In most of the pictures, she looks so innocent. So young. So adorable, with her little red hood and basket. (Though in some adult costuming contexts, she looks more than ready to party.) In some illustrations she’s six, at most, in others, ten—old enough to be sent on errands through the forest, especially errands of mercy to a beloved grandmother.
In the original tale, she dies.
That first literary version of “Little Red Riding Hood” was penned by Charles Perrault, who included it and ten other stories in his Histoires ou Contes du Temps passé, or Les Contes de ma Mère l’Oye (Mother Goose stories), originally published in 1697. As we discussed in the Disney Read-Watch, Perrault was one of the French salon fairy tale writers, who stood out from his contemporaries in several important respects. Unlike nearly all of them, his life was mostly scandal free. He did marry a much younger woman later in life, but that was hardly unheard of for the period, and nothing compared to his fellow fairy tale writers, who were frequently involved in court intrigues, adultery and (alleged) treason. And unlike nearly all of them, he enjoyed a highly successful career at Versailles, a position that enabled him to establish and patronize academies dedicated to the arts—perhaps at least partly thanks to his ability to avoid scandal.
And at least partly thanks to his career at Versailles, he was one of the very few French salon fairy tale writers who thoroughly approved of his patron Louis XIV and had no interest in critiquing royal absolutism. With the sole exception of the king in “Donkeyskin,” his kings are not evil. Helpless against the powers of evil fairies and the hunger of ogres, perhaps—as in “Sleeping Beauty“—but not evil, or overthrown, or manipulated, or deceived. For Perrault, kings and aristocrats are not dangers who need to be removed, or obstacles to happiness, but figures his characters aspire to become.
Above all, Perrault differed from most of his fellow fairy tale writers, with the exception of his niece, Marie-Jeanne L’Heritier, in that he was not born into the aristocracy. He was, granted, hardly a peasant. His family was wealthy enough to be able to pay for excellent educations for their sons, and later purchase government positions for them, and fortunately, Perrault was skilled and talented enough to attract the attention and patronage of the Minister of Finances of France, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, who himself was not born an aristocrat, although he was eventually able to purchase a baronetcy and become one. Still, Perrault’s rapid rise to advising Louis XIV on artistic matters and fountains for Versailles, combined with his comparatively low birth and lack of “noble” blood made Perrault, by the standards of Versailles, a social climber. It also meant that, unlike most of the other French salon fairy tale writers, he had at least some interest in the lower classes.
That interest is reflected in “Little Red Riding Hood,” a story specifically about, as Perrault puts it, “a little country girl.” That is, a peasant. A fairly well off peasant—that, or Perrault had forgotten, or never knew, what starving peasants ate—but still, a peasant. Lacking servants, a mother sends the girl off with a small cake and some butter to check on her grandmother. Along the way, the girl runs into some woodcutters (this is kinda important) and a wolf, who decides not to eat her because of the woodcutters (thus their importance). They have a lovely conversation, because, as Perrault notes, Little Red Riding Hood has never been told not to talk to wolves. The wolf races ahead, tricks his way into the grandmother’s home, and consumes her, quickly, since he is starving.
Then he climbs into bed, and waits.
The minute Little Red Riding Hood enters the house, the wolf tells her to put the food down and come into bed with him. She does, removing her clothes first.
In full fairness to the wolf, his specific request was “come get into bed with me,” not “strip and then come get in bed with me,” though possibly, given the hug that follows, Little Red Riding Hood did interpret the wolf’s thinking correctly. Or, although the story doesn’t mention it, it’s possible that Little Red Riding Hood’s little detour to gather nuts and chase butterflies left her clothes in the sort of condition that no one, even a wolf, would want to put on a bed, especially in these pre-laundry machine days. Or maybe Little Red Riding Hood just preferred to go to sleep without her clothes on. Or possibly this was the grandmother’s household rule: No sleeping with Grandma until you take off your clothes, a rule I’m pretty sure that we don’t want to look at too closely.
Especially since Perrault, at least, had something else in mind, something he made clear in a moral often left out of later editions (including the translation collected by Andrew Lang), but attached to the original version:
Moral: Children, especially attractive, well bred young ladies, should never talk to strangers, for if they should do so, they may well provide dinner for a wolf. I say, “wolf,” but there are various kinds of wolves. There are also those who are charming, quiet, polite, unassuming, complacent, and sweet, who pursue young women at home and in the streets. And unfortunately, it is these gentle wolves who are the most dangerous ones of all.
