26
artistry, that ultimately produced this “model,” in addition to some of the formal elements
defining its creation. In his work with children’s literature and understanding influence,
David Blamires likewise recognizes the Grimms’ versions as “models,” surpassing others
in the German tradition at the time in favor of the Grimms’ “scholarly approach and
Wilhelm’s stylistic skill [which] managed to establish a norm of length,
language and
tone for printing traditional tales that has dominated the field ever since” (
Telling Tales
51). In this layering of critical methodologies, I find that both the episodic or thematic
framing of folklore, as well as formal “stylistic” adjustments have contributed to the
continuity of the Grimms’ tales. However, I argue that
each approach, while relevant,
only operates on a single factor undergirding the formulation of a “classic”
Snow White
tale. Therefore, I suggest combining the two. Further, I point toward two additional
attributes concerning the artistic production of the tale lend to its justification, as a
classic—the cultural consciousness and adaptive ability of the creator. Thus, in this
chapter, I contend that it is not one of these measures that justifies “what counts” in the
minds
of a of a wider audience, across geographical space and time, but four factors
operating together:
1)
a folkloric foundation,
2)
the cultural consciousness of the creator,
3)
a distinct formal style, and
4)
adaptation.
To show the significance of what I term
this multilayered approach, I will examine
three literary adaptations of
Snow White
that have assumed almost canonical status in
fairy tale scholarship: Giambattista Basile’s “La schiavottella” (“The Young Slave”)
(1634-6), Johann Karl August Musäus’ “Richilda” (1782), and Wilhelm and Jacob
27
Grimm’s “Sneewittchen” (“Little Snow White”) (1812-1815). After providing a short
critical rationale for the use of these three versions specifically, I will examine the
workings of Jones’
structural classification, featuring this folkloric approach to
identification in and of its own right. While Jones’ method alone does not justify a tale’s
persistence, it does offer a lens essential to understanding the evolution of the
Snow
White
tales which this chapter inspects. Building history into this folkloric foundation, I
draw in Christine Shojaei Kawan’s “A Brief Literary History of
Snow White
,” which
finds fault with Jones’ study and even the three traditionally conceptualized
Snow White
tales which I highlight here. Analyses of both serve to show how the folkloric method
alone, or even in conjunction
with an historical approach, only further prompts the
question: what “counts” as an early literary version of the
Snow White
tale? As a result,
one begins to see the pitfalls of relying purely on a folkloric analysis of episodic
structure. However, by layering this approach with subsequent interrogations into
cultural
consciousness or sensitivity,
10
formal style, and adaptation and progressing
through the tale’s traditionally referenced historical lineage (from the earliest version,
Basile’s, to the most recent historical precursor, that of the Grimms), I display how these
attributes together have effectuated what is now most
commonly thought of as the
“classic” early version of the
Dostları ilə paylaş: