sign in sign up
<<
Home , Snow White

Back to Ölenberg: An Intertextual Dialogue between Fairy-Tale Retellings and the Sociohistorical Study of the

Vanessa Joosen

Marvels & Tales, Volume 24, Number 1, 2010, pp. 99-115 (Article)

Published by Wayne State University Press

For additional information about this article http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/mat/summary/v024/24.1.joosen.html

Access provided by Wayne State University (26 Feb 2014 10:22 GMT) 24360_06_099_115_r3ln.qxp 6/3/10 9:17 AM Page 99

VANESSA J OOSEN 1 2 3 4 5 Back to Ölenberg: An Intertextual 6 Dialogue between Fairy-Tale Retellings 7 and the Sociohistorical Study of the 8 9 Grimm Tales 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Introduction 21 22 In discussions of fairy-tale retellings, the concept of intertextuality is often in- 23 troduced to explain the relationship between a retelling and the traditional 24 (s) to which it refers.1 Although the notion of intertextuality was de- 25 veloped by scholars such as Julia Kristeva, Roland Barthes, and Gérard Genette 26 as a far more expansive network of verbal and even nonverbal texts, it is con- 27 ventionally employed in literary studies to analyze the relationships and dy- 28 namics between fictional texts only. If we adopt a broader concept of intertex- 29 tuality, one that considers not only fictional but also nonfictional pre-texts, a 30 whole new intertextual dimension becomes accessible. For fairy-tale studies, 31 such an approach offers valuable possibilities, especially when it comes to the 32 interaction between fairy tales and the critical and theoretical discourses that 33 have the fairy tale as their subject. Various thematic overlaps and mutual con- 34 cerns can be perceived between fairy-tale retellings and feminist, psychoana- 35 lytic, and Marxist criticism so that fairy-tale criticism appears as a relevant in- 36 tertext for the retellings, and vice versa.2 In this essay I will explore the 37 intertextual dialogue between a selection of fairy-tale retellings from Dutch, 38 39

Marvels & Tales: Journal of Fairy-Tale Studies, Vol. 24, No. 1 (2010), pp. 99–115. Copyright © 2010 by 40 S Wayne State University Press, Detroit, MI 48201. 41 R

99

2nd Pass Pages 24360_06_099_115_r3ln.qxp 6/3/10 9:17 AM Page 100

VANESSA JOOSEN

1 German, and English writers and the sociohistorical study of the Grimm 2 brothers’ fairy tales. I will demonstrate how certain retellings have helped to 3 undermine the Grimms’ authority as truthful and reliable folktale collectors, 4 moving on to analyze in more detail retellings that seek an alliance with criticism 5 on the oral tradition underpinning the Grimm collection. 6 7 In Search of the Truth 8 9 As the best-known collection of fairy tales worldwide, Jacob and Wilhelm 10 Grimms’ Kinder- und Hausmärchen (Children’s and Household Tales) has been a 11 popular topic of research. In the course of the twentieth century the editorial 12 process of the came under discussion at various times and in 13 various contexts. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the first academic 14 publications had already appeared on the editions of Die Kinder- und 15 Hausmärchen, and the question of editorial changes remained on the agenda 16 throughout the century.3 In 1975 Heinz Rölleke sparked new interest in the 17 collection’s genesis when he published Die älteste Märchensammlung der Brüder 18 Grimm, an annotated edition of the Ölenberg manuscript from 1810, printed 19 next to the tales as they appeared in the first published edition from 1812. 20 This manuscript contains a handful of earlier versions of the Grimm tales as 21 the Grimms had assembled them for their contemporary Clemens Brentano. 22 The manuscript and subsequent published editions of the tales were the topic 23 of further research by scholars such as Siegfried Neumann, Eric Hulsens, John 24 Ellis, Ruth B. Bottigheimer, Klaus Doderer, Wilhelm Solms, Jack Zipes, and 25 Maria Tatar. Writing in 1983, Jack Zipes states that “[u]ntil the 1970s it was 26 generally assumed that the Brothers Grimm collected their oral folktales 27 mainly from peasants and day laborers and that they merely altered and re- 28 fined the tales while remaining true to their perspective and meaning. Both as- 29 sumptions proved to be false” (Subversion 61). A substantial number of articles 30 and books have addressed the issue of whether the Brothers Grimm “merely 31 refined” the oral versions they had collected or whether they (un)consciously 32 manipulated them in favor of their own ideology and literary taste. Although 33 Zipes claims that the Grimms did change the meaning of the oral folktales, he 34 stresses that their “intentions were honorable” (61) and that “there is no evi- 35 dence to indicate that the Grimms consciously sought to dupe German readers 36 and feed them lies about the German past” (Brothers Grimm 110). He refers 37 here to the impression that the Brothers Grimm created of their tales being 38 German stories when several of the best-known tales in their collection have 39 older variants from Italy and France. Moreover, Zipes emphasizes, “the S 40 Grimms were totally conscious and open about their endeavors to make their R 41 material more suitable for children and to incorporate their notion of the fam-

