 |
| Illus by Warwick Goble, 1923 |
I suspect you said, “No way!” But what of picture-book
versions of Jack and the Beanstalk? When I was a child I felt sorry for the dead giant. That sympathy remained until I discovered the history behind the story.
This got me thinking about popular
fairytales and I thought it would be intriguing to take a look at what we’re
saying to children when we share modern versions of classic fairytales (whether
as picture books or illustrated story books). So here's a peep at the history behind Jack and the Beanstalk and Goldilocks and the Three Bears.
 |
| The History of Jack and the Bean-Stalk, 1807 |
At the start of the eighteenth century, Benjamin Tabart
recorded his version of an oral story that had been told around the fireside
for perhaps hundreds of years. In The History of Jack and the Bean-Stalk,
a poor boy climbs the beanstalk to recover what by rights should belong to him
because the giant swindled and murdered his father (a good fairy confirms it is
his destiny to avenge his father - this may have been added by Tabart to appease sensibilities).
 |
| Illus by John Batten, from Jacob's Jack and the Beanstalk, English Fairy Tales |
Over fifty years later, Joseph Jacobs retold another version
of this story, as told to him by his Australian nursemaid when he was a young
boy. Jack and the Beanstalk was one
of many stories Jacobs included in the popular English Fairy Tales. In this version there is no good fairy and
there is no overt moral justification for the robbery of the bag of gold, the
hen that lays golden eggs, or the golden harp. Jack is seen as a hero who
outwits an evil giant that can smell the blood of Englishmen and wants to eat
them. Thus a poor boy outwits the giant and then lives happily ever after
(despite chopping down the beanstalk and thereby killing the giant, although we're only told he 'broke his crown').
 |
| Illus by Arthur Rackham |
Ho hum, when I was a child, this was the version I objected
to. A poor boy swaps his cow for three beans, climbs the magic beanstalk, robs
the giant three times, and when he’s about to be caught (and eaten!) by the
giant, Jack escapes by murdering the giant, and then lives happily on his
ill-gotten gains.
 |
| Tales by the fire |
However, if viewed within its original historical context,
even the second version becomes more acceptable. Long ago, when told around the
fire, the giant is not merely a very large, bone-crunching, blood-sniffing
monster. The scary giant who lives up in the clouds in an out-of-reach castle represents
somebody who is a ‘giant’ in terms of status and wealth. He’s at the top of the
class system – the top of the beanstalk. Perhaps he’s a lord or a prince who
has utter control of the lives of the poor who live off his land. Thus, the
Jack in the story represents the canny peasants overcoming the tyrant lord and
redistributing his gigantic wealth. By not naming the lord and therefore hiding his
identity beneath the mask of the ‘giant’, no storytelling peasant could be
punished for inciting rebellion. It was a way for the powerless poor to share
and vocalise their dreams of overcoming the all-powerful feudal lord.
Nowadays, perhaps the ‘giant’ is a selfish dictator or huge money-obsessed
corporation. However, I doubt a child would see it that way and therefore I
still have a niggle about promoting robbery and murder, although I now
understand why the story was first shared around the fire. Or am I in danger of
being too politically correct?
 |
| From Robert Southey's The Story of the Three Bears (note the old woman's legs!) |
Another fairytale favourite that has changed over time,
albeit in a different way, is Goldilocks and the Three Bears. In the first half
of the eighteenth century, The Story of
the Three Bears was recorded by two
different sources (Robert Southey and Eleanor Mure), and back then there was no
golden-haired, cute girl. Instead, the bears were friends or brothers and the
intruder was an itinerant, rude old woman who comes to a disagreeable end in Mure's story. Plus a further version existed in which the unwanted visitor was a fox (vixen). All were cautionary and threatening tales about respecting the property of others.
 |
| Illus by Margaret Evans Price, 1927 |
Then in 1850 a little girl replaces the silver-haired old woman in the
Victorian A Treasury of Pleasure Books,
and shortly afterwards the bears morph into a family of father, mother and baby
bear. Though it’s not until 1918 that the name Goldilocks appears in Flora
Steel’s English Fairy Tales. So over
time, the ominous oral tale has developed into what many see as a gentle warning
to children of the perils of wandering off and the dangers lurking behind cosy
facades.
Once again, as a child I was uncomfortable about Goldilocks
and felt the bears had been mistreated (I must have had a strong sense of right
and wrong!). Regardless of Goldilocks being a cute wee moppet, I was more in
tune with the original interpretation. I don’t think I’m alone as there have
been contemporary retellings that cast the bears in a positive light. In particular, one
picture book, Beware of the Bears, makes
me smile (a naughty smile), as in this book the vengeful bears mistakenly
trash Goldilocks home!
So what do you all think about the 'messages' in classic fairytales? Should we leave them as they are, despite social changes? Contemporary stepmothers might have a few thoughts! Or is it a case of being too politically correct, with Victorian sensibilities? And the villains do have all the best lines: Fe fi fo fum, I smell the blood of an Englishman...
So what do you all think about the 'messages' in classic fairytales? Should we leave them as they are, despite social changes? Contemporary stepmothers might have a few thoughts! Or is it a case of being too politically correct, with Victorian sensibilities? And the villains do have all the best lines: Fe fi fo fum, I smell the blood of an Englishman...
_______________________________________
Paeony Lewis is a children's author and writing tutor.
