Stories of enchanted sleepers stretch well back into ancient times. In European mythology, they appear in multiple forms: stories of fabled warriors resting under mountains or on enchanted isles until it is time for them to return to serve their city or country in the time of greatest need—though if England hasn’t actually faced its greatest need yet, I shudder to think what it would take to bring King Arthur back to its shores. Stories of sleeping saints. Stories of women sleeping in caves, in mountains, and in towers.
Unchanged. Static. Beautiful. Waiting, perhaps, for a kiss from a prince.
The literary version of Sleeping Beauty probably originates from Giambattista Basile’s “Sun, Moon, and Talia,” one of a collection of tales published posthumously in 1634. It’s a cheerful little story of a girl who in this version is not quite a princess, only the daughter of a lord, who, after pricking her finger on a bit of flax and swooning, is placed on a lovely canopied bed in nice country mansion. Naturally, a king rides up, as they do (Basile calls this “by chance”), and goes into the mansion without asking, because, well, king. Basile sums up the next bit quite nicely:
Crying aloud, he beheld her charms and felt his blood course hotly through his veins. He lifted her in his arms, and carried her to a bed, where he gathered the first fruits of love. Leaving her on the bed, he returned to his own kingdom, where, in the pressing business of his realm, he for a time thought no more about this incident.
Notice what little detail is left out of these three sentences? Yeah, that’s right: the waking up part. Talia even brings this up later, pointing out that the king had “taken possession while she was asleep.” The romance is giving me chills here. Between this and Snow White, I’m beginning to have some serious doubts about fairy tale kings and their choice in sexual partners, is all I’m saying.
Though, to be fair, to this king it was the sort of incident that he could easily forget about.
Nah, I don’t want to be fair.
After this bit, it will probably not surprise anyone to read that Talia manages to sleep right through her pregnancy, which worries me—I can’t help but feel that she did not get proper nutrition during any of this. What does wake her up: her twin babies sucking on her fingers—since one of them sucks out the little piece of flax that puts her to sleep. Talia handles the whole waking up to find baby twins crawling all over her very well, I must say; it’s an example to us all.
Until, that is, the king remembers that oh, yes, that happened, decides to visit his rape victim, and after seeing his kids decides to tell Talia the truth. It goes remarkably well:
When she heard this, their friendship was knitted with tighter bonds, and he remained with her for a few days.
What friendship? you might be asking, given that this is the first time they’ve actually, you know, spoken, but there’s no time to focus on this because the story has a lot of cannibalism, betrayal and infidelity to get to and not all that much time to get to it.
Oh, did I not mention that in this version, Prince Charming isn’t just a rapist, he’s an already married rapist, who has the nerve to complain after cheating on her with Talia that his wife didn’t bring him a dowry when he got married. Granted he says this just as his wife is serving him up what she thinks is a dish that includes the delicate tender flesh of his little twin children—it’s that kind of story—so clearly, the dowry issue isn’t the only problem here, but this king is a total jerk, is what I’m saying.
Also, Talia/Sleeping Beauty ends up doing a strip tease for this wife, partly to make sure that her jewel encrusted dress doesn’t get burned up, because that’s important. Also also the story ends with an implication that Talia, this king, and their kids end up in a rather incestuous foursome, which, this story.
Additional detail that you probably don’t want to know: This version strongly implies that Talia aka Sleeping Beauty has no nipples. You’re welcome.
Also two fairies are flitting around the story, but I must say they don’t help much.
Astonishingly enough, when Charles Perrault came across this story about sixty years later, his first thought was apparently not “So, this is mildly appalling,” or even “Why is this guy so hung up about this dowry thing when he might be actually eating his own kids,” but rather, “Wow, this is exactly the sort of story I want to tell the French court and my kids!”
Which he did.
