quand on m'a dit le nom de l'auteur. Il est fils de Maître et s'il n'avait
pas bien de l'esprit, il faudrait qu'on l'ait chang? en nourrice. (Soriano
1978, 24-25)

["Have you read Sleeping Beauty?" "Yes, I have," cried the little mar-
quise. "I read it four times and this little fairy tale reconciled me to the
Mercure galant where I was overjoyed to find it. I have never yet seen
anything better told; written so fine and delicate, very naive ex-
pressions. But I was not at all astonished when I was told the name of
the writer. He is the son of a master, and had he lacked inspiration, he
must have had changed hands while nursing."]
Such comments by Perrault added, of course, to the mystery and the
confusion regarding the attribution of the text. The author's identity
was further confused by the suggested attribution of the text to Per-
rault's niece, Mlle. Lhéritier, as a result of the similarities between
her fairy tales and Perrault's. Yet, unlike the question of the attribu-
tion, the similarity between the texts is easily explained not only be-
cause the writers were connected by family ties and spent much time
together in the same literary salons, but mainly because they based
their fairy tales upon the same model and shared the same literary
conventions.

How did his contemporaries react to his manipulation of the writ-
er's identity? It seems that they were not impressed by Perrault's
efforts to conceal the writer's identity; this may be assumed from a

11


survey of their letters in which Perrault is referred to, in a most mat-
ter-of-fact fashion, as the author of Les Contes. In one such letter,
dated 23 September 1696, Dubos wrote to Bayle: "Ce même libraire
[Barbin] imprime aussi Les Contes de ma mère l'Oye par Monsieur
Perrault. Ce sont bagatelles auxquelles il s'est amusé autrefois pour
r?jouir ses enfants." [This same librarian prints also Les Contes de ma
mere l'oye by Perrault. These are nonsense stories that he wrote to
amuse himself and his children.] In a second letter, dated 1 March
1697, Dubos wrote: "Madame Daunoy [d'Aulnoy] ajoute un second
volume aux Contes de ma mère l'Oye de M. Perrault" [Madame
Daunoy adds a second volume to the Contes de ma mère l'oye of Per-
rault.] (Soriano 1978, 31). If this was the case, that is, if the literary
circles did not doubt the text's authorship, why was it so important
for Perrault to continue playing his dual game? Why did he insist
upon attributing the text to his son, while at the same time deliber-
ately confusing the issue of the attribution? The answer might lie
partly in Perrault's high social status which required that he, as a
distinguished member of the French Academy, could not take official
responsibility for texts considered more appropriate for young people
or women to write. By attributing authorship to his son, Perrault
indicated that the text was intended for children, as writing for chil-
dren was considered more "natural" to young people and women,
according to the general custom of the times. But even more impor-
tant than the need or desire to play with the question of attribution
was the fact that Perrault's game was only part of a more common
game underlying the acceptability of fairy tales as an upper-class
source of amusement. Highbrows enjoyed the duality of the writer in
the same way they enjoyed the duality of the reader, hence forcing
Perrault to maintain this duality continuously.

While quite a few scholars still describe Perrault's work in terms of
either a wish to depict the Nursery Tales (Soriano 1978), or, in a
more sophisticated manner, as a part of the vogue of the low people's
culture, more and more scholars regard it as conscious effort to ad-
just the oral folktale to a socialization process of the rising bourgeois
class (Darnton 1984, Zipes 1983). Whatever was the real motivation
for Perrault's work, most scholars seem to agree about one thing --
that Perrault did change the original folktales a great deal and ad-

12


justed them to the taste of his "salon" audience. Yet Perrault's ma-
nipulation of the writer's identity alone was not enough to maintain
the duality of the text. The text must also provide unmistakable evi-
dence as to its "real" reader, the adult, and at the same time maintain
the game between its two implied audiences. This was achieved
mainly through the ambiguous structures of the text and through its
satirical and ironical tone.

THE AMBIGUOUS STRUCTURE OF PERRAULT'S
"LITTLE RED RIDING HOOD

"Little Red Riding Hood" was not known in print until Perrault first
published it in 1697. Scholars of Perrault still disagree as to whether
Perrault could have based the text on oral tradition because the fairy
tale's bad ending was antithetical to that tradition. However, even
those who believe that the text was originally an oral tale seem to
agree that Perrault only used the model of the oral tale as a basis for
his text and then elaborated it. In this way, he created both a "pseu-
do" oral tale and a sophisticated one as well. This explains why Per-
rault was so careful to maintain the illusion of the oral tale, especially
from a stylistic point of view. He used elements whose function was
to demonstrate the "antiquity" of the text, such as "ayant cuit et fait
des galettes" [she fried and made biscuits] (my italics). He also intro-
duced elements unacceptable in written French but recognized as a
child's vocabulary; these elements, such as "la bobinette" and "la
chevillette," were known as purely children's language. They served
not only to create the effect of a "naive oral tale," but also to signify
the child's world and emphasize the official addressee of the text.

At the same time that Perrault was careful to maintain this illusion
of an oral tale, he did not hesitate to break formulaic structures, in
the most strategic points, as if to call attention to his manipulation of
the model of an oral tale. Thus, Perrault signaled his adult reader. In
this context, his use of another typical oral tale structure, that of the
dialogue, is adept. Here, Perrault first creates the impression that the
formula is maintained, and only then does he break it. He uses this
technique in the famous dialogue between the child and "grand-
mother," departing from the formulaic structure in the last line only:

13


C'est pour mieux t'embrasser
C'est pour mieux courir
C'est pour mieux écouter
C'est pour mieux voir
C'est pour te manger.

(Perrault, Garnier 1967, 115)

[The better to kiss you with
The better to run with
The better to listen with
The better to see with
The better to eat you with.]
Perrault also broke another traditional formula, the indispensable
happy ending of the oral tale. Perrault's ending is tragic -- the story
ends when the wolf devours the poor little girl; no rescue is suggested:
"Et en disant ces mots, ce méchant Loup se jeta sur le petit chaperon
rouge, et la mangea" [And in saying these words the wicked wolf
jumped at Little Red Riding Hood and ate her.] (115).

Why such a drastic break? Perhaps Perrault's drastic break from
the formulaic happy ending resulted from his desire to integrate sat-
ire and irony into the form of the tragic ending in order to signal the
adult reader. The tragic ending indicates that the text was a satire
about "gentlemen" of the town who do not hesitate to take advantage
of poor naive country girls. It leads to the ironical moral, which
comes as a postscript to the tale, and concludes with: "Mais hélas!
qui ne sait que ces Loups doucereux, / De tous les Loups sont les
plus dangereux" [But alas, who does not know that sweetish wolves
are most dangerous of all wolves.] (115). This moral suggests that the
wolf represents something other than a real wolf, that it stands for
"toute sorte de gens" of whom naive girls should be careful if they do
not wish to be hurt. The ironical interpretation of the ending by the
moral negates the possibility, suggested by Soriano, that the tragic
ending indicates a warning story (Soriano claims that it is a warning
story, as wolves were a real danger at the time).

The text leaves no doubt as to what the wolf stands for. In addi-
tion, the theme of gentlemen who take advantage of little country
girls is heightened by the erotic characterization of the girl and by the
erotic bed scene. The text does not emphasize the innocence of the

14


child, but rather her beauty -- "la plus jolie"; the text also suggests
the color red as her symbol. And if that is not enough, the bed scene
leaves little room for imagination. The wolf invites the girl to sleep
with him ("viens te coucher avec moi"). The girl undresses ("Le petit
chaperon rouge se déshabille, et va se mettre dans le lit") and is
astonished to discover what the wolf looks like in bed ("elle fut bien
étonnée de voir comment sa Mère-grand était faite en son dés-
habillé") [She was very astonished to see how her grandmother
looked when naked.] (Garnier 1967, 114-15). All these erotic ele-
ments point to an "erotic" structure that makes no sense unless un-
derstood as a satire about a girl seduced by a gentleman, rather than
as a story about a little girl devoured by a wolf.

Hence, Perrault manipulated the oral tale through its formula,
style, and structure in an intentionally ambiguous manner. What was
the basis for such manipulation?

THE AMBIGUITY OF THE TEXT

The ambiguous nature of the text was primarily intended to satisfy
both its official and unofficial readers. It enabled Perrault to use the
status of fairy tales as texts for children, addressing them officially to
children as the main consumers, while at the same time using the
notion of the child as a source of amusement to allow adults (mainly
highbrows) to enjoy the text, too. In this way, irony and satire signaled
the highbrow adult, while the formulaic structures signaled the child
reader.

In fact, strong evidence that the highbrows were not just fond of
the text exists: ". . . mais l'élite leur réserve une sorte de mépris
amusé" [but the elite reserves for them a sort of amused scorn]
(Soriano 1978, 39). It even became the habit of salon culture to read
fairy tales aloud, despite their being considered childish, naive, and
amusing:
A feature of these salons, male and female alike, was the reading aloud
of pasquinades, vaudevilles, sonnets à bouts-rimés, and similar short pieces;
and the Comtesse d'Aulnoy seems to have introduced the telling of
fairy-stories in the female salons. The idea caught on and became the
rage. The fashion eventually extended to the male writers....



15


The curious point to be taken is that the stories were devised, or
adapted from ancient originals, for the amusement not of children but
of adults. The consequence is that, although the characters and the
background belong superficially to fairy-tales, most of them are much
too sophisticated for children. (Muir 1969, 36)
Like his contemporary and relative, Mlle. Lhéritier, Perrault prob-
ably wrote texts also for the amusement of his friends. The following
description of Mlle. Lhéritier holds true for Perrault as well: "Mlle.
Lhéritier écrit pour l'amusement des ses amis et tous ses écrits por-
tent l'empreinte de son 'esprit salonnier"' [Mlle. Lhéritier writes for
the amusement of her friends and all her writing bears the stamp of
the salon spirit.] (Soriano 1978, 65).

To summarize, the notion of the child in Perrault's time served as
background for Les Contes and as an indispensable condition for the
text's acceptance by highbrow adults. Once the child was perceived
differently by society and was no longer considered a source for
amusement, however, texts for children changed, as did the way in
which the child was characterized in those texts. This is true for all
texts produced for children since the eighteenth century. It is also
true for versions of "Little Red Riding Hood" that underwent vari-
ous changes, culminating in Grimm's "Rotkäppchen," which itself
was followed by many modern adaptations.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PERRAULT'S AND GRIMM'S VERSIONS

Research into folktales has granted considerable space to the dispute
over the connection between Les Contes and the similar texts gathered
by the Brothers Grimm in their Kinder und Hausmärchen. Scholars
disagree both over the origin and the "originality" of Grimm's texts
and account for similarities between Perrault and Grimm on the
basis of different grounds. Some present a historical-geographical
explanation, while others prefer one based on cultural relationships
(Bolte and Polívka 1963) or on cultural transformation (Velten 1930).
Other scholars deny any direct connection between Perrault and
Grimm but claim a mediated relation through Tieck, to whom
Brothers Grimm referred in their notes on "Rotkäppchen": "Bei
Perrault chaperon rouge, wonach Tieck's anmuthige Bearbeitung in

16


den romantischen Dichtungen . . ." [In Perrault's "Little Red Riding
Hood," according to Tieck's charming adaptation in the romantic
manner] (Grimm, Reclam 1980, Band 3, 59). Without entering into
this endless dispute, my contention here is that the relation between
the two versions can be illuminated from the perspective of the dif-
ferent prevalent notions of childhood in each period. Needless to say,
this sort of explanation does not deny the results of previous research
as irrelevant or inadequate, but rather illuminates the relationship
between the two versions from an additional aspect.

As Ariès claims, the notion of childhood has drastically changed
from the seventeenth century to the nineteenth century. In the hun-
dred years that passed between Perrault and Grimm, the "coddling"
attitude had become a very different "reasoning" attitude. This
change in the concept of childhood attributed great importance to
something previously unheard of -- the education of the child. As a
result, an educational system, based on this new conception, began to
develop. The needs and demands of this educational system largely
determined the character of texts written for children in two respects
at least: in regard to the child's capacity to realize the text; and even
more importantly, in regard to the text's obligations toward the child,
reflecting the desire on the part of adults that children should gain
something for their spiritual welfare from the text. Those texts,
therefore, were the direct result of the way childhood was perceived
by society -- hence, the earlier "coddling" version of Perrault and a
century later the very different "reasoning" version of Grimm.

THE DIFFERENT TONES AND ENDINGS

As has been noted by many scholars, the most obvious differences
between Perrault's and Grimm's versions lie in the tones of the texts
(ironical versus naive) and in the endings (tragic versus happy). The
difference in tone appears to be the result of the different intentions
of each writer. Perrault addressed the highbrows with satire. Yet,
while he masked the satire for his official readers by employing tradi-
tional structures, he unveiled it by the ironical tone for the unofficial
reader. The Brothers Grimm, on the other hand, tried to depict the
tone of the narrator as naive, a technique considered essential for the
"authenticity" of the text. As was claimed, the irony and satire effects

17


of Perrault's text are mainly achieved by his play between the text and
its moral. It should also be noted, however, that from the very begin-
ning Perrault's narrator takes an ironical position, as if to warn the
reader not to take him too seriously; a text that opens with "sa mère
en était folle et sa mère-grand plus folle encore" [her mother was
crazy about her, and her grandmother even crazier] simply cannot be
taken seriously. Brothers Grimm, on the other hand, achieved the
effect of "naivety" by stylistic "simplicity" (short sentences, simple
dialogue, limited lexicon). This stylistic simplicity is justified by
adapting the narration to the child's point of view and presenting part
of the discourse through her eyes. This is most evident when the
child is rescued by the hunter: she does not realize how dangerous it
was (nor does the text indicate so in any way), but "merely" declares
how frightful the darkness in the wolf's belly was! The text further
depicted the childish tone by using the exclamation word "ach":
"Ach, wie war ich erschrocken, wie war's so dunkel in dem wolf
seinem Leib!" [Ah, how shocked I was. How dark it was in the wolf's
belly!] (Grimm, Reclam 1980, 159). This device was justified by
Brothers Grimm in their foreword to Kinder und Hausmärchen, where
the new image of childhood is presented. In this foreword, Brothers
Grimm emphasized the child's pureness and genuine capacity to see
the world in a special way -- a new image of the child common to the
Brothers Grimm and to their nineteenth-century contemporaries:
Darum geht innerlich durch diese Dichtungen jene Reinheit, um de-
rentwillen uns Kinder so wunderbar und selig erscheinen: sie haben
gleichsam dieselben blaulichweissen makellosen glänzenden Augen
die nicht mehr wachsen kännen, während sie andern Glieder noch
zart, schwach und zum Dienste der Erde ungeschickt sind. (Grimm,
Reclam 1980, Band 1, 16)

[These paragraphs express this purity that makes our children appear
so wonderful and blessed; they all have these blue-white faultless
bright eyes, that can no longer grow while other members of their body
are still so soft, weak and still unprepared for the service of the earth.]
However, what has primarily attracted the attention of scholars is the
very different endings of the two versions. In Perrault's version the

18


story ends when the child is devoured by the wolf, while Grimm's
version offers two alternative endings, in both of which the child is
rescued. In the first ending, the child is punished -- grandmother and
child are devoured -- and only later rescued when the wolf is killed;
in the second, the wolf is killed by drowning without hurting the
child at all (on the "educational" message of the second ending, see
my later discussion). Why, then, was the happy ending needed?

Researchers of fairy tales are still debating the question of whether
the ending was integral to the text (see Velten 1930). Whether the
ending was integral or not, questions still remain why such an addi-
tion was needed, what the reasons for its being added were, and what
functions it had. Of course, the revision of the ending into a happy
one was primarily done to adjust the text to the model of the fairy
tale. A happy ending was considered indispensable for folktales. The
imperative need for an ending seems to hold true in spite of Darn-
ton's new research. In his controversial analysis of folktales, Darnton
(1984) seems to suggest, in passing, that a "good ending" was not
necessarily typical of all oral tales; "Little Red Riding Hood" served
as a test case.

For at least two reasons this suggestion far from contradicts the
view of "good ending" as a typical ending of the oral tale. Care must
be exercised in using "Little Red Riding Hood" as an oral tale. Until
published by Perrault, the text was not found as a written text. In-
deed, it might well be that the French oral version, which was col-
lected, of course, after Perrault had published Les Contes, stems from
Perrault's written tale, of which the Brothers Grimm were well
aware. If so (and most probably it is), then the fairy tale without a
happy ending is simply the result of the transformation of the text
from a written tale into an oral tale. In addition, it is worth noting that
in a number of versions of "Little Red Riding Hood" presented by
Delarue (1957), the good ending is indeed happy, as the girl does
manage to escape. This seems to suggest that even before "crossing"
the border, the teller of the tale could not tolerate the "bad ending"
and felt it necessary to change it into a good one. The Brothers
Grimm with their strong inclination to oral tradition, could not afford
to violate this norm, as Perrault had deliberately done in order to
signal his adult reader. Unlike Perrault, who officially addressed his
tale to children, Brothers Grimm did not do so, at least not at first.

19


In fact it was in the spirit of nineteenth-century Romanticism -- a
return to sources and nature -- that the Brothers Grimm text was
collected; accordingly, it addressed an adult audience. However, in
spite of their longing for the real "roots," Brothers Grimm did not
simply transcribe the tales. The romantic belief that Brothers Grimm
had fanatically gathered folktales without at all changing them is no
longer accepted today, although some scholars continue to cite the
introduction to the first edition of Kinder und Hausmärchen, which
says: "We have endeavoured to present these fairy tales as pure as
possible . . . no circumstance has been added, embellished or
changed" (preface to 1812 edition; Michaelis-Jena 1970, 53).

Most scholars agree that Brothers Grimm did change the original
texts extensively. After the original handwritten manuscript of 1810
währendnd and compared to that published in 1812, major changes
were discovered. Some scholars, like Rölleke (1975), even go as far
as to describe the changes in terms of transformation into literary
fairy tales and stylistically into Hochdeutsch in order to improve the
literary quality of the texts. Others, like Zipes (1979b), describe the
ideological transformation of the texts and their adjustment to their
function in the socialization process. With regard to "Little Red Rid-
ing Hood" and other texts, Zipes claims that they are "decidedly
biased against females who must either be put in their places or have
their identity defined by males. The outcome is determined by the
constraints of a conservative feudal ideology" (1979b, 136).

The Brothers Grimm could not and did not need to use Perrault's
play between the "official" and "unofficial" reader. Like their nine-
teenth-century contemporaries, they believed that children, with
their special needs, should be separated from adults. They also
thought that these needs could not be supplied by the Kinder und
Hausmärchen, at least not by the first edition; consequently, it had to
be revised in order to become suitable for children. Brothers Grimm
collected Kinder und Hausmärchen as evidence for the genuine and
unspoiled material of the "Volksgeist." They did not do it in order to
establish a body of children's literature. Their prime interest was a
philological research, motivated by an ideology of a national return to
the "roots." They wished to explore the "original" German language,
and to restore to the German people the history of their language and
its genuine vocabulary. Moreover, in referring explicitly to children's

20


reading of Kinder und Hausmärchen, Jacob Grimm said that he never
intended it for children, though it made him happy to find out that in
fact they were reading it (letter to Arnim, 28 January 1813).

Because of the lack at this time of reading material produced solely
for children, Kinder und Hausmärchen was read by children, which
induced Brothers Grimm to adjust the text, especially from the styl-
istic point of view. It is also interesting to note that the great success
of the first English edition of Grimm, published in 1823 and adapted
for children by Edgar Taylor, encouraged Brothers Grimm to publish
a collection of about fifty popular tales, modified for children in the
same manner as the English edition. This edition, which unlike pre-
vious editions was illustrated, later became known as the Kleine Aus-
gabe and gained far greater commercial success than any of its
predecessors.

The second edition of Kinder und Hausmärchen was therefore ad-
justed and changed, especially from the linguistic point of view. But
even that was not enough, according to the Brothers Grimm. They
felt that some parents might still find all or part of the book unsuit-
able for children, as they wrote in their introduction:
Dabei haben wir jeden für das Kinderalter nicht passenden Ausdruck
in dieser neuen Auflage sorgfältig gelöscht. Sollte man dennoch
einzuwenden haben, dass Eltern eins und das andere in Verlegenheit
setze und ihnen anstössig vorkomme, so dass sie das Buch Kindern
nicht geradezu in die Hände geben wollten, so mag für einzelne Fälle
die Sorge begründet sein, und sie kännen dann leicht eine Auswahl
treffen: im ganzen, das heisst für einen gesunden Zustand, ist sie
gewiss unnötig. (Grimm, Reclam 1980, Band 1, 17)

[All the same, in this edition we haven't suggested satisfactory solutions
for all problematic expressions concerning children. If parents claim
that this item or other embarrasses them or disturbs them, so that they
will be reluctant to leave the book in the hands of children, there might
be cases where their worry is justified and they can easily choose: gen-
erally speaking, this is not necessary.]
In this passage appeared two new implied ideas that served as moti-
vation for the changes which the text underwent during the century
between Perrault and Grimm. The first was society's new perception

21


of the child's distinct needs, and the second was the idea that those
needs should be supplied under strict adult supervision. In fact, soci-
etal perceptions of childhood had changed in at least two senses: a
new understanding of the nature of the child was evident, as well as a
new demand that made adults responsible for the education of the
child.

In Grimm's version of "Rotkäppchen," this new concept of child-
hood is expressed in the following three aspects: the relations in the
family circle, the innocence of the child, and the need for instruction
of the child. These aspects will be discussed in relation to different
endings as well as in relation to other minor differences in the texts.
As mentioned earlier, revision of the endings undoubtedly resulted
from the need to adjust the text to the model of the fairy tale, requir-
ing the Grimm's version to have a happy ending. However, this may
not have been their only motivation and cannot serve as the only
explanation.

It is quite possible that the source for the happy ending was, as
Bolte and Polívka (1963) suggest, taken from "Der Wolf und die
sieben jungen Geisslein" [The wolf and the seven young goats]; the
"wolf)' element was already part of the fairy-tale inventory and thus
an almost ready-made solution. But, even if this claim is justified, it is
still possible to account for the selection of this ending on the basis
both of the model of the fairy tale and of the educational views at the
time. Prevalent ideas about child education and the child as a poten-
tial reader (at least, since Grimm's second edition) demanded that
the child learn a lesson from every event, experience, or story.
Punishment and morality were an integral part of that learning pro-
cess -- Grimm's "Little Red Riding Hood" was no exception. It is
interesting to note that the Brothers Grimm were happy with the
ending from the educational point of view and even considered it as
proof that the text was, indeed, suitable for children (see their fore-
word, Reclam 1980, Band 1, 17). Unlike the child in Perrault's ver-
sion, the child of Grimm's version is given a chance to learn the
lesson and apparently does so. The alternative endings might serve as
an indication of the authors' hesitation between two endings. Yet they
also fortify the educational message of the text. The Grimm's version
shows that the girl, who promised at the end of the first conclusion
that she would obey her mother, does keep her promise. When she

22


next meets the wolf, she knows exactly what she is supposed to do --
she does not stop to talk with him, but hurries to her grandmother,
where both of them manage to trick the wolf. Thus the success of the
lesson learned is proved. This sort of moral, unlike that of Perrault,
did not address adults with an ironic wink of the eye. Moreover,
unlike Perrault's moral that emphasizes the "gentleman," describing
him in terms of the wolf, the Grimm's version does not emphasize
the wolf-gentleman, but rather the child and the moral lesson that
she must learn! These differences in emphasis are also the reason for
the deletion of the erotic scene in the Grimm's version, which em-
phasizes the child's naivet? and innocence. As a result, the erotic
characterization of the child was left out as was the erotic bed scene.
The Grimm's version does strongly emphasize a number of inter- L
family relations that are only hinted at in Perrault's version: the
grandmother's love for the child, the mother's commitment to the
grandmother, and the child's love for the grandmother. While the
grandmother's love is hardly mentioned in Perrault's version, the
Grimm's grandmother loves the child dearly; in fact, she sews the red
hood as a symbol of her love. Thus, while the hood serves in Per-
rault's version to hint at the sexuality of the child, in the Grimm's
version, it serves as a sign of the grandmother's profound affection
for the child.
Cette bonne femme lui fit faire un petit chaperon rouge, qui lui seyait si
bien, que partout on l'appelait le Petit chaperon rouge. (Perrault, Gar-
nier 1967, 113)

[This good woman made for her a little red hood, which suited her so
well that everyone called her Little Red Riding Hood.]