(translation by D. L. Ashliman)
A successful career at court may have left Perrault a defender of royal absolutism, privilege, and Louis XIV, but it had also allowed him to witness the many courtiers who had preyed upon younger women, aristocrats and commoners alike. Some women, admittedly, had been able to use this to their advantage—Francoise d’Aubigne, Marquise de Maintenon, had even managed to marry the king in secret—but others, including those who had dallied, willingly or not, with Louis XIV, had been left ruined or exiled or dead after illicit pregnancies. Others were preyed on for their fortunes. Nor was this behavior, of course, confined to the court of Versailles. It is also likely that Perrault had encountered, in person or through rumor, incidents of child abuse. He could warn, through entertainment and morals.
And in his story, the girl, having willingly entered the wolf’s bed, is consumed, with no one showing up to rescue her.
The undressing, and the bed, and the moral have led most commentators to interpret this as a story about the dangers of seduction, but in fairness, I should note that the tale has also been interpreted as a moral lesson about the importance of obeying parents. Little Red Riding Hood, after all, fails to go straight to her grandmother’s home, instead deciding to go running after nuts and butterflies, and then ends up dead, but I think this is at best a secondary theme. Perrault’s story emphasizes charm, trickery, pursuit—and a wolf waiting in a bed for a young girl to join him.
The story was immensely popular—possibly because the horrifying ending made it the exact sort of story that could be told as a terrifying bedroom or fireside story by parents or elder siblings to small wide eyed children. (I can neither confirm nor deny at this time doing something of this sort to a younger brother.) Versions appeared in Poland, where the story was later interpreted as an old lunar legend of the wolf swallowing the bright, and sometimes red, moon; in Italy (where the wolf was transformed into an ogre—possibly because several Italian cities, following the example of Republican and Imperial Rome, often portrayed wolves in a more positive light, or possibly because ogres featured in other tales of forbidden or dangerous sexuality) and elsewhere. One French writer, Charles Marelles, dismayed at the unhappy ending, wrote a version of his own, “The True History of Little Golden-Hood,” which began with the reassurance that the girl lived, and the wolf died—reassuring to children, if perhaps less reflective of what Perrault had seen at the court of Louis XIV.
The Grimms, however, agreed with Marelles, publishing a version of the story where Little Red Riding Hood and her grandmother are both saved at the last minute by a huntsman who just happens to be wandering by and who just happens to overhear suspicious snoring, like, um, huntsman, I mean, yay for knowing just what your neighbors sound like when they snore, but that said, exactly how much time are you spending listening to your neighbors sleep, hmm? And how fortunate that Little Red Riding Hood and her grandmother were swallowed up whole and not, say, chewed, and not particularly damaged from staying inside a wolf’s belly and, presumably, digestive juices, other than feeling a bit freaked out about staying in the dark for a bit.
The Grimms also added a second ending, considerably less well known, where a considerably wiser Little Red Cap, having learned her lesson about wolves, went straight to her grandmother’s and locked the door. It ends with the grandmother tricking the wolf into drowning himself in the trough outside her house—at the risk, I might add, of nearly getting little Red Cap eaten up, since she’s the one that has to put water into the outside trough in order for the trick to work—but it does work, giving the grandmother more power than she has in other versions of the tale.
Andrew Lang turned down both of the Grimm versions, instead choosing the Perrault version—with Little Red Riding Hood quite, quite dead—for The Blue Fairy Book (1889), and the happier Charles Marelles version for The Red Fairy Book (1890). But for once, his chosen versions did not become the best known English versions of the tale. Instead, translations of the Grimm version, with its happier ending, were turned into picture books and placed into various fairy tale books (it was the one used by the lavishly illustrated fairy tale book I poured over when small), slowly becoming the accepted English version.
Not that every American found the tale particularly plausible, particularly American humorist and The New Yorker writer James Thurber, whose story “The Little Girl and Wolf,” arms Little Red Riding Hood with some common sense and an automatic weapon. It ends, as does Perrault’s, with a nice little moral, but a moral that is rather less a caution to young girls and women, and more a reassurance that 20th century girls were harder to trick.