But not without making some changes. As we discussed in a previous post, Perrault believed strongly in the aristocracy—or, more specifically, the French aristocracy and Louis XIV. Whatever else can be said about the Talia story, it is not a particularly pro-aristocratic tale. The most sympathetic and heroic figure in it is the cook, who, as a bonus, is also the one character—apart from the fairies—who also manages to keep all of his clothes on and not participate in adultery, cannibalism, burning people alive, or incest, like, you go, cook, you go! Perrault liked tales featuring upper middle class characters and social climbers, and stories that emphasized the benefits of an aristocratic system, but was less fond of stories where the main hero turns out to be the happily married cook. He was also, apparently, not fond of strip teases in his fairy tales.
So Perrault, like fairy tale writers before and after him, tweaked the story. The fairies were inserted much earlier on, adding a touch of magic and fate. To eliminate the adultery, the king’s wife was changed into the king’s mother, and to more or less justify all of the cannibalism, she was further transformed into an ogress. This change doesn’t entirely work, given that it brings up all kinds of questions, like, why, exactly, did the previous king marry an ogre in the first place? Presumably for political reasons, but what sort of alliance was anyone hoping to get from this? Was this meant as a reference to one of the many political alliances Perrault had witnessed in his years in Louis XIV’s court? If so, which one? Enquiring minds want to know. And, well, this makes the prince half ogre, right? How is that working, and did Sleeping Beauty ever notice this? And did the prince ever warn Sleeping Beauty before finally bringing her to his castle that, hey, my mother is a bit of an ogre? And did Sleeping Beauty—who, in this version, is just a teenager—realize that in this case, the prince was serious, and not just speaking in metaphors?
And speaking of oddities, in this version, after the fairy puts all of the servants and nobles at the court to sleep so that Sleeping Beauty won’t feel alone when she wakes up, the king and queen just…ride off. Actual enchantment, or method of getting rid of some troublesome court attendants and a few unskilled cooks for a hundred years or so without killing them? Especially since the fairy knew full well that a handsome prince—well, ok, a half ogre prince, if we’re quibbling—would be right there at Sleeping Beauty’s side when she awoke? You decide.
In more positive changes, the prince in this version doesn’t even kiss Sleeping Beauty to wake her up: he just kneels in front of her. This is apparently enough to make her fall in love with him the second she wakes up, like, see how much not raping women can help you out romantically, guys, although Perrault kinda softens this by pointing out that the fairy had probably given Sleeping Beauty some delightful dreams of the prince while she was sleeping, so she’s pretty prepared for the whole marriage thing.
One interesting detail in Perrault’s version: the court failed to invite the old fairy who curses Sleeping Beauty to the christening not because the fairy was evil—but because the court believed that the fairy was trapped in a tower, much like Rapunzel, or Sleeping Beauty later. A reflection, perhaps, of Perrault’s observations of Louis XIV’s court, where princesses and grand duchesses could disappear for years, mostly forgotten, before making rather less than triumphant returns?
The second half of the story—the bit with the ogre—certainly does seem to reflect a bit of court society, first when the prince, later king, attempts to hide his marriage from his mother the ogre queen, a nod, perhaps, to the many secret court marriages that Perrault had witnessed, and later when the rival queens—Sleeping Beauty and her ogre mother-in-law—play games of murder and deception against each other in the king’s absence. It’s also an example—unintended, perhaps—of just what can go wrong when the king leaves his court for a foreign war, and an illustration—intended, almost certainly—of a king as the source of order and safety.
Not that the story is all about the aristocracy. Perrault also added an adorable puppy. We don’t really get to hear much about the puppy, but I like the thought that Sleeping Beauty has a dog beside her for the entire century. It’s sweet.
This still wasn’t sweet enough for the Grimm Brothers, who, in a change of pace from their usual acceptance of blood and gore, decided to axe the second part of the story—the bit with the ogre and the eating of small children, typically a Grimm staple—though they did leave in the idea of dead princes hanging from the briar roses outside the castle, as a warning, perhaps, to those who might want to cross boundaries. In an unusual twist, they added more fairies—typically, the Grimms liked to remove French fairies from every tale they could, but in this case they had thirteen fairies to Perrault’s eight—twelve or seven good fairies to a single bad one. They also made their Briar-Rose just a touch younger—fifteen, to Perrault’s sixteen.