100

2nd Pass Pages 24360_06_099_115_r3ln.qxp 6/3/10 9:17 AM Page 101

BACK TO ÖLENBERG

ily, their sense of a folk aesthetic, and their political ideas in the tales” (112). 1 Heinz Rölleke is more skeptical about this alleged openness: “They have only 2 remained silent with regard to these issues, ambiguously silent, as the recep- 3 tion shows” (Quellen und Studien 36).4 More radical and less accepted in aca- 4 demic circles is John Ellis’s view “that the Grimms deliberately, persistently, 5 and completely misrepresented the status of their tales” and “made claims for 6 them which they knew to be quite false” (viii). Part of the problem in verifying 7 this process is that the notes and manuscript versions of these other variants 8 have not been preserved and that the oral tradition from which the Brothers 9 Grimm supposedly drew their tales has long been beyond reach. Whether or 10 not the Grimms’ intentions were honorable, comparisons between the various 11 editions of Die Kinder- und Hausmärchen have invariably come to the conclu- 12 sion that the brothers, especially Wilhelm, substantially altered the content 13 and style of the tales. It is thus problematic to read the Grimm stories as the 14 authentic rendition of an oral tradition. 15 The debate on the editorial changes in the Grimm collection proved inspi- 16 rational for various critics, and related opinions and ideas also surface in some 17 retellings. This is not to say that these authors have necessarily read fairy-tale 18 scholarship, or that they apply theories or concepts in the same way as schol- 19 ars. In the intertextual dialogue between fairy-tale retellings and literary criti- 20 cism, it is usually difficult to trace where an idea appeared first or whether 21 ideas that occur on similar occasions were actually “borrowed” from each 22 other. According to Maria Nikolajeva, “the question of who has borrowed the 23 idea from whom” is in fact “totally uninteresting” to intertextual analysis (183). 24 It is more valuable to focus instead on the different use that authors and critics 25 make of the same idea. Indeed, although several fairy-tale retellings can be in- 26 tertextually linked to debates on the Grimm editions, they do so within a fic- 27 tional context, and their assertions about the Grimms are often humorous and 28 ambivalent. The alterations made by the Grimms, for example, are frequently 29 called upon in fairy-tale retellings to explain their own raison d’être. Not sur- 30 prisingly, most of these lack the nuance of the scholarly debates, and the 31 brothers are usually not given the benefit of the doubt with regard to their 32 honorable intentions. In an attempt to lure in the reader, the narrators of these 33 tales claim to tell a more accurate version of the fairy tale, to report “what really 34 happened.” Such fictional claims can be found in titles by Louise Murphy (The 35 True Story of ), Bruce Bennett (“The True Story of Snow 36 White”), Liya Lev Oertel (“The Real Story of ”), and Jon Scieszka 37 (The True Story of the Three Little Pigs!), as well as in the titles and introductions 38 of countless other retellings.5 Tomi Ungerer, for example, uses such a truth 39 motif to catch the interest of his readership in the first lines of “Little Red Riding 40 S Hood” (1975): 41 R

101

2nd Pass Pages 24360_06_099_115_r3ln.qxp 6/3/10 9:17 AM Page 102

VANESSA JOOSEN

1 The little girl in red was called . . . yes . . . you’ve already guessed it, 2 she was called . But it was not the Little Red 3 Riding Hood that you may have read about before. No. The Little Red 4 Riding Hood here is the real, true Little Red Riding Hood, not the one 5 from that stupid fairy tale, and this story is, I bet you a hundred to 6 one, its truthful history. (87)6 7 Rather than unearthing the true account of “Red Riding Hood,” should such a 8 version exist at all, Ungerer writes a parody of the traditional version. Most 9 retellings that contain such a fictional claim for truth do the same. In 1982, 10 however, the Dutch critic Nel Teeuwen-Opheij wrote about Ungerer: “In the 11 collection ‘Fairy Tales’ the original given is not distorted. Sometimes even—as 12 in the fairy tale of ‘Little Red Riding Hood’—it is brought back further to its 13 original form, before the Brothers Grimm adapted it” (108).7 Although this re- 14 viewer seems to be aware of the critical views on the genesis of Die Kinder- und 15 Hausmärchen, she confuses the critical debate with the literary convention of 16 playfully addressing the issue of “truth.” 17 Such confusion is unlikely to happen with the high number of retellings 18 in which the claim for truth is formulated by a fairy-tale character who pre- 19 tends to set the record straight. Jaak Dreesen’s version of “Tom Thumb” 20 (2002), for instance, begins with such a reference to the Brothers Grimm: 21 22 23 Little . 24 Call me Thumb. 25 I am old and sick, and I want to tell my story. 26 It will be, I promise, grimmer than that dull narrative that was 27 launched by two German brothers. They mentioned a small house in 28 the forest, a crone and a giant, and seven-league boots with which 29 30 the giant crossed the land, looking for me and my six brothers. Non- 31 sense! (Dreesen 46)8 32 33 As with Ungerer, the claim for truth is accompanied by an antiauthoritarian at- 34 tack against the Grimms’ version (“that stupid fairy tale