. . . am allerliebsten aber ihre Grossmutter, die wusste gar nicht, was
sie alles dem Kinde geben sollte. Einmal schenkte sie ihm ein Käpp-
chen von rotem Sammet, und weil ihm das so wohl stand und es nichts
anders mehr tragen wollte, heiss es nur das Rotkäppchen. (Grimm,
Reclam 1980, 156-57)

[. . . but most of all her grandmother, who did not know what else she
could give to the child. One day she gave her as a present a little hood
of red velvet, and as it became her so well and she did not want to wear
anything else, she was always called Little Red Riding Hood.]
23


In Grimm's version the mother's attachment to the grandmother is
stronger than in Perrault's version, where the mother sends the child
because she herself is baking and because she fears that the grand-
mother is sick. In Grimm's version, the mother knows for sure that
the grandmother is sick and sends the child to help her, showing that
the mother feels responsible for the grandmother and family rela-
tions are much closer.
 
Un jour sa mère, ayant cuit et fait des galettes, lui dit: "Va voir comme
se porte ta mère-grand, car on m'a dit qu'elle était malade, porte-lui
une galette et ce petit pot de beurre." (Perrault, Garnier 1967, 113)

[One day her mother had fried and made the biscuits, told her: "Go
and see how your grandmother feels because someone told me that
she was ill, take to her biscuits and this little pot of butter."]

Eines Tages sprach seine Mutter zu ihm: "Komm, Rotkäppchen, da
hast du ein Stück Kuchen und eine Flasche Wein, bring das der
Grossmutter hinaus; sie ist krank und schwach und wird daran laben."
(Grimm, Reclam 1980, 157)

[One day her mother said to her: "Come, Little Red Riding Hood,
here is a piece of cake and a bottle of wine, bring them to Grand-
mother; she is ill and weak and this will comfort her."]
Even relations between the child and grandmother seem to be less
casual in the Grimm version. While the child gathers flowers for her
own sake in Perrault's version, she does so in order to make grand-
mother happy in Grimm's version.
. . . et la petite fille s'en alla par le chemin le plus long, s'amusant à
cueillir des noisettes, à courir après des papillons, et à faire des bou-
quets des petites fleurs qu'elle rencontrait. (Perrault, Garnier 1967,
114)

[. . . and the little girl went by the longer road, and enjoyed herself by
picking hazelnuts, running after butterflies, and making bouquets of
the little flowers she found on her way.]

Rotkäppchen schlug die Augen auf, und als es sah, wie die Son-
nenstrahlen durch die Bäume hin und her tanzten und alles voll
schöner Blumen stand, dachte es: "Wenn ich der Grossmutter einen

24


frichen Strauss mitbringe, der wird ihr auch Freude machen."
(Grimm, Reclam 1980, 158)

[Little Red Riding Hood opened her eyes and when she saw how the
sunbeams dance here and there through the trees, and pretty flowers
grow everywhere, she thought: "If I bring grandmother a fresh nosegay,
this will also make her happy."]
Thus the different notions of the family in each period -- the child-
centered family versus the loose family connections -- found ex-
pression in the different presentations of the child and the family in
each of the texts. In addition, even more prominent differences can
be discerned between the two versions' ideas about education.

An educational system, in the modern sense of the notion, simply
did not exist in Perrault's time, nor did the need for systematic edu-
cation of the child. In Grimm's time, however, education not only
existed, but was considered essential for the child's spiritual welfare.
Adults within and outside the family circle were considered responsi-
ble for the education of the child. This is best exhibited in Grimm's
version by the instructions given to the child by her mother. These
instructions -- entirely missing from Perrault's version -- express the
new ideas about education that had penetrated society in the hun-
dred years between Perrault and Grimm. The mother instructs the
child to behave herself: "Und wenn du in ihre Stube kommst, so
vergiss nicht, guten Morgen zu sagen, and guck nicht erst in alle
Echen herum" [When you come into her room, don't forget to say
good morning and don't peep in every corner first.] (Grimm, Reclam
1980, 157). She also instructs the child not to leave the path:
 
"Mach dich auf, bevor es heiss wird, und wenn du hinauskommst, so
geh hübsch sittsam und lauf nicht vom Weg ab, sonnst f?llst du und
zerbrichst das Glas, und die Grossmutter hat nichts." (Grimm, Reclam
1980, 157)

["Go now before it is too hot, and when you go, go nice and proper and
do not leave the path, otherwise you will fall and break the glass and
your grandmother will get nothing."]
 
The idea that children should be instructed by adults as far as their
behavior was concerned, a notion unknown in Perrault's time, was

25


commonly practiced in Grimm's time and served as a basis for the
relationship between mother and child in Grimm's text. Moreover,
the school, an institution that hardly existed in Perrault's time, had
become both established and hated. When the wolf meets the child,
he declares that she looks as sad as if she were going to school: "Du
gehst ja für dich hin, als wenn du zur Schule gingst, und ist so lustig
haussen in dem Wald" [You are walking along, as if you were going to
school, and it is so cheerful out here in the woods.] (Grimm, Reclam
1980, 157-58). The different ways in which childhood was perceived
also allowed different prospects for presenting the child. While the
naive country girl of Perrault is lost forever, the little girl of Grimm is
saved by adults who are responsible for her. As long as she is pro-
tected by them, she is safe, and that is exactly the moral she learns:
"Rotkäppchen aber dachte: 'Du willst dein Lebtag nicht wieder al-
lein vom Wege ab in den Wald laufen, wenn dir's die Mutter verboten
hat"' [But Little Red Riding Hood thought, "You will never again
leave the path if your mother has forbidden you to do so."] (Grimm,
Reclam 1980, 159). In the hundred years that passed between Per-
rault and Grimm, a new concept of childhood, the "instructive" con-
cept, developed. This new concept differed from the previous one in
the importance it attached to the educational system and to books as
the main educational tools of such a system. In quite a short time, it
became the raison d'?tre of texts for children and guided their op-
tions and their norms; to a large extent, the new concept determined
what was appropriate and what was to be labeled as unsuitable. Thus
this concept was one of the main reasons for the changes that took
place in "Little Red Riding Hood" from Perrault to Grimm (needless
to say, along with many other important factors, including the literary
conventions and linguistic aspirations guiding the Brothers Grimm).
Moreover, it has governed, even more powerfully, writing for chil-
dren since the time of the Brothers Grimm. This may be assumed
because the basic idea about writing for children, that is, that chil-
dren's books should be written under the supervision of adults and
should contribute to the child's spiritual welfare, has not changed
since the middle of the eighteenth century (see chapters 6-7). What
has changed are the specific ideas prevalent in each period about
education and childhood. However, the idea that books for children
have to be suitable from the pedagogical point of view and should

26


contribute to the child's development has been, and still is, a domi-
nant force in the production of children's books.

Nevertheless, changes in the specific ideas of education did result
in a demand for the revision of certain elements in children's litera-
ture. For example, pedagogic views in England at the turn of the
nineteenth century were responsible for the prohibition of fairy tales.
As a result, the subject of fairies was excluded from canonized chil-
dren's literature and found refuge only in underground literature (on
the role of chapbooks in retaining fairy tales, see chapter 6). The
educational establishment mistrusted works of imagination and fa-
vored the so-called "realistic" works, whose constant figures were
death and sickness (for an exhaustive description of the texts, see
Avery 1975, especially chapters 2-4). On the other hand, when the
attitude toward imagination changed by the middle of the nineteenth
century, or in Townsend's words, imagination was "rehabilitated,"
fairy tales were again introduced into the canonized children's system
(for a brief description of this process, see chapter 6). Yet, because
the mid to late nineteenth-century ideas about the child and his
education were different from those dominant in Grimm's time,
Grimm's "Rotkäppchen" was no longer considered appropriate and
had to be revised in accordance with the new views.

Modern Adaptations of Grimm

The children's market of the Western world is practically flooded
today with a considerable number of editions of "Little Red Riding
Hood." The prolific production of the text is encouraged by its status
as a "classic," which ensures its commercial success. It is also
prompted by the great importance attached to the text on psychologi-
cal grounds. Some psychologists even go so far as to declare that the
text is indispensable for a child's development and that the child
should be acquainted with the full version -- no omissions at all are
suggested (see Bettelheim 1976; for a serious criticism of him, see
Zipes 1979c). Indeed, all modern editions of "Little Red Riding
Hood" share (explicitly or implicitly) the same point of departure --
the belief that the text should suit prevailing ideas about the child

27


and childhood. Because of this belief, some editions changed the text
only slightly or not at all in deference to the "complete version" ap-
proach of certain psychologists. Others -- in fact, numerous edi-
tions -- changed the text extensively. The basis for the textual revi-
sions are assumptions held by the editors about childhood, especially
about the child's capacity to understand and the themes to which he should
be exposed. With these two issues in mind, the various adaptations are
concerned mainly with the characterizations, the introduction of un-
suitable events, and the assumed social norms of the texts and do not
hesitate to change what is regarded as inappropriate for the child.
The only difference between revisions lies in the solutions they offer
for these problematic issues and the extent of deviation they exhibit
from the original.

For a brief discussion of the handling of these aspects, three ver-
sions of "Little Red Riding Hood" were chosen randomly (almost
any three versions will do; for analysis of other versions of "Little
Red Riding Hood," see Nodelman 1978). These versions serve as a
good example of the norms that determine the procedures of textual
revision in accordance with the principles described above. The ver-
sions to be discussed here are the following: Modern Promotions, no
date; Puppet Book, 1970; and A Pop-up Book, no date. All three
agree about the need to revise the aspects of the tone, characteriza-
tion, unsuitable events, and social norms in accordance with their
understanding of the child and childhood.

THE TONE

The assumption that the child is the implied reader can be discerned
by the tone of the text. In all versions, the tone is not only au-
thoritative, but also superior and condescending. This becomes emi-
nently clear when the narrator explains those points he presumes the
child is incapable of understanding by himself. For instance, the nar-
rator of the Puppet edition explains the name of the little girl in the
following manner: "That is exactly why she was called Little Red
Riding Hood." The same narrator also explains the craftiness of the
wolf, assuming a child cannot comprehend such sophisticated behav-
ior: "The crafty old wolf really knew where Grandmother lived. He
also knew that the path across the meadow was the shortest way to

28


reach Grandmother's house." The narrator of the Pop-up edition is
not sure a child can understand that the wolf disguised himself as the
grandmother, thus he explains: "She was surprised to see her Gran-
ny in bed (You see, she thought the wolf was her Granny)."

ASSUMED SOCIAL NORMS

Very often the texts give expression to common social norms and
prevailing fashions. This can be discerned not only in major struc-
tures, but in minor details as well. For instance, alcohol is a negative
value and therefore will be replaced by fruit, honey, or milk in accor-
dance with the modern "natural food" fad. Thus mother sends a
varied basket to suit the current fashion: "One day her mother
packed a basket with cake and fruit" (Puppet); or, "One day her
mother told her to take a basket of bread and honey to her grand-
mother who was sick" (Modern Promotions). After the hunter res-
cues the child, grandmother makes a little party, and what does she
serve but milk: "They were all so happy that they decided to have a
party then and there. Grandmother served glasses of milk to her
visitors" (Puppet). When it is the fashion to present the child with
challenges he has to experience by himself, the text is revised into a
"challenge" story; and the child is given a chance to experience a visit
to her "granny" all by herself: " 'Oh yes, that would be lovely,' said
the Red Riding Hood. 'I've never been to Granny's on my own be-
fore. It will be an exciting adventure!' So Little Red Riding Hood
waved goodbye to her mother and started to walk along the forest
path to Granny's cottage. As she walked along and saw all the birds
and forest creatures she was not a bit frightened for she loved the
forest" (Pop-up).