And as a final touch, they added a kiss to wake the sleeping princess.
Andrew Lang preferred the longer, richer Perrault version, including that tale in The Blue Fairy Book. But despite this, the Grimm version was the one to persist, and the version Disney chose to work with. Perhaps because it suggested that everything really could change with a kiss.
Mari Ness lives in central Florida.
Despite the fact that so much of this is disturbing, I laughed through this. I had no idea cannibalism was a part of the original story, as the only version I’ve read was the Grimm version.
Interestingly, doesn’t the Disney version reference Perrault in the credits?
I am looking forward to (with some trepidation) next week’s discussion, as Sleeping Beauty is one of my all time favorite Disney movies. If anything, I think Disney seriously improved it.
Thought I posted before but it seems to have vanished. If it mysteriously reappears, sorry.
First observation: Remind me never to criticize Disney for lightening up the dark roots of a fairy tale ever again. This one deserved all the bleaching it could get.
Second: I’d heard the original had some rape elements but didn’t realize it was that bad. Was Basile in favor of overthrowing any monarchs when he wrote this? Because it sounds like a good argument.
However, reading this does explain a few references in Yolen’s story, The Thirteenth Fey. When the curse hits Talia in this (during a slumber party to which most of the local fey had been invited), a Tinkerbell-sized teenage boy fairy with a crush on Talia does kiss her a few times with no effect. He gives this up with a comment that now seems like a direct observation on the king in the original.
Interesting, and really hilarious at the same time ! As Lisamarie I’ve read only the Grimm version
Wow I didn’t know all this in detail but had some ideas. Mostly, if you’re interested in reading “fairy tales” but based slightly more on their originals, try reading Jim C Hines “The Stepsister Scheme” and others. He takes Sleeping Beauty (actually named Talia in the books too, I didn’t realize it was from the original), Snow White, and Cinderella and puts them together, but with much-closer-to-the-original backstories instead of the Disneyfied versions. So basically, Talia has to deal with the fact that she was raped while asleep for centuries and it was the pain of birthing of the twins that woke her up. Yeah, she has a bit of PTSD.
The second one “The Mermaid’s Madness” has Ariel, and definitely not the Ariel you know from Disney. I highly recommend if you like fairy tale literature.
@Lisamarie and everyone else – The post about Disney’s Sleeping Beauty can probably be best described as “lengthy,” partly because it’s a landmark Disney film, mostly because production issues directly led to behind the scenes changes, including the development of xerography, which will get discussed a bit more with One Hundred and One Dalmatians.
@ellynne – Disney does get a lot of criticism for lightening up/softening fairy tales from ther originals. It’s not a baseless accusation, as we’ll see next week, but interestingly enough, despite the addition of cheery songs and adorably cute animals, with the clear exception of The Little Mermaid, it seems to be more true of the book adaptations – most notably The Fox and the Hound, but also Bambi, The Jungle Book, The Sword in the Stone, The Rescuers and The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Even films relatively faithful to the original – like One Hundred and One Dalmatians – removed a few things that Disney did not find family friendly. Meanwhile, Snow White retains some very dark elements, as do Beauty and the Beast and even the generally cheerful Tangled, and while Cinderella is definitely less violent and disturbing than the Grimm version, the Perrault version of Cinderella was never that dark. Things are a bit more complex with Sleeping Beauty, Aladdin and The Princess and the Frog, but we’ll get there.
Looking at the word “ogre” that we all remember from fairy tales, it seems to be Perrault’s coinage, originally from this story: Basile’s word was “orco”, and is related to the Trans-Neptunian Object called Orcus. So the king’s wife or father’s wife is an orc.
[oops, nope, Wikipedia says Perrault wasn’t first in French, it was already a known French spelling]
Also, human flesh-eating seems to part of the base definition of an ogre/orc/Orcus: no cannibalism, no ogre.
It’s a little alarming just how big necrophilia seems to be among fairy tale princes. There was Snow White’s prince, who fell in love with a dead girl in a coffin and was planning to bring the coffin home with him. Who knows what he’d have done with her if moving the coffin hadn’t jarred the bit of poison apple loose. I’m not sure whether that or the Disney version of the guy kissing the dead stranger is more disturbing.
And then we have the Sleeping Beauty prince who rapes the comatose woman.
Apparently, the key to attracting Prince Charming is dying or looking like you’re dead.
I used to think that Freud came up with some wild ideas in all of his interpretation of the unconcious and dreams, until I started being exposed to unadulterated fairy tales, and realized that his ideas were fairly tame.
I’ve heard about the rape-and-birth-of-twins-while-sleeping part, but was not aware of the ogre or cannibalism part. With the modern trend of creating “darker and grittier” versions of the fairy tales, one wonders why they don’t seek expiration in the originals (well, maybe not the rape and no-nipples part, but the ogre would be fun).
I’ve read only the Grimm version and what bothered me when I was a child was the gifts the fairies gave to the princess: they gave her beauty, charm, talent for singing, etc, etc… but not one though about giving her wisdom or cleverness. I felt it a big omission.
Of course, I meant “inspiration” not “expiration”. Not a native speaker, sorry.
Prince Charming found he had somehow forgotten his princess’ name. How did it go? It started with an R, that was all that sprang to mind as he tethered his horse to a convenient poison-apple tree.
“Rumpelstilskin, Rumpelstilskin, let down your hair!” he sang.
His princess was having a bad hair day, he decided, as a few hanks of stringy greasy hair dangled down. He would introduce her to the delights of long luxurious soaks in the baths with a proper shampooing, then a long lie-in in front of the fire in his apartments in the castle, that was certain. As soon as he persuaded her to escape from this witch she seemed to both love and hate …
When he got to the room, he found only a little ugly old man with snaggly teeth, who grinned at him unpleasantly. “Well, you did call for me by my name,” he explained, before gobbling Prince Charming up. He then lived happily ever after.
I’m not so surprised by the grisly roots of this story.
Stripped of the pomp, ceremony, and crowns, the technical term for a monarchy is “hereditary military dictatorship”, and the current poster-child for this practice in the modern world would be Kim Jong-Un.
Of course you couldn’t say things like that about the king in the 16th century — it would be slightly politically controversial in a period when the punishment for saying controversial things about the king could include being broken on the wheel — but hey, why not turn it into a fairy story?
I was out with friends the other night, and fairy tales (and Disney) came up over dinner. One of my friends was horrified when I mentioned things like the rape in Sleeping Beauty, the violence in Cinderella, and so on. Apparently I was destroying her childhood!
I still love fairy tales.
Being French, I’m more familiar with Perrault’s and and of course Disney’s version of the tale. I didn’t even know the Grimms had their own version until I was 16 and took an interest in european folklore, so it feels a bit weird to see that elsewhere this was the most well known version of the tale.
I thought the Disney version was based on Tchaikovsky’s Ballet. That’s where the name Aurora comes from for the Princess. Tchaikovsky in turn based his work on the Perrault, according to the wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sleeping_Beauty_(ballet)
Also Disney lifted the music for Sleeping Beauty directly from Tchaikovsky’s Ballet, only adding some lyrics, if I’m not mistaken.
@jnutley – We’ll be discussing that on Thursday, but although Disney did use the Tchaikovsky score, and used the name Aurora as a nod to the ballet (and the name “Rose” as a nod to the Grimm version), their story was not based on the ballet. The only real similarity between the two is that both get rid of the ogre mother-in-law (as did the Grimm version) and both made a number of changes to the Perrault story. After that, the two went into entirely different directions. The ballet has things that never appear in the Disney version (Aurora’s parents trying to stop Aurora from touching the spindle, the castle falling into a 100 year enchanted sleep, various fairy tale characters showing up for the final ballet, all things that had appeared in various previous versions) and the Disney version contains multiple elements that had never appeared in any previous version (the prince meeting Sleeping Beauty before she falls asleep, a dragon, and so on.)
Apart from that, this ReadWatch is primarily focused on the literary sources for Disney’s animated films – one reason we’ll probably be skipping Disney’s Robin Hood, since although literary sources exist for that, the film wasn’t primarily based on any of them. Otherwise some of these posts will turn completely unmanageable – Tarzan, for instance, has about 500 movies, television shows, comic books and so on associated with it.
So, out of curiosity, what WAS the Robin Hood movie based on? Or did they just take the idea of Robin Hood and some of the characters and make up their own story?
Here’s a great comic blasting the rapey bits:
http://www.rhymes-with-witch.com/rww05022011.shtml
Just for curiosity’s sake, I just pulled out my big copy of “Kinder- und Hausmärchen” by the brothers Grimm and the whole story just baffles me. First off, the story starts with the introduction of a king and queen who said on a daily basis “Ach, if only we had a child”, but they never got one. Then, one day, the queen was bathing and a frog came out of the water and told her that she’d have a daughter before the year was over. Okay, what? A frog? And what’s the point of mentioning that the king and queen desperately wanted a child if said desperate wish is granted in the third sentence of the story? Moving on. The king invites a whole bunch of people – relatives, friends and acquaintances and also the “wise women” of whom there were 13 in the country (my copy says “weise Frauen”, not “Feen”, so I translated as wise women, not fairies). I always thought the king only invited 12, because 13 is an unlucky number, but no, turns out the king only had 12 golden plates for the wise women to eat from. First of all, what kind of plates are all the other guests eating from? Second of all, you’re the king! Go and buy another golden plate or tell your goldsmith to make you one! What kind of stupid reason is that for offending a magic wielding person? Okay, then follows the rest, girl grows up, pricks her hand with a spindle on her 15th birthday, falls asleep as does all the rest of the castle. The last wise woman to cast her spell changed the death sentence to a 100 year sleep and exactly on the day those 100 years are over, a prince comes along, finds a clear path framed in big flowers through all the thorns still adorned with his dead predecessors, walks through the sleeping castle, finds Sleeping Beauty, kisses her, she wakes up as does the rest of the castle, prince and princess walk downstairs, so she can present her future husband to her parents, everybody’s happy (except for the kitchen boy who got smacked by the head cook upon waking, the violence having been on hold for 100 years), THE END. Now, if the sleep was supposed to last 100 years and those had passed, shouldn’t Sleeping Beauty have woken up anyway? Why was the prince even necessary? He doesn’t even have “good at slashing through thorny greenery” to recommend him as future husband, because the path was clear, he only has “was in the right place at the right time”.
I came here hoping for an actual article on cannibalism in sleeping beauty, and it was barely mentioned at all. Also it’s really weird that you referred to the rape of sleeping beauty to “romance”. There’s nothing in this article that would explain why old fairy tales would be using cannibalism or other violence in their tales for children, it’s just “oh this happened and I thought it was weird”.
Just a note. Like all of Basile’s fairy tales , Sun Moon and Talia IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE HAPPY OR HAVE AN HAPPY ENDING. It can happen, but often doesn’t.
Basile’s “Petrosinella” (Rapunzel’s first known version) depicts the most feminist, cunning, and active “Rapunzel” ever, and only for this she have a real happy ending, while he purposely added a bitter ending to “Cagliuso” (Second known version of “Puss in Boots” after Straparola’s “Costantino Fortunato”) because the human main character in that tale didn’t really deserve his fortune. Basile simply was a satiric moralist. His goal was to show the “upside down world” he wieved. In his tales the powerful ones are often petty and selfish, the main characters too are often flawed, and the humble ones need to be clever and cunning not to win, but at least to live, to keep on playing another day. That’s the teaching of “Sun Moon and Talia”. None really cared of her, not even her parents. Nothing good came to her by sleeping. Only a clever move saved her life. She really didn’t have an happy ending (it needs more than a single clever move in a whole life), but it could be worse.