Maureen Hurley Dec. 2, 2001
Anthro. 160A Prof. Dundes
INTERPRETATION OF FAIRY TALES
Marie Louise von Franz
© 1970, Spring Publications, Dallas, TX
In selecting a text to read for a book report for this Folklore class, I read several books, including Henry Glassie’s “Irish Folk History,” and Vance Randolph’s “Pissing in the Snow,” both great collections of folk narrative, but I chose Dr. Marie Louise von Franz’s Interpretation of Fairy Tales because it represented an old albatross around my neck—a text I had tried to read when it was first released, but I failed—miserably.
Why I am discussing my relationship to the book is that I have folklore attached to it, and I wished to explore why the information in this classic text eluded me. I wish to slay an albatross. I will begin with a discussion about my previous relationship to the text and apply what I have learned in hindsight.
In the 1970s, I was a visual artist, interested in imagery and the subconscious. What was popular at the time was Jungian dream imagery. When I was in my 20s, I passively read the text, I hadn’t yet learned to actively engage in dialogue with the author—to look for and to challenge basic—if not hidden—assumptions. Call it subtext. Someone once said: “Your college education is a success if you graduate with shit detectors intact.”
My former employer, Jungian enthusiast and occultist, Alice Kent (Kentfield, Marin), was an acquaintance of von Franz’s, and she often cited Jung’s ideas on dreams and personality structures. Some of it made sense, but I didn’t seem to have the cultural map to comprehend it.
I dearly loved fairy tales (and folksongs) and wanted to know more about them. Von Franz’ text merely reinforced my feelings of inadequacy: I didn’t GET it. (It would be another 10 years before I was diagnosed with dyslexia; but by then, ever the auto-didact, I’d pulled myself up by my bootstraps and had become a literate omnivore).
This was during the seminal era of what was later to be dubbed, “The New Age.” I was dissatisfied with the popular culture gurus: Joseph Campbell, Robert Graves, Fritz Perls—I felt cheated but I didn’t know why. And there’s the rub. And now, revisiting von Franz’s book some 30 years, later, I find myself better able to argue with many of von Franz’s basic tenants: especially Jung’s theory of collective unconscious, and on women’s roles.
Dr. von Franz, a student of Jung’s, delivered a series of lectures at the Carl Jung Institute in 1963. The bulk of Interpretation of Fairy Tales was transcribed from seminar notes; the book is divided into six sections including theories of fairy tales, myths and archetypes, psychological interpretation, and three case interpretations of a fairy tale, “The Three Feathers.” In 1970, Von Franz added an essay on shadow, animus and anima, and a bibliography, plus a spurious transcript of an interview.
It is difficult to determine who Dr. von Franz’ s audience is: whether her primary impetus is to defend a much maligned Jung, to offer analytical tools to Jungian psychologists, or to interpret fairy tales themselves as folklore. Who is her audience? Popular culture (the lay student), or psychologists?
I found that as a folklore student, though there were ideas that enraged me, I couldn’t dismiss her work out of hand. There is material that is of use to the folklore student interested in collecting European fairy tales—specifically on the Germanic marchen.
In Interpretation of Fairy Tales, Dr. Von Franz begins with the impulses of how/why a fairy tale originates, and its function. Hero as abstract stereotype, tale teaches a moral lesson.
What I found useful is her deconstruction of fairy tales into discrete units with diagrams. And her exploration of fairy tale tropes; for example: weak king, three sons, no rightful heir apparent. Which prince is best suited? Three tasks. Denial of task by elder sons, but youngest/dumbest wins kingdom, girl, etc. Uses of magic feather, ball, sphere to lead youngest son to the underworld. Missing functions and the seeking of balance between primal powers—whether it be fertility, masculinity/femininity, etc.
Dr. von Franz discusses how, when she doesn’t understand a fairy tale, she uses myth as parallels “because the greater closeness to consciousness of the myth material” gives her an idea about the meaning. (p. 18).