UNSUITABLE EVENTS

Any information that is considered unsuitable for children is either
omitted or revised to make it acceptable. The text avoids both the
violent scene where grandmother and child are devoured by the wolf
and also any possible unpleasant information. This is probably the
reason for the grandmother's not being "sick" in the Modern Pro-
motions edition, but rather euphemistically "not well." Similarly in

29


the Puppet Book, the mother explains, "This is a gift for you to take
to your grandmother. She is not well and will enjoy eating some cake
and fruit." In the Pop-up edition, nothing at all is wrong with grand-
mother: "Why don't you go and visit Granny?. . . I'm sure she
would be pleased to see you." The various devices writers use to
avoid the violent scene at the end are clear evidence of the attempt to
avoid unsuitable information. The most extreme solution is to deny
all violence and even prevent the wolf himself from being hurt:
"When the wolf saw the hunter's long rifle, he had a change of mind.
Now it was his turn to be frightened. He had time for just one yelp
before running out of the house as quickly as he could" (Puppet). In
other cases, the wolf does get punished and poetic justice is done. In
most cases, however, the violent scenes with grandmother and the
child are simply avoided. Grandmother hides in the closet without
getting hurt, and the child is rescued before and not after the wolf
devours her:
 
But grandmother saw the wolf, too! She dashed into her clothes closet
and locked the door behind her, doing it so quickly that the wolf hardly
knew what was happening. (Puppet)

At that moment a hunter passed the house. He heard Little Red Riding
Hood's frightened scream and burst open the door. (Puppet)

Fortunately, at that moment, the forester arrived. He ran inside and was
just in time to rescue the little girl. Red Riding Hood breathed a sigh of
relief when she realized what a narrow escape she had had. (Pop-up)
This examination of Perrault's, Grimm's, and three out of hundreds
of modern versions of "Little Red Riding Hood" indicates that the
changes in the texts were neither random nor insignificant. Many
reasons lay behind these changes (for instance, prevailing literary
models), but one of the crucial factors in determining the character
of the texts for the child was undoubtedly the different concepts of
childhood held by society. Since the eighteenth century, children's
literature has been strongly linked with the educational establish-
ment and has based its legitimation on it. This linkage has served as a
source for constraints imposed upon children's literature in at least
two areas: the way in which children are presented, characterized,

30


and judged by the texts and the way in which the child is assumed to
be the implied reader of the text.

Thus, children's libraries in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twen-
tieth centuries contain the same titles, but once the books are
opened, it becomes quite clear that the contents vary considerably.
What really counts is the way childhood is perceived by society, for it
is society's perceptions that determine to a large extent what actually
lies between the covers.

Texts

EDITIONS OF GRIMM

German Versions:
Rotkäppchen und andre märchen von Gebrüder Grimm. 1947. Stuttgart:
  Herold Verlag.
Kinder und Hausmärchen gesammelt durch die Brüder Grimm. 1962.
  Munich: Verlag Heinrich Ellermann.
Rotkäppchen. 1965. Text nach Grimms märchen. Zurich and Stuttgart: Ras-
  cher Verlag.
Die Schönsten Kindermärchen. Brüder Grimm. 1970. Munich: Verlag
  Heinrich Ellermann.
Janosch erzählt Grimms märchen. 1972. Weinheim and Basel: Beltz und
  Gelberg.
Rotkäppchen. 1972. Bad Aibling: Siebert Kinder Bücher.
Zauberwelt des märchenwaldes. [1973]. fürth/Bay: Pestalozzi Verlag.
Rotkäppchen. 1974. Zurich: Diogenes Kinder Klassiker.
Grimm märchen. 1975. Munich: Annette Betz Verlag.
Grimm märchen. Mein Erstes Buch. 1979. Edited by Richard Bamberger.
  Vienna and Munich: Jugend und Volk.
Zaubermärchen der Brüder Grimm. 1979. Bayreuth: Loewes Verlag.
Rotkäppchen; Schneewittchen. Mainz: Verlag Engelbert Dessart.

English Versions:
Red Fairy Book. (1890) 1950. Collected and edited by Andrew Lang. London,
  New York, and Toronto: Longmans, Green and Co.
Little Red Cap. 1965. Adapted by Evalyn Kinkead. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Little Red Riding Hood. Retold by Albert G. Miller. New York: Random
  House.


31



Little Red Riding Hood. 1968. London: Collins.
Little Red Riding Hood. 1970. (Puppet Story Book). Adapted by Oscar Weigle.
  New York: Grosset and Dunlap.
Red Riding Hood. Fairy Tale Pop Up Book. N.p.: Nutmeg Press.
Little Red Riding Hood. New York: Modern Promotions.

EDITIONS OF PERRAULT

French Versions:
Il était une fois, Vieux contes français. 1951. Paris: Flammarion.
Contes de Perrault. 1960. Paris: Editions Marcus.
Les contes de Perrault. 1976. Paris: Fernand Nathan.
Contes de ma m?re L'Oye. 1977. Charles Perrault, Folio junior. Paris:
  Gallimard.
Les contes de Perrault. 1979. Paris: Marcinelle-Charleroi.

German Versions:
märchen aus vergangener Zeit. 1965. Munich: Arena Meistererzählungen.
märchen. [1967]. Vienna and Heidelberg: Verlag Carl Ueberreuter.

32

Contents Untitled Document Poetics of Children's Literature - The Notion of Childhood and Texts for the Child Zohar Shavit,
Poetics of Children's Literature,
The University of Georgia Press,
Athens and London, 1986 ©

Chapter One

The Notion of Childhood
and Texts for the Child

Today it is difficult to imagine the book industry without
its huge output of children's books. The mass produc-
tion of children's books is taken for granted as a promi-
nent and indispensable part of publishing activity. The
twentieth-century cultural (and conceptual) obsession with the phys-
ical, mental, and sexual problems of childhood is also readily accept-
ed. Society views childhood as the most important period of life and
tends to account for most of adult behavior on the basis of childhood
experience. Society is so used to its un standing of what childhood
is, as well as to the existence of books for children, that it forgets that
both concepts, childhood and books for children, are relatively new
phenomena; that is, society's present view of childhood is far re-
moved from that which was held only two centuries ago. Moreover,
children's literature began to develop only after adult literature had
become a well-established institution. Books specifically for children
were seldom written until the eighteenth century, and the whole in-
dustry of children's books began to flourish only in the second half of
the nineteenth century.

The connection between these two facts is neither random nor
insignificant, but rather the creation of the notion of childhood was
an indispensable precondition for the production of children's books
and determined to a large extent the development and options of
development for children's literature. This chapter will discuss how
and when this process took place.

Before children's literature could begin to develop, a total reform
in the notion of childhood was required, a reform that was described
in the pioneering and well-known work of Philippe Ariès (1962) and

3


in recent research (see Weber-Kellermann 1979, Plessen and von
Zahn 1979). Before this reform surfaced in the nineteenth century
society held a different view of childhood, which began to change
during the seventeenth century. Before this, before children's needs
gained recognition and legitimation as distinct and different from
adults' children's literature could not have existed. As Townsend
states: "Before there could be children's books, there had to be chil-
dren -- children, that is, who were accepted as beings with their own
particular needs and interests, not only as miniature men and wom-
en ' (Townsend 1977, 17).

The View of Childhood Until the Seventeenth Century:
From Unity to Polarity

I do not intend to survey Ariès's work nor that of his followers in this
study, but rather to elaborate on the aforementioned connection be-
tween the development of the notion of childhood and that of chil-
dren's literature. Yet, in order to trace this connection, one of Ariès's
most important contentions (an uncontradicted one, despite quite a
few attempts to dispute it; see, for instance, deMause 1975), must be
accepted as a basic premise.

Before discussing Ariès's thesis, a short digression must be made.
This book basically accepts his thesis and even takes his description
of the evolution of the notion of the child as its beginning point.
However, since his thesis is so comprehensive, certain modifications
and a few reformulations are required. For instance, Ariès's theory is
strongly built upon the French case. When other cases are examined
(Germany, England) they are not parallel either in time or in the way
the same historical phenomena evolved. Nevertheless, it can still be
argued that the same process of development of the notion of the
child occurred throughout Western Europe. When the development
of the notion of the child is examined, one can consistently discern
how around the beginning of the sevententh century (in some cases
earlier, in some later), a totally new understanding of "childhood"
developed, which consistently created two new cultural institutions: a
new system of education, the school system, and a new readership
that produced an unprecedented market for children's books.

4


Hence, Ariès's basic thesis that cultural understanding of child-
hood has greatly changed in Western society is, in my view, indisputa-
ble. Those who try to challenge it, especially the recent study of
Pollock (1983), simply do not understand either the implications of
his study or the mechanism of historical developments and historical
changes. Attacking Ariès's thesis by claiming that the same notion of
childhood always existed, implies a total misunderstanding of the
meaning of a new historical phenomenon.

A new historical phenomenon does not necessarily mean -- in fact,
it never means -- that a certain element or group of elements abruptly
changes overnight, or that a new phenomenon is totally new in all its
components and functions. Quite the contrary, any historical change
requires time before cultural consciousness has recognized it as a
change, and normally, it is enough for any historical phenomenon to be
considered "new" when only some of its components are changed.

In summation, to accept Ariès's thesis does not imply an absurd
understanding of historical processes; it does not mean that suddenly
all Europeans understood differently what a child was and what his
specific needs were. It does, however, mean accepting a description
of historical development that began in the seventeenth century and
culminated in the nineteenth century, during which time a new un-
derstanding evolved of what childhood is and, consequently, what the
needs of the child are. Ariès argued that until the seventeenth cen-
tury children were not considered different from adults. It was as-
sumed that they had no special needs, and as a result, there was
neither an established educational system, nor were there any books
for children.

In medieval society and in the centuries that followed, the prevail-
ing theological approach, as well as conditions of life, left no room for
the extravagance of childhood. The conceptual framework of society
ignored the characteristics distinguishing a child from an adult. Of
course, differences did exist, but they were simply not recognized.
On the theological plane, it was believed that the cycle of life -- anal-
ogous to that of nature -- consisted of birth, life, and death, thus leav-
ing no room for the stage of childhood. Moreover, the conditions of
life, including a high rate of child mortality and a short life span,
contributed to reinforcing the conceptual ignorance of childhood:
childhood was too "fragile" a period and the children that survived it

5


had to leave childhood early and enter manhood because the life
span was so short. Accordingly, once the child left his swaddling, he
was considered an integral part of adult society, sharing adult dress,
work, and leisure. However, by the beginning of the seventeenth
century, this unity in the world of the adult and the child began to
undergo polarization, resulting in a new concept of childhood.

This new concept emerged in society because of certain occur-
rences, among which the most important were changes in the current
ideas of the time. Surprising as it may seem, they preceded the well-
known changes in social conditions usually linked with the emer-
gence of childhood, such as the Industrial Revolution, the emergence
of the bourgeois class, and the drop in the child mortality rate. Un-
doubtedly, these things also played a role in the development of the
notion of childhood; yet the changes in the ideological sphere in
which a distinct view of the child began to develop came more than a
century before the material changes.

For the first time, children were described as having special dis-
tinguishing characteristics, such as innocence, sweetness, and other
angelic qualities. These new ideas of children, as Ariès claims, can
be traced back to the late sixteenth century to religious paintings that
used the child for religious purposes (to symbolize the child Jesus,
Jesus and the angels, and others). Later, this iconography acquired a
more decorative function (as opposed to religious) in the form of the
putto. In fact, as paintings of children took on nonreligious themes
and began to dominate art and iconography, the idea of childhood as
an independent stage was absorbed more and more by society. These
paintings expressed the special traits children were now seen as pos-
sessing. No doubt they were partly responsible for society's new
awareness of children's special qualities of sweetness and innocence.
These qualities led to the child gradually becoming a source of
amusement and relaxation for adults, thus negating the former view
of children as merely small adults. In this way, the unified world of
adults and children underwent polarization. Several elements, such
as toys and dress, previously shared by both adults and children, now
became the child's monopoly, although usually through a process of
reduction and simplification. Soon after, they also became elements
with a distinguishing function, pointing to the new border between
adults and children.

This new view of the child was first propagated within the family

6


circle. In quite a short time, parents would no longer hesitate to
admit the pleasure they obtained from their children. Furthermore,
they would refuse to stop mollycoddling them. In a way, children
were treated like pets -- a constant source of amusement for adult
company -- which made Claude Fleury protest in the following man-
ner: "It is as if the poor children had been made only to amuse the
adults, like little dogs or little monkeys" (Ariès 1962, 131). Not long
after this idea of childhood as a source of amusement came to be
accepted by society, a new view that accepted the original contention
of differentiation, but objected to its errant course, began to develop,
especially among moralists and pedagogues within the church. They
agreed that children were different from adults, but drew the conclu-
sion that innocent children and creatures close to god should be
isolated from the corrupting company of adults. Thus evolved a sec-
ond notion of childhood. This notion was mainly concerned with the
spiritual well-being of the child and held that children should be
educated and disciplined; furthermore, it prescribed a new role for
adults in which they were responsible for the spiritual well-being of
the child. In this new conceptual framework arose for the first time
serious psychological interest in the child, as well as demand for an
organized educational system. Children were now regarded as deli-
cate creatures who had to be reformed and safeguarded; and the way
to reform them was through education and through books issued
primarily as pedagogic vehicles. Hence, the society's new perception
of childhood created for the first time both the need and the demand
for children's books. This second notion of the child -- the educa-
tional -- eventually provided the framework for canonized children's
literature. That is, from its inception children's books were written
with a certain idea of the child in mind; when this idea changed, the
texts for children changed as well.