But Perrault was not worried about the plausibility of his tale: this was a man, after all, that had told stories of pumpkins turning into carriages and cats that could talk and walk in elegant boots and girls that could cough up diamonds and toads. A child’s inability to distinguish a grandmother from a wolf was nothing to this, and in any case, Perrault had seen all too many human wolves, and knew all too many grandparents who had not been able to save beloved daughters. His Little Red Riding Hood may not have had a gun, but then again, neither did many of the young girls and women that he had seen at court.
Mari Ness lives in central Florida.
Thurber’s version seems to bring the story full circle, back to its oral origins (salvaged in the 19th century by French folklorists). The original version is often simply called “The Grandmother.” The young girl has no name and no red cloak or cap (was it Perrault who added this?). And after a slight detour into cannibalism, she outwits the wolf and saves herself. No man comes to her rescue. In fact the only male in the story at all is the wolf, and he of course is predatory.
The contrast with the Grimms’ version is startling. The peasants who originally told the story knew that women had to be resourceful if they were going to navigate a dangerous world in which they were often regarded as little more than property. The Grimms clearly didn’t like this idea and so sentenced the young girl to a life of perpetual childish dependency, whose only hope is to always listen to her mother, never stray from the path, and not go peeking into the corners.
In the German version I know the hunter cuts open the wolf’s belly to free the girl and the grandmother. Then he fills the belly with stones and throws the wolf into a well.
Instead of going into the wolf’s bed there is this very well known scene:
“Grandmother, why to you have such large eyes?”
“So I can see you better.”
“Grandmother, why to you have such large ears?”
“So I can hear you better.”
“Grandmother, why to you have such a large mouth?”
“So I can eat you better.”
(Then the wolf eats her.)
One of the fairy tale writing queens of Romania (I think it was Carmen Sylva, not Marie) had this problem too. Her peasant children are always going off with picnic baskets full of sandwiches.
Early English translations of the Brothers Grimm version actually put Red Riding Hood dying back into the tale. I found an early English translation at my middle school library once, and instead of the hunter cutting the wolf open, he raises his gun and shoots the wolf dead, never rescuing Red and her grandmother from inside the wolf. Because of this, the epilogue where Red encounters another wolf had to be modified to change the story from being a few weeks later, to simply an alternate ending (“Some say that the last story is not the true one, but that one day…”)
Fascinating as usual :)
I’m quite partial to the version in Into the Woods, which has the huntsman cutting them out (and I think they do drown him in the river), and then later Little Red Riding Hood has traded her red cape for a wolfskin coat.
Of course, in that play, the actor who plays the wolf a)has a very pronounced phallus and b)is the same actor as Prince Charming which in some ways is harkening back to the original message (they did not keep this conceit in the movie, sadly, although I can’t really fault Johnny Depp’s performance as the wolf).
@@@@@#4: Jack Zipes published a new translation of the Grimms’ first edition a couple of years ago. I’ll have to see if the version you mention is in that. We do know that the Grimms were horrified to learn that children were reading these tales, and so in later editions they watered down some of the rougher elements.
@@@@@#6: No, I’ve read the first edition, and the Grimms pretty much kept the story the same in all seven of their editions, aside from a few little details. The tales with the most vast changes between editions are “Cinderella” (where she only attends two out of the three balls, but goes to all three of them in the later editions), “Rapunzel” (where there is no escape plan, and Rapunzel’s pregnancy reveals the prince’s visits), “Snow White” (where the evil queen is Snow’s actual mother), and a few others. But the changes to “Red Riding Hood” are very minor. Red still lives in the first edition.
I believe that the Perrault version was more popular in England at the time though, so English translators decided to further edit the stories to fit their tastes. The book I read the version I was talking about from is a translation from 1853, called Household Stories. As far as I know, Jack Zipes is the first person to translate the first edition to English. The 1853 book is a translation of the sixth edition, I believe, while the final edition of Grimm is the seventh edition (which had not been released yet in 1853). I know you can find the 1853 translation on Google Books for free, but I’m still looking right now.
Birgit @2: This is the very same version that is also told in Estonia. Not surprising due to historical reasons and connections.
@2 Birgit: Yes, same here in Czech Republic (also not surprising). Although, I remember that the wolf drowned all by himself: he woke up (somehow missing the whole being cut open thing) and felt thirsty, so he went to the well to drink, and since he had now stomach full of stones, he was too heavy and fell in.