She strongly advocates using as many variants of a fairly tale as possible, to understand their meaning, and in her bibliography, she lists Sith Thompson’s Tale Type indexes (but dislikes the cryptic annotation). She writes that myth is rooted in cultural context, and how it is “integrated into the body of conscious knowledge of that nation.” (p. 19).
I was fascinated with her discussions of various motifs. But when she tracks motifs from different cultures, and symbolically grafts them onto a tale from another culture—it is interesting but I would be wary of her synopses because, as she rightly points out, symbolism is a highly idiosyncratic classification system that varies from person to person and culture to culture.
This stance is ironic in that she (rightly) lambastes the likes of Robert Graves and Joseph Campbell for being generalists. (The “everything is related to everything” theory.) With that in mind, unfortunately, one gets a whiff of the dirty laundry between Jung and the popular icons of the times, and of the rivalry between Jung and Freud than to folklore itself.
I am reminded of poet Bob Hass’ line from “Meditation at Lagunitas” (written ca. 1970), where he warns the poet against the danger of generalization: “each specific erases from the clarity of a general idea.”
My criticisms of von Franz’s Interpretation of Fairy Tales revolve around the weakest link of Jung’s theory—that of a common collective unconscious. In order to maintain the late Jung’s pandemic generalism, she often forces her many sound insights into another kettle of fish, thin and they lose something in the process Von Franz compounds this flaw by using a Germanic cultural map for all European (and by extension, world) culture.
As a non Anglo-Saxon, I find some of her statements exclusionary. What about non Indo European cultures? For example, she uses the motifs of the king’s white horse and fog as symbols of Wotan/death, and giantesses washing clothes/weather.
In Celtic mythology white horses are not Wotan’s symbolic transporting the dead to Valhalla, they are a sacral regnal representation and fertility rite of the great horse goddess, Rigatona/Epona/Rhiannon as kingmaker.
This motif is annotated in Gerald of Wale’s 12th century account of visiting Ireland. Fog is a Celtic trope of entering the Otherworld, and animals with red hair, ears are Otherworld beings. These motifs are warnings that the hero is out of his element.
Finally, though this is a minor point of contention, at the other end of the spectrum, von Franz claims as a German custom, at midsummer festivals “throughout the Germanic agricultural region, people roll the fiery wheels down the mountains....(p. 115).
In that my great-grandfather practiced this custom in Co. Cork, Ireland, during the 1860s to the 1890s, I would suggest that this is an Indo-European custom, not Germanic (or Swiss). I point these details to suggest that one should read her text with a critical, if jaundiced, eye and not to take her hypotheses at face value, though they do offer an insight into the German psyche as to the interpretation of Germanic fairy tales.
Von Franz makes some interesting remarks about Hitler’s inadequate psychic map, and post W.W.II Germany. But she doesn’t go far enough, as if she were afraid to delve in too deep. And I think her basic assumptions on women’s roles and desires, are off the old patronymic map. In several passages, von Franz often doesn’t distinguish whether she’s referring to fictitious women in fairly tales or to real women of the 1960s. A minor detail, but a wrong reading profoundly changes the context by which to read /interpret her ideas.
In her final essay on shadow, anima and animus, Dr. von Franz suggests that modern woman retains certain negative “animus” traits, and is unintegrated and therefore, is dissatisfied. But von Franz neglects to mention that fairy tales she cites as psychic templates were composed by men centuries earlier. Therefore the relatively few fairly tales about women are indeed exceedingly negative in nature—as their function was to ensure that women remained pliable and docile and unopinionated within the confines of a society long since gone.
Ironically, if one were to hypothetically apply some of her observations onto herself, she too might be classified as “negative animus.” It would have been interesting if Von Franz had broadened her lens to include some of the studies of women’s roles during the 1970s when she compiled this manuscript, and again when she amended the book in 1978, instead of leaving it chained to the albatross of 1950s philosophy.
In revisiting this text, I discovered my own metaphoric albatross was merely an overweight, flightless seagull paddling around within the confines of a small pond after all.