In the same way that people assumed a child needed different
dress, toys, and games, it was also assumed that a child reader dif-
fered from the adult, both in his capacity to comprehend, as well as in
his educational needs. Accordingly, it was essential that the texts pro-
duced for him should respond to his needs and capacities. Of course,
the understanding of these needs and capacities was not fixed, but
changed from period to period, consequently changing the character
of the texts for children as well.

In order to understand how concepts of childhood determined the

7


character of the texts produced for the child, various versions of
"Little Red Riding Hood" will be examined. This specific text was
chosen not only because of its status as a children's classic, but be-
cause its numerous versions -- written at different points in time (sev-
enteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries) -- reveal most clearly
the diverse ways in which childhood was perceived by society in dif-
ferent periods, both in assumptions about the child's capacity for
comprehension and society's belief about what the child should be
exposed to. The drastic changes in these perceptions during the last
three centuries can be traced by following the transformation of
Little Red Riding Hood" from the "coddling" version of Perrault to
the "reasoning" version of Grimm, and finally to the modern "pro-
tective" versions of the twentieth century.

Test Case: "Little Red Riding Hood"

THE ATTITUDE TOWARD FAIRY TALES
IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY

As toys and dress items were transferred to the child's world with the
emergence of a new concept of childhood, so also fairy tales were
gradually accepted as belonging in the child's realm and became the
child's monopoly. This is not to say, of course, that before the seven-
teenth century children were not acquainted with fairy tales -- ob-
viously they were. I Before fairy tales became the monopoly of chil-
dren, they were read and recounted over the centuries both by adults
(even of high social class) and by the children who shared their com-
pany. But although children were acquainted with fairy tales, fairy
tales were not initially considered as especially intended for them (for
 

1 Perrault's or Grimm's texts are not "pure" oral fairy tales but rather literary p
ucts arranged by the writers to suit various purposes. Since both Grimm and Perrault
were presenting literary products (see Zipes 1979b, 23-24), it seems useless to dis-
tinguish throughout the discussion between oral fairy tales and fairy tales (Volks-
märchen). Yet a distinction between fairy tales and fantastic narratives must be made
for our further discussion of fantasy. Fantastic narrative is regarded here as a text
though not necessarily based on fairy-tale model, rejects realistic bias. Indeed its
model for presentation of the world tries to challenge such a bias and to offer an
alternative.

8


a similar case of transformation of genre, see Brockman's most in-
teresting analysis of the transformation of the romance into the chil-
dren's literature [Brockman 1982]).

After the middle of the seventeenth century, however, an interest-
ing and complex change ensued, involving attitudes toward fairy
tales. Highbrow society, which previously did not hesitate to admit
the pleasure derived from fairy tales, began to regard them as suit-
able only for children and people of the lower classes, claiming that
they were too simple and naive for anyone else. At the same time, a
new interest arose in fairy tales, which made them a fashionable and
artistic genre. This new interest was the motivation behind the cre-
ation of fairy tales based on the model of the traditional naive texts.
However, an indispensable precondition was required for the "fash-
ionable" writing of fairy tales; although they were in vogue, it was
necessary for both writers and readers to assume that fairy tales were
written for the lower classes and children. Thus adults of the upper
classes could enjoy fairy tales only by pretending that they were ad-
dressing children.

Adults exploited the opportunity to enjoy fairy tales during the
seventeenth century through the recognition of the child's culture as
distinct from their own and the use of children as a source of amuse-
ment. Therefore the reading of fairy tales by highbrows was based on
a silent agreement (between them and the writer) about two implied
readers -- the child and the highbrow adult -- and on a tacit agree-
ment about the writer's intentions, leaving much room for the writer
to play between them. This sophisticated use of the special status of
fairy tales can be seen in Perrault's "Little Red Riding Hood," es-
pecially in regard to the obscure identity of the writer and the ambi-
guity of the text.

PERRAULT AND THE CONCEALED IDNTITY OF THE WRITER

The attitude toward the culture of the child served as background, as
well as motivation and legitimation, for Perrault's Histoires ou Contes
du temps passé. Perrault published this collection of fairy tales in 1697,
some of which, like "Little Red Riding Hood," were previously un-
known as written texts. Perrault's collection was only one among a
prolific flow of fairy tales that flooded French literature in the late

9


seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries (others included the fairy
tales of Mme. d'Aulnoy, Mlle. Lhéritier, and Mme. Jeanne le Prince
de Beaumont). Les Contes aroused controversy from the very begin-
ning, not only because the stories officially addressed children (and at
the same time were sophisticated and ironical), but mainly because
they were not signed by Perrault. Les Contes was attributed to his son,
Pierre Darmancour, who was seventeen at the time of its writing and
nineteen at the time of publication. The nature of the text and its
obscure attribution raises at least two questions: First, why did the
attribution of the text remain obscured? Secondly, to whom did the
text really address itself?

The question of the text attribution has remained unsolved for the
last three centuries, with scholars still disagreeing over the identity of
the author. Despite the fact that the texts were signed by the son of
Perrault, they were already attributed to Perrault in his lifetime and
have been by many since then. In two of the volumes, 1 and 37, of Le
Cabinet des Fées (a voluminous collection that indicates the popularity
of fairy tales at the time), it was claimed that Perrault himself wrote
the texts, though he "attributa ses contes de fées à son fils" [attri-
buted his fairy tales to his son] (Soriano 1978, 38).2

Soriano claims that the book was often attributed to Perrault due
to its widespread fame and the need for an attractive name. But this
argument neither explains why the text was attributed to Perrault by
his contemporaries before it gained worldwide recognition, nor why
Perrault himself never bothered to announce his authorship, as the
dispute began even in his own day: "L'Académicien savait la vérité
sur cette affaire. Mais il n'a rien fait pour ?liminer la doute" [The
member of the French Academy knew the truth about this affair but
did nothing to eliminate the doubt.] (Soriano 1978, 69). Rather, it
could be claimed that the opposite is true. It seems that Perrault did
his best to conceal the identity of the writer.

Perrault did not deny that he was himself a writer. He signed his
own name on "La Marquise de Salusses ou la Patience de
Griselidis," which was published in Mercure Galant, along with a note
that it was read in a lecture at the French Academy (1691); his name
appeared also on "Les Souhaits ridicules" (Mercure Galant, 1693).
 

2 All translations, unless otherwise specified, are mine. I am grateful to Nitsa Ben-
Ari for her help.

10


But at the same time, Perrault did his best to confuse the identity of
the author of Les Contes. Among the various means Perrault used was
the following: In 1696, he published a revised and enlarged version
of "L'Histoire de la Marquise-Marquis de Banneville" in Mercure
Galant. The text was published in two installments, and in the sec-
ond, a long and sarcastic digression appeared, referring to the writer
of "La belle au bois dormant," which was published earlier in Febru-
ary 1696:
-- Avez-vous lu La Belle au bois dormant?
-- Si je l'ai lue? s'ecria la petite Marquise. Je l'ai lue quatre fois et ce
petit conte m'a raccommod?e avec Le Mercure galant où j'ai ?t? ravie de
le trouver. Je n'ai encore rien vu de mieux narr?; un tour fin et d?licat,
des expressions toutes naives; mais je ne m'en suis point étonnée
quand on m'a dit le nom de l'auteur. Il est fils de Maître et s'il n'avait
pas bien de l'esprit, il faudrait qu'on l'ait chang? en nourrice. (Soriano
1978, 24-25)

["Have you read Sleeping Beauty?" "Yes, I have," cried the little mar-
quise. "I read it four times and this little fairy tale reconciled me to the
Mercure galant where I was overjoyed to find it. I have never yet seen
anything better told; written so fine and delicate, very naive ex-
pressions. But I was not at all astonished when I was told the name of
the writer. He is the son of a master, and had he lacked inspiration, he
must have had changed hands while nursing."]
Such comments by Perrault added, of course, to the mystery and the
confusion regarding the attribution of the text. The author's identity
was further confused by the suggested attribution of the text to Per-
rault's niece, Mlle. Lhéritier, as a result of the similarities between
her fairy tales and Perrault's. Yet, unlike the question of the attribu-
tion, the similarity between the texts is easily explained not only be-
cause the writers were connected by family ties and spent much time
together in the same literary salons, but mainly because they based
their fairy tales upon the same model and shared the same literary
conventions.

How did his contemporaries react to his manipulation of the writ-
er's identity? It seems that they were not impressed by Perrault's
efforts to conceal the writer's identity; this may be assumed from a

11


survey of their letters in which Perrault is referred to, in a most mat-
ter-of-fact fashion, as the author of Les Contes. In one such letter,
dated 23 September 1696, Dubos wrote to Bayle: "Ce même libraire
[Barbin] imprime aussi Les Contes de ma mère l'Oye par Monsieur
Perrault. Ce sont bagatelles auxquelles il s'est amusé autrefois pour
r?jouir ses enfants." [This same librarian prints also Les Contes de ma
mere l'oye by Perrault. These are nonsense stories that he wrote to
amuse himself and his children.] In a second letter, dated 1 March
1697, Dubos wrote: "Madame Daunoy [d'Aulnoy] ajoute un second
volume aux Contes de ma mère l'Oye de M. Perrault" [Madame
Daunoy adds a second volume to the Contes de ma mère l'oye of Per-
rault.] (Soriano 1978, 31). If this was the case, that is, if the literary
circles did not doubt the text's authorship, why was it so important
for Perrault to continue playing his dual game? Why did he insist
upon attributing the text to his son, while at the same time deliber-
ately confusing the issue of the attribution? The answer might lie
partly in Perrault's high social status which required that he, as a
distinguished member of the French Academy, could not take official
responsibility for texts considered more appropriate for young people
or women to write. By attributing authorship to his son, Perrault
indicated that the text was intended for children, as writing for chil-
dren was considered more "natural" to young people and women,
according to the general custom of the times. But even more impor-
tant than the need or desire to play with the question of attribution
was the fact that Perrault's game was only part of a more common
game underlying the acceptability of fairy tales as an upper-class
source of amusement. Highbrows enjoyed the duality of the writer in
the same way they enjoyed the duality of the reader, hence forcing
Perrault to maintain this duality continuously.

While quite a few scholars still describe Perrault's work in terms of
either a wish to depict the Nursery Tales (Soriano 1978), or, in a
more sophisticated manner, as a part of the vogue of the low people's
culture, more and more scholars regard it as conscious effort to ad-
just the oral folktale to a socialization process of the rising bourgeois
class (Darnton 1984, Zipes 1983). Whatever was the real motivation
for Perrault's work, most scholars seem to agree about one thing --
that Perrault did change the original folktales a great deal and ad-

12


justed them to the taste of his "salon" audience. Yet Perrault's ma-
nipulation of the writer's identity alone was not enough to maintain
the duality of the text. The text must also provide unmistakable evi-
dence as to its "real" reader, the adult, and at the same time maintain
the game between its two implied audiences. This was achieved
mainly through the ambiguous structures of the text and through its
satirical and ironical tone.

THE AMBIGUOUS STRUCTURE OF PERRAULT'S
"LITTLE RED RIDING HOOD

"Little Red Riding Hood" was not known in print until Perrault first
published it in 1697. Scholars of Perrault still disagree as to whether
Perrault could have based the text on oral tradition because the fairy
tale's bad ending was antithetical to that tradition. However, even
those who believe that the text was originally an oral tale seem to
agree that Perrault only used the model of the oral tale as a basis for
his text and then elaborated it. In this way, he created both a "pseu-
do" oral tale and a sophisticated one as well. This explains why Per-
rault was so careful to maintain the illusion of the oral tale, especially
from a stylistic point of view. He used elements whose function was
to demonstrate the "antiquity" of the text, such as "ayant cuit et fait
des galettes" [she fried and made biscuits] (my italics). He also intro-
duced elements unacceptable in written French but recognized as a
child's vocabulary; these elements, such as "la bobinette" and "la
chevillette," were known as purely children's language. They served
not only to create the effect of a "naive oral tale," but also to signify
the child's world and emphasize the official addressee of the text.