I read recently the newest “modern” version of this tale: when threatened by wolf, Red pulls a phone from her pocket and texts to the woodcutter she passed earlier (how exactly did she get his number?) and he comes with an axe… There was also that bit where mother gives Red the advice about not talking to strangers, because they said so on the internet… ugh. Is it bad that I really, really hate something like that being done to the fairy tales?
Perhaps I am mistaken- but isn’t the point of a fairy tale that it has a moral? And that sometimes bad things happen, but if you had some other action, you would have been ok.
And then we made everyone win, so no more moralistic endings. Somehow I feel cheated.
@10: All of Perrault’s tales have morals, but some of them don’t really make sense. The moral of “Bluebeard” says that curiosity is dangerous, but that’s not really what I learned from reading that tale. If his wife had not been curious, she would have never discovered his terrible secret. And while it is implied that Bluebeard killed most of his wives because they opened the forbidden room, the question still remains of why he killed his first wife. The only logical explanation is that he’s a serial killer, and whether or not his wives look in the room or not, he’ll eventually find some excuse to kill them. So, in this case, I think the heroine’s curiosity was a good thing, as it made it possible to stop Bluebeard from killing people. If nobody found out, there would be no way to stop it.
@9/Tessuna: In the Grimm version (seventh edition), the wolf doesn’t drown in a well. He wakes up and tries to run away, but the stones are so heavy that he falls down immediately and dies.
I also know the version where the wolf tries to drink and falls into the well because of the stones in his belly.
I just remembered – the part where the wolf drowns in a well because of the stones in his belly is from a different fairytale, Der Wolf und die sieben Geißlein (The Wolf and the Seven Young Goats).
@14 JanaJansen: Oh, of course, you’re right! I know this one as The Wolf and the Clever Young Goats. Because the Wolf tries to trick them and they see right through it. I don’t know why, but I hated this one, maybe because it was so boring, but I really loved Little Red Riding Hood. It was the two versions that got me – I never knew which one it would be this time, the one with happy end or the one where Red gets eaten for good. Actually, now I remember that when I started to read books, I sort of expected them to have different ending every time I read them, because I thought that’s how the books work. :)
@15/Tessuna: I didn’t like that one either and don’t remember why. Perhaps I simply found it hard to identify with goats. It was before petting zoos were everywhere, and goats didn’t really play a part in my life.
Terri Windling has an excellent essay on the older versions of the story and the changes Perrault and the Grimms made:
http://www.endicott-studio.com/articleslist/the-path-of-needles-and-pinsby-terri-windling.html
@17/KT: Interesting! Now I’ve added Calvino’s Italian Folktales to my reading list and “toilet ruse” to my vocabulary.
What I’ve always wondered in this story is why does the grandmother lives on the other side of the woods? The tradition was for the entire family to live together, and I can’t see why she would be apart, in the middle of the woods. Well, except of course if she’s a witch, but she’d have to be a pretty incompetent one to be outsmarted by a wolf…
James Thorber? The version I know is from Roald Dahl
*grins*
Thus is probably my favorite fairy tale, with the possible exception of the one mentioned above about the wolf and goats. I enjoy nearly every version and inversion of it I’ve encountered.
The Discworld one may be the most tragic I’ve seen — the wolf is the sole casualty, but it only attacks the house because a bad witch warped its mind. Another witch has to put it out of its misery, and then gets rightously pissed at the woodcutters who had neglected the old woman living in isolated squalor.
The interesting thing about Bluebeard is that, when the wife married, she was given the keys to the house. Some interpretations argue that she invaded her husband’s space, not respecting boundaries. But, she had a right to the keys and her husband couldn’t hold them back. I’ve always seen it as being about a man who isn’t ready for the inevitable, emotional intimacies of marriage and who lashes out and punishes his wife for it.
But, getting back to Red Riding Hood, I’m guessing that her grandmother was her mother’s mother from the next village over and they live in Mr. Riding Hood’s family village. Mrs. RH has probably been trying to get her mother to move closer to them but Gran didn’t want to give up her independence. I imagine the wolf incident (unless we go with the golden hood version) made her change her tune.
Unless it’s her son-in-law who’s been fighting having Gran come to live with them, in which case he will now hear about how his stubbornness got his daughter eaten by a wolf. Either way, I hope for a happy ending.
I think that the
Wolf, was not a Wolf at all.
Nice story to read.
@Brigit
yes this was the story read or told to us in the small town (when I was little -60 yr ago) in Holland