At the same time that Perrault was careful to maintain this illusion
of an oral tale, he did not hesitate to break formulaic structures, in
the most strategic points, as if to call attention to his manipulation of
the model of an oral tale. Thus, Perrault signaled his adult reader. In
this context, his use of another typical oral tale structure, that of the
dialogue, is adept. Here, Perrault first creates the impression that the
formula is maintained, and only then does he break it. He uses this
technique in the famous dialogue between the child and "grand-
mother," departing from the formulaic structure in the last line only:

13


C'est pour mieux t'embrasser
C'est pour mieux courir
C'est pour mieux écouter
C'est pour mieux voir
C'est pour te manger.

(Perrault, Garnier 1967, 115)

[The better to kiss you with
The better to run with
The better to listen with
The better to see with
The better to eat you with.]
Perrault also broke another traditional formula, the indispensable
happy ending of the oral tale. Perrault's ending is tragic -- the story
ends when the wolf devours the poor little girl; no rescue is suggested:
"Et en disant ces mots, ce méchant Loup se jeta sur le petit chaperon
rouge, et la mangea" [And in saying these words the wicked wolf
jumped at Little Red Riding Hood and ate her.] (115).

Why such a drastic break? Perhaps Perrault's drastic break from
the formulaic happy ending resulted from his desire to integrate sat-
ire and irony into the form of the tragic ending in order to signal the
adult reader. The tragic ending indicates that the text was a satire
about "gentlemen" of the town who do not hesitate to take advantage
of poor naive country girls. It leads to the ironical moral, which
comes as a postscript to the tale, and concludes with: "Mais hélas!
qui ne sait que ces Loups doucereux, / De tous les Loups sont les
plus dangereux" [But alas, who does not know that sweetish wolves
are most dangerous of all wolves.] (115). This moral suggests that the
wolf represents something other than a real wolf, that it stands for
"toute sorte de gens" of whom naive girls should be careful if they do
not wish to be hurt. The ironical interpretation of the ending by the
moral negates the possibility, suggested by Soriano, that the tragic
ending indicates a warning story (Soriano claims that it is a warning
story, as wolves were a real danger at the time).

The text leaves no doubt as to what the wolf stands for. In addi-
tion, the theme of gentlemen who take advantage of little country
girls is heightened by the erotic characterization of the girl and by the
erotic bed scene. The text does not emphasize the innocence of the

14


child, but rather her beauty -- "la plus jolie"; the text also suggests
the color red as her symbol. And if that is not enough, the bed scene
leaves little room for imagination. The wolf invites the girl to sleep
with him ("viens te coucher avec moi"). The girl undresses ("Le petit
chaperon rouge se déshabille, et va se mettre dans le lit") and is
astonished to discover what the wolf looks like in bed ("elle fut bien
étonnée de voir comment sa Mère-grand était faite en son dés-
habillé") [She was very astonished to see how her grandmother
looked when naked.] (Garnier 1967, 114-15). All these erotic ele-
ments point to an "erotic" structure that makes no sense unless un-
derstood as a satire about a girl seduced by a gentleman, rather than
as a story about a little girl devoured by a wolf.

Hence, Perrault manipulated the oral tale through its formula,
style, and structure in an intentionally ambiguous manner. What was
the basis for such manipulation?

THE AMBIGUITY OF THE TEXT

The ambiguous nature of the text was primarily intended to satisfy
both its official and unofficial readers. It enabled Perrault to use the
status of fairy tales as texts for children, addressing them officially to
children as the main consumers, while at the same time using the
notion of the child as a source of amusement to allow adults (mainly
highbrows) to enjoy the text, too. In this way, irony and satire signaled
the highbrow adult, while the formulaic structures signaled the child
reader.

In fact, strong evidence that the highbrows were not just fond of
the text exists: ". . . mais l'élite leur réserve une sorte de mépris
amusé" [but the elite reserves for them a sort of amused scorn]
(Soriano 1978, 39). It even became the habit of salon culture to read
fairy tales aloud, despite their being considered childish, naive, and
amusing:
A feature of these salons, male and female alike, was the reading aloud
of pasquinades, vaudevilles, sonnets à bouts-rimés, and similar short pieces;
and the Comtesse d'Aulnoy seems to have introduced the telling of
fairy-stories in the female salons. The idea caught on and became the
rage. The fashion eventually extended to the male writers....



15


The curious point to be taken is that the stories were devised, or
adapted from ancient originals, for the amusement not of children but
of adults. The consequence is that, although the characters and the
background belong superficially to fairy-tales, most of them are much
too sophisticated for children. (Muir 1969, 36)
Like his contemporary and relative, Mlle. Lhéritier, Perrault prob-
ably wrote texts also for the amusement of his friends. The following
description of Mlle. Lhéritier holds true for Perrault as well: "Mlle.
Lhéritier écrit pour l'amusement des ses amis et tous ses écrits por-
tent l'empreinte de son 'esprit salonnier"' [Mlle. Lhéritier writes for
the amusement of her friends and all her writing bears the stamp of
the salon spirit.] (Soriano 1978, 65).

To summarize, the notion of the child in Perrault's time served as
background for Les Contes and as an indispensable condition for the
text's acceptance by highbrow adults. Once the child was perceived
differently by society and was no longer considered a source for
amusement, however, texts for children changed, as did the way in
which the child was characterized in those texts. This is true for all
texts produced for children since the eighteenth century. It is also
true for versions of "Little Red Riding Hood" that underwent vari-
ous changes, culminating in Grimm's "Rotkäppchen," which itself
was followed by many modern adaptations.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PERRAULT'S AND GRIMM'S VERSIONS

Research into folktales has granted considerable space to the dispute
over the connection between Les Contes and the similar texts gathered
by the Brothers Grimm in their Kinder und Hausmärchen. Scholars
disagree both over the origin and the "originality" of Grimm's texts
and account for similarities between Perrault and Grimm on the
basis of different grounds. Some present a historical-geographical
explanation, while others prefer one based on cultural relationships
(Bolte and Polívka 1963) or on cultural transformation (Velten 1930).
Other scholars deny any direct connection between Perrault and
Grimm but claim a mediated relation through Tieck, to whom
Brothers Grimm referred in their notes on "Rotkäppchen": "Bei
Perrault chaperon rouge, wonach Tieck's anmuthige Bearbeitung in

16


den romantischen Dichtungen . . ." [In Perrault's "Little Red Riding
Hood," according to Tieck's charming adaptation in the romantic
manner] (Grimm, Reclam 1980, Band 3, 59). Without entering into
this endless dispute, my contention here is that the relation between
the two versions can be illuminated from the perspective of the dif-
ferent prevalent notions of childhood in each period. Needless to say,
this sort of explanation does not deny the results of previous research
as irrelevant or inadequate, but rather illuminates the relationship
between the two versions from an additional aspect.

As Ariès claims, the notion of childhood has drastically changed
from the seventeenth century to the nineteenth century. In the hun-
dred years that passed between Perrault and Grimm, the "coddling"
attitude had become a very different "reasoning" attitude. This
change in the concept of childhood attributed great importance to
something previously unheard of -- the education of the child. As a
result, an educational system, based on this new conception, began to
develop. The needs and demands of this educational system largely
determined the character of texts written for children in two respects
at least: in regard to the child's capacity to realize the text; and even
more importantly, in regard to the text's obligations toward the child,
reflecting the desire on the part of adults that children should gain
something for their spiritual welfare from the text. Those texts,
therefore, were the direct result of the way childhood was perceived
by society -- hence, the earlier "coddling" version of Perrault and a
century later the very different "reasoning" version of Grimm.

THE DIFFERENT TONES AND ENDINGS

As has been noted by many scholars, the most obvious differences
between Perrault's and Grimm's versions lie in the tones of the texts
(ironical versus naive) and in the endings (tragic versus happy). The
difference in tone appears to be the result of the different intentions
of each writer. Perrault addressed the highbrows with satire. Yet,
while he masked the satire for his official readers by employing tradi-
tional structures, he unveiled it by the ironical tone for the unofficial
reader. The Brothers Grimm, on the other hand, tried to depict the
tone of the narrator as naive, a technique considered essential for the
"authenticity" of the text. As was claimed, the irony and satire effects

17


of Perrault's text are mainly achieved by his play between the text and
its moral. It should also be noted, however, that from the very begin-
ning Perrault's narrator takes an ironical position, as if to warn the
reader not to take him too seriously; a text that opens with "sa mère
en était folle et sa mère-grand plus folle encore" [her mother was
crazy about her, and her grandmother even crazier] simply cannot be
taken seriously. Brothers Grimm, on the other hand, achieved the
effect of "naivety" by stylistic "simplicity" (short sentences, simple
dialogue, limited lexicon). This stylistic simplicity is justified by
adapting the narration to the child's point of view and presenting part
of the discourse through her eyes. This is most evident when the
child is rescued by the hunter: she does not realize how dangerous it
was (nor does the text indicate so in any way), but "merely" declares
how frightful the darkness in the wolf's belly was! The text further
depicted the childish tone by using the exclamation word "ach":
"Ach, wie war ich erschrocken, wie war's so dunkel in dem wolf
seinem Leib!" [Ah, how shocked I was. How dark it was in the wolf's
belly!] (Grimm, Reclam 1980, 159). This device was justified by
Brothers Grimm in their foreword to Kinder und Hausmärchen, where
the new image of childhood is presented. In this foreword, Brothers
Grimm emphasized the child's pureness and genuine capacity to see
the world in a special way -- a new image of the child common to the
Brothers Grimm and to their nineteenth-century contemporaries:
Darum geht innerlich durch diese Dichtungen jene Reinheit, um de-
rentwillen uns Kinder so wunderbar und selig erscheinen: sie haben
gleichsam dieselben blaulichweissen makellosen glänzenden Augen
die nicht mehr wachsen kännen, während sie andern Glieder noch
zart, schwach und zum Dienste der Erde ungeschickt sind. (Grimm,
Reclam 1980, Band 1, 16)

[These paragraphs express this purity that makes our children appear
so wonderful and blessed; they all have these blue-white faultless
bright eyes, that can no longer grow while other members of their body
are still so soft, weak and still unprepared for the service of the earth.]
However, what has primarily attracted the attention of scholars is the
very different endings of the two versions. In Perrault's version the

18


story ends when the child is devoured by the wolf, while Grimm's
version offers two alternative endings, in both of which the child is
rescued. In the first ending, the child is punished -- grandmother and
child are devoured -- and only later rescued when the wolf is killed;
in the second, the wolf is killed by drowning without hurting the
child at all (on the "educational" message of the second ending, see
my later discussion). Why, then, was the happy ending needed?

Researchers of fairy tales are still debating the question of whether
the ending was integral to the text (see Velten 1930). Whether the
ending was integral or not, questions still remain why such an addi-
tion was needed, what the reasons for its being added were, and what
functions it had. Of course, the revision of the ending into a happy
one was primarily done to adjust the text to the model of the fairy
tale. A happy ending was considered indispensable for folktales. The
imperative need for an ending seems to hold true in spite of Darn-
ton's new research. In his controversial analysis of folktales, Darnton
(1984) seems to suggest, in passing, that a "good ending" was not
necessarily typical of all oral tales; "Little Red Riding Hood" served
as a test case.

For at least two reasons this suggestion far from contradicts the
view of "good ending" as a typical ending of the oral tale. Care must
be exercised in using "Little Red Riding Hood" as an oral tale. Until
published by Perrault, the text was not found as a written text. In-
deed, it might well be that the French oral version, which was col-
lected, of course, after Perrault had published Les Contes, stems from
Perrault's written tale, of which the Brothers Grimm were well
aware. If so (and most probably it is), then the fairy tale without a
happy ending is simply the result of the transformation of the text
from a written tale into an oral tale. In addition, it is worth noting that
in a number of versions of "Little Red Riding Hood" presented by
Delarue (1957), the good ending is indeed happy, as the girl does
manage to escape. This seems to suggest that even before "crossing"
the border, the teller of the tale could not tolerate the "bad ending"
and felt it necessary to change it into a good one. The Brothers
Grimm with their strong inclination to oral tradition, could not afford
to violate this norm, as Perrault had deliberately done in order to
signal his adult reader. Unlike Perrault, who officially addressed his
tale to children, Brothers Grimm did not do so, at least not at first.

19


In fact it was in the spirit of nineteenth-century Romanticism -- a
return to sources and nature -- that the Brothers Grimm text was
collected; accordingly, it addressed an adult audience. However, in
spite of their longing for the real "roots," Brothers Grimm did not
simply transcribe the tales. The romantic belief that Brothers Grimm
had fanatically gathered folktales without at all changing them is no
longer accepted today, although some scholars continue to cite the
introduction to the first edition of Kinder und Hausmärchen, which
says: "We have endeavoured to present these fairy tales as pure as
possible . . . no circumstance has been added, embellished or
changed" (preface to 1812 edition; Michaelis-Jena 1970, 53).

Most scholars agree that Brothers Grimm did change the original
texts extensively. After the original handwritten manuscript of 1810
währendnd and compared to that published in 1812, major changes
were discovered. Some scholars, like Rölleke (1975), even go as far
as to describe the changes in terms of transformation into literary
fairy tales and stylistically into Hochdeutsch in order to improve the
literary quality of the texts. Others, like Zipes (1979b), describe the
ideological transformation of the texts and their adjustment to their
function in the socialization process. With regard to "Little Red Rid-
ing Hood" and other texts, Zipes claims that they are "decidedly
biased against females who must either be put in their places or have
their identity defined by males. The outcome is determined by the
constraints of a conservative feudal ideology" (1979b, 136).

The Brothers Grimm could not and did not need to use Perrault's
play between the "official" and "unofficial" reader. Like their nine-
teenth-century contemporaries, they believed that children, with
their special needs, should be separated from adults. They also
thought that these needs could not be supplied by the Kinder und
Hausmärchen, at least not by the first edition; consequently, it had to
be revised in order to become suitable for children. Brothers Grimm
collected Kinder und Hausmärchen as evidence for the genuine and
unspoiled material of the "Volksgeist." They did not do it in order to
establish a body of children's literature. Their prime interest was a
philological research, motivated by an ideology of a national return to
the "roots." They wished to explore the "original" German language,
and to restore to the German people the history of their language and
its genuine vocabulary. Moreover, in referring explicitly to children's

20


reading of Kinder und Hausmärchen, Jacob Grimm said that he never
intended it for children, though it made him happy to find out that in
fact they were reading it (letter to Arnim, 28 January 1813).

Because of the lack at this time of reading material produced solely
for children, Kinder und Hausmärchen was read by children, which
induced Brothers Grimm to adjust the text, especially from the styl-
istic point of view. It is also interesting to note that the great success
of the first English edition of Grimm, published in 1823 and adapted
for children by Edgar Taylor, encouraged Brothers Grimm to publish
a collection of about fifty popular tales, modified for children in the
same manner as the English edition. This edition, which unlike pre-
vious editions was illustrated, later became known as the Kleine Aus-
gabe and gained far greater commercial success than any of its
predecessors.

The second edition of Kinder und Hausmärchen was therefore ad-
justed and changed, especially from the linguistic point of view. But
even that was not enough, according to the Brothers Grimm. They
felt that some parents might still find all or part of the book unsuit-
able for children, as they wrote in their introduction:
Dabei haben wir jeden für das Kinderalter nicht passenden Ausdruck
in dieser neuen Auflage sorgfältig gelöscht. Sollte man dennoch
einzuwenden haben, dass Eltern eins und das andere in Verlegenheit
setze und ihnen anstössig vorkomme, so dass sie das Buch Kindern
nicht geradezu in die Hände geben wollten, so mag für einzelne Fälle
die Sorge begründet sein, und sie kännen dann leicht eine Auswahl
treffen: im ganzen, das heisst für einen gesunden Zustand, ist sie
gewiss unnötig. (Grimm, Reclam 1980, Band 1, 17)

[All the same, in this edition we haven't suggested satisfactory solutions
for all problematic expressions concerning children. If parents claim
that this item or other embarrasses them or disturbs them, so that they
will be reluctant to leave the book in the hands of children, there might
be cases where their worry is justified and they can easily choose: gen-
erally speaking, this is not necessary.]
In this passage appeared two new implied ideas that served as moti-
vation for the changes which the text underwent during the century
between Perrault and Grimm. The first was society's new perception

21


of the child's distinct needs, and the second was the idea that those
needs should be supplied under strict adult supervision. In fact, soci-
etal perceptions of childhood had changed in at least two senses: a
new understanding of the nature of the child was evident, as well as a
new demand that made adults responsible for the education of the
child.

In Grimm's version of "Rotkäppchen," this new concept of child-
hood is expressed in the following three aspects: the relations in the
family circle, the innocence of the child, and the need for instruction
of the child. These aspects will be discussed in relation to different
endings as well as in relation to other minor differences in the texts.
As mentioned earlier, revision of the endings undoubtedly resulted
from the need to adjust the text to the model of the fairy tale, requir-
ing the Grimm's version to have a happy ending. However, this may
not have been their only motivation and cannot serve as the only
explanation.

It is quite possible that the source for the happy ending was, as
Bolte and Polívka (1963) suggest, taken from "Der Wolf und die
sieben jungen Geisslein" [The wolf and the seven young goats]; the
"wolf)' element was already part of the fairy-tale inventory and thus
an almost ready-made solution. But, even if this claim is justified, it is
still possible to account for the selection of this ending on the basis
both of the model of the fairy tale and of the educational views at the
time. Prevalent ideas about child education and the child as a poten-
tial reader (at least, since Grimm's second edition) demanded that
the child learn a lesson from every event, experience, or story.
Punishment and morality were an integral part of that learning pro-
cess -- Grimm's "Little Red Riding Hood" was no exception. It is
interesting to note that the Brothers Grimm were happy with the
ending from the educational point of view and even considered it as
proof that the text was, indeed, suitable for children (see their fore-
word, Reclam 1980, Band 1, 17). Unlike the child in Perrault's ver-
sion, the child of Grimm's version is given a chance to learn the
lesson and apparently does so. The alternative endings might serve as
an indication of the authors' hesitation between two endings. Yet they
also fortify the educational message of the text. The Grimm's version
shows that the girl, who promised at the end of the first conclusion
that she would obey her mother, does keep her promise. When she

22


next meets the wolf, she knows exactly what she is supposed to do --
she does not stop to talk with him, but hurries to her grandmother,
where both of them manage to trick the wolf. Thus the success of the
lesson learned is proved. This sort of moral, unlike that of Perrault,
did not address adults with an ironic wink of the eye. Moreover,
unlike Perrault's moral that emphasizes the "gentleman," describing
him in terms of the wolf, the Grimm's version does not emphasize
the wolf-gentleman, but rather the child and the moral lesson that
she must learn! These differences in emphasis are also the reason for
the deletion of the erotic scene in the Grimm's version, which em-
phasizes the child's naivet? and innocence. As a result, the erotic
characterization of the child was left out as was the erotic bed scene.
The Grimm's version does strongly emphasize a number of inter- L
family relations that are only hinted at in Perrault's version: the
grandmother's love for the child, the mother's commitment to the
grandmother, and the child's love for the grandmother. While the
grandmother's love is hardly mentioned in Perrault's version, the
Grimm's grandmother loves the child dearly; in fact, she sews the red
hood as a symbol of her love. Thus, while the hood serves in Per-
rault's version to hint at the sexuality of the child, in the Grimm's
version, it serves as a sign of the grandmother's profound affection
for the child.
Cette bonne femme lui fit faire un petit chaperon rouge, qui lui seyait si
bien, que partout on l'appelait le Petit chaperon rouge. (Perrault, Gar-
nier 1967, 113)

[This good woman made for her a little red hood, which suited her so
well that everyone called her Little Red Riding Hood.]

. . . am allerliebsten aber ihre Grossmutter, die wusste gar nicht, was
sie alles dem Kinde geben sollte. Einmal schenkte sie ihm ein Käpp-
chen von rotem Sammet, und weil ihm das so wohl stand und es nichts
anders mehr tragen wollte, heiss es nur das Rotkäppchen. (Grimm,
Reclam 1980, 156-57)

[. . . but most of all her grandmother, who did not know what else she
could give to the child. One day she gave her as a present a little hood
of red velvet, and as it became her so well and she did not want to wear
anything else, she was always called Little Red Riding Hood.]
23


In Grimm's version the mother's attachment to the grandmother is
stronger than in Perrault's version, where the mother sends the child
because she herself is baking and because she fears that the grand-
mother is sick. In Grimm's version, the mother knows for sure that
the grandmother is sick and sends the child to help her, showing that
the mother feels responsible for the grandmother and family rela-
tions are much closer.
 
Un jour sa mère, ayant cuit et fait des galettes, lui dit: "Va voir comme
se porte ta mère-grand, car on m'a dit qu'elle était malade, porte-lui
une galette et ce petit pot de beurre." (Perrault, Garnier 1967, 113)

[One day her mother had fried and made the biscuits, told her: "Go
and see how your grandmother feels because someone told me that
she was ill, take to her biscuits and this little pot of butter."]

Eines Tages sprach seine Mutter zu ihm: "Komm, Rotkäppchen, da
hast du ein Stück Kuchen und eine Flasche Wein, bring das der
Grossmutter hinaus; sie ist krank und schwach und wird daran laben."
(Grimm, Reclam 1980, 157)

[One day her mother said to her: "Come, Little Red Riding Hood,
here is a piece of cake and a bottle of wine, bring them to Grand-
mother; she is ill and weak and this will comfort her."]
Even relations between the child and grandmother seem to be less
casual in the Grimm version. While the child gathers flowers for her
own sake in Perrault's version, she does so in order to make grand-
mother happy in Grimm's version.
. . . et la petite fille s'en alla par le chemin le plus long, s'amusant à
cueillir des noisettes, à courir après des papillons, et à faire des bou-
quets des petites fleurs qu'elle rencontrait. (Perrault, Garnier 1967,
114)

[. . . and the little girl went by the longer road, and enjoyed herself by
picking hazelnuts, running after butterflies, and making bouquets of
the little flowers she found on her way.]

Rotkäppchen schlug die Augen auf, und als es sah, wie die Son-
nenstrahlen durch die Bäume hin und her tanzten und alles voll
schöner Blumen stand, dachte es: "Wenn ich der Grossmutter einen

24


frichen Strauss mitbringe, der wird ihr auch Freude machen."
(Grimm, Reclam 1980, 158)

[Little Red Riding Hood opened her eyes and when she saw how the
sunbeams dance here and there through the trees, and pretty flowers
grow everywhere, she thought: "If I bring grandmother a fresh nosegay,
this will also make her happy."]
Thus the different notions of the family in each period -- the child-
centered family versus the loose family connections -- found ex-
pression in the different presentations of the child and the family in
each of the texts. In addition, even more prominent differences can
be discerned between the two versions' ideas about education.

An educational system, in the modern sense of the notion, simply
did not exist in Perrault's time, nor did the need for systematic edu-
cation of the child. In Grimm's time, however, education not only
existed, but was considered essential for the child's spiritual welfare.
Adults within and outside the family circle were considered responsi-
ble for the education of the child. This is best exhibited in Grimm's
version by the instructions given to the child by her mother. These
instructions -- entirely missing from Perrault's version -- express the
new ideas about education that had penetrated society in the hun-
dred years between Perrault and Grimm. The mother instructs the
child to behave herself: "Und wenn du in ihre Stube kommst, so
vergiss nicht, guten Morgen zu sagen, and guck nicht erst in alle
Echen herum" [When you come into her room, don't forget to say
good morning and don't peep in every corner first.] (Grimm, Reclam
1980, 157). She also instructs the child not to leave the path:
 
"Mach dich auf, bevor es heiss wird, und wenn du hinauskommst, so
geh hübsch sittsam und lauf nicht vom Weg ab, sonnst f?llst du und
zerbrichst das Glas, und die Grossmutter hat nichts." (Grimm, Reclam
1980, 157)

["Go now before it is too hot, and when you go, go nice and proper and
do not leave the path, otherwise you will fall and break the glass and
your grandmother will get nothing."]
 
The idea that children should be instructed by adults as far as their
behavior was concerned, a notion unknown in Perrault's time, was

25


commonly practiced in Grimm's time and served as a basis for the
relationship between mother and child in Grimm's text. Moreover,
the school, an institution that hardly existed in Perrault's time, had
become both established and hated. When the wolf meets the child,
he declares that she looks as sad as if she were going to school: "Du
gehst ja für dich hin, als wenn du zur Schule gingst, und ist so lustig
haussen in dem Wald" [You are walking along, as if you were going to
school, and it is so cheerful out here in the woods.] (Grimm, Reclam
1980, 157-58). The different ways in which childhood was perceived
also allowed different prospects for presenting the child. While the
naive country girl of Perrault is lost forever, the little girl of Grimm is
saved by adults who are responsible for her. As long as she is pro-
tected by them, she is safe, and that is exactly the moral she learns:
"Rotkäppchen aber dachte: 'Du willst dein Lebtag nicht wieder al-
lein vom Wege ab in den Wald laufen, wenn dir's die Mutter verboten
hat"' [But Little Red Riding Hood thought, "You will never again
leave the path if your mother has forbidden you to do so."] (Grimm,
Reclam 1980, 159). In the hundred years that passed between Per-
rault and Grimm, a new concept of childhood, the "instructive" con-
cept, developed. This new concept differed from the previous one in
the importance it attached to the educational system and to books as
the main educational tools of such a system. In quite a short time, it
became the raison d'?tre of texts for children and guided their op-
tions and their norms; to a large extent, the new concept determined
what was appropriate and what was to be labeled as unsuitable. Thus
this concept was one of the main reasons for the changes that took
place in "Little Red Riding Hood" from Perrault to Grimm (needless
to say, along with many other important factors, including the literary
conventions and linguistic aspirations guiding the Brothers Grimm).
Moreover, it has governed, even more powerfully, writing for chil-
dren since the time of the Brothers Grimm. This may be assumed
because the basic idea about writing for children, that is, that chil-
dren's books should be written under the supervision of adults and
should contribute to the child's spiritual welfare, has not changed
since the middle of the eighteenth century (see chapters 6-7). What
has changed are the specific ideas prevalent in each period about
education and childhood. However, the idea that books for children
have to be suitable from the pedagogical point of view and should

26


contribute to the child's development has been, and still is, a domi-
nant force in the production of children's books.

Nevertheless, changes in the specific ideas of education did result
in a demand for the revision of certain elements in children's litera-
ture. For example, pedagogic views in England at the turn of the
nineteenth century were responsible for the prohibition of fairy tales.
As a result, the subject of fairies was excluded from canonized chil-
dren's literature and found refuge only in underground literature (on
the role of chapbooks in retaining fairy tales, see chapter 6). The
educational establishment mistrusted works of imagination and fa-
vored the so-called "realistic" works, whose constant figures were
death and sickness (for an exhaustive description of the texts, see
Avery 1975, especially chapters 2-4). On the other hand, when the
attitude toward imagination changed by the middle of the nineteenth
century, or in Townsend's words, imagination was "rehabilitated,"
fairy tales were again introduced into the canonized children's system
(for a brief description of this process, see chapter 6). Yet, because
the mid to late nineteenth-century ideas about the child and his
education were different from those dominant in Grimm's time,
Grimm's "Rotkäppchen" was no longer considered appropriate and
had to be revised in accordance with the new views.

Modern Adaptations of Grimm

The children's market of the Western world is practically flooded
today with a considerable number of editions of "Little Red Riding
Hood." The prolific production of the text is encouraged by its status
as a "classic," which ensures its commercial success. It is also
prompted by the great importance attached to the text on psychologi-
cal grounds. Some psychologists even go so far as to declare that the
text is indispensable for a child's development and that the child
should be acquainted with the full version -- no omissions at all are
suggested (see Bettelheim 1976; for a serious criticism of him, see
Zipes 1979c). Indeed, all modern editions of "Little Red Riding
Hood" share (explicitly or implicitly) the same point of departure --
the belief that the text should suit prevailing ideas about the child

27


and childhood. Because of this belief, some editions changed the text
only slightly or not at all in deference to the "complete version" ap-
proach of certain psychologists. Others -- in fact, numerous edi-
tions -- changed the text extensively. The basis for the textual revi-
sions are assumptions held by the editors about childhood, especially
about the child's capacity to understand and the themes to which he should
be exposed. With these two issues in mind, the various adaptations are
concerned mainly with the characterizations, the introduction of un-
suitable events, and the assumed social norms of the texts and do not
hesitate to change what is regarded as inappropriate for the child.
The only difference between revisions lies in the solutions they offer
for these problematic issues and the extent of deviation they exhibit
from the original.

For a brief discussion of the handling of these aspects, three ver-
sions of "Little Red Riding Hood" were chosen randomly (almost
any three versions will do; for analysis of other versions of "Little
Red Riding Hood," see Nodelman 1978). These versions serve as a
good example of the norms that determine the procedures of textual
revision in accordance with the principles described above. The ver-
sions to be discussed here are the following: Modern Promotions, no
date; Puppet Book, 1970; and A Pop-up Book, no date. All three
agree about the need to revise the aspects of the tone, characteriza-
tion, unsuitable events, and social norms in accordance with their
understanding of the child and childhood.

THE TONE

The assumption that the child is the implied reader can be discerned
by the tone of the text. In all versions, the tone is not only au-
thoritative, but also superior and condescending. This becomes emi-
nently clear when the narrator explains those points he presumes the
child is incapable of understanding by himself. For instance, the nar-
rator of the Puppet edition explains the name of the little girl in the
following manner: "That is exactly why she was called Little Red
Riding Hood." The same narrator also explains the craftiness of the
wolf, assuming a child cannot comprehend such sophisticated behav-
ior: "The crafty old wolf really knew where Grandmother lived. He
also knew that the path across the meadow was the shortest way to

28


reach Grandmother's house." The narrator of the Pop-up edition is
not sure a child can understand that the wolf disguised himself as the
grandmother, thus he explains: "She was surprised to see her Gran-
ny in bed (You see, she thought the wolf was her Granny)."

ASSUMED SOCIAL NORMS

Very often the texts give expression to common social norms and
prevailing fashions. This can be discerned not only in major struc-
tures, but in minor details as well. For instance, alcohol is a negative
value and therefore will be replaced by fruit, honey, or milk in accor-
dance with the modern "natural food" fad. Thus mother sends a
varied basket to suit the current fashion: "One day her mother
packed a basket with cake and fruit" (Puppet); or, "One day her
mother told her to take a basket of bread and honey to her grand-
mother who was sick" (Modern Promotions). After the hunter res-
cues the child, grandmother makes a little party, and what does she
serve but milk: "They were all so happy that they decided to have a
party then and there. Grandmother served glasses of milk to her
visitors" (Puppet). When it is the fashion to present the child with
challenges he has to experience by himself, the text is revised into a
"challenge" story; and the child is given a chance to experience a visit
to her "granny" all by herself: " 'Oh yes, that would be lovely,' said
the Red Riding Hood. 'I've never been to Granny's on my own be-
fore. It will be an exciting adventure!' So Little Red Riding Hood
waved goodbye to her mother and started to walk along the forest
path to Granny's cottage. As she walked along and saw all the birds
and forest creatures she was not a bit frightened for she loved the
forest" (Pop-up).

UNSUITABLE EVENTS

Any information that is considered unsuitable for children is either
omitted or revised to make it acceptable. The text avoids both the
violent scene where grandmother and child are devoured by the wolf
and also any possible unpleasant information. This is probably the
reason for the grandmother's not being "sick" in the Modern Pro-
motions edition, but rather euphemistically "not well." Similarly in

29


the Puppet Book, the mother explains, "This is a gift for you to take
to your grandmother. She is not well and will enjoy eating some cake
and fruit." In the Pop-up edition, nothing at all is wrong with grand-
mother: "Why don't you go and visit Granny?. . . I'm sure she
would be pleased to see you." The various devices writers use to
avoid the violent scene at the end are clear evidence of the attempt to
avoid unsuitable information. The most extreme solution is to deny
all violence and even prevent the wolf himself from being hurt:
"When the wolf saw the hunter's long rifle, he had a change of mind.
Now it was his turn to be frightened. He had time for just one yelp
before running out of the house as quickly as he could" (Puppet). In
other cases, the wolf does get punished and poetic justice is done. In
most cases, however, the violent scenes with grandmother and the
child are simply avoided. Grandmother hides in the closet without
getting hurt, and the child is rescued before and not after the wolf
devours her:
 
But grandmother saw the wolf, too! She dashed into her clothes closet
and locked the door behind her, doing it so quickly that the wolf hardly
knew what was happening. (Puppet)

At that moment a hunter passed the house. He heard Little Red Riding
Hood's frightened scream and burst open the door. (Puppet)

Fortunately, at that moment, the forester arrived. He ran inside and was
just in time to rescue the little girl. Red Riding Hood breathed a sigh of
relief when she realized what a narrow escape she had had. (Pop-up)
This examination of Perrault's, Grimm's, and three out of hundreds
of modern versions of "Little Red Riding Hood" indicates that the
changes in the texts were neither random nor insignificant. Many
reasons lay behind these changes (for instance, prevailing literary
models), but one of the crucial factors in determining the character
of the texts for the child was undoubtedly the different concepts of
childhood held by society. Since the eighteenth century, children's
literature has been strongly linked with the educational establish-
ment and has based its legitimation on it. This linkage has served as a
source for constraints imposed upon children's literature in at least
two areas: the way in which children are presented, characterized,

30


and judged by the texts and the way in which the child is assumed to
be the implied reader of the text.

Thus, children's libraries in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twen-
tieth centuries contain the same titles, but once the books are
opened, it becomes quite clear that the contents vary considerably.
What really counts is the way childhood is perceived by society, for it
is society's perceptions that determine to a large extent what actually
lies between the covers.

Texts

EDITIONS OF GRIMM

German Versions:
Rotkäppchen und andre märchen von Gebrüder Grimm. 1947. Stuttgart:
  Herold Verlag.
Kinder und Hausmärchen gesammelt durch die Brüder Grimm. 1962.
  Munich: Verlag Heinrich Ellermann.
Rotkäppchen. 1965. Text nach Grimms märchen. Zurich and Stuttgart: Ras-
  cher Verlag.
Die Schönsten Kindermärchen. Brüder Grimm. 1970. Munich: Verlag
  Heinrich Ellermann.
Janosch erzählt Grimms märchen. 1972. Weinheim and Basel: Beltz und
  Gelberg.
Rotkäppchen. 1972. Bad Aibling: Siebert Kinder Bücher.
Zauberwelt des märchenwaldes. [1973]. fürth/Bay: Pestalozzi Verlag.
Rotkäppchen. 1974. Zurich: Diogenes Kinder Klassiker.
Grimm märchen. 1975. Munich: Annette Betz Verlag.
Grimm märchen. Mein Erstes Buch. 1979. Edited by Richard Bamberger.
  Vienna and Munich: Jugend und Volk.
Zaubermärchen der Brüder Grimm. 1979. Bayreuth: Loewes Verlag.
Rotkäppchen; Schneewittchen. Mainz: Verlag Engelbert Dessart.

English Versions:
Red Fairy Book. (1890) 1950. Collected and edited by Andrew Lang. London,
  New York, and Toronto: Longmans, Green and Co.
Little Red Cap. 1965. Adapted by Evalyn Kinkead. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Little Red Riding Hood. Retold by Albert G. Miller. New York: Random
  House.


31



Little Red Riding Hood. 1968. London: Collins.
Little Red Riding Hood. 1970. (Puppet Story Book). Adapted by Oscar Weigle.
  New York: Grosset and Dunlap.
Red Riding Hood. Fairy Tale Pop Up Book. N.p.: Nutmeg Press.
Little Red Riding Hood. New York: Modern Promotions.

EDITIONS OF PERRAULT

French Versions:
Il était une fois, Vieux contes français. 1951. Paris: Flammarion.
Contes de Perrault. 1960. Paris: Editions Marcus.
Les contes de Perrault. 1976. Paris: Fernand Nathan.
Contes de ma m?re L'Oye. 1977. Charles Perrault, Folio junior. Paris:
  Gallimard.
Les contes de Perrault. 1979. Paris: Marcinelle-Charleroi.

German Versions:
märchen aus vergangener Zeit. 1965. Munich: Arena Meistererzählungen.
märchen. [1967]. Vienna and Heidelberg: Verlag Carl Ueberreuter.

32

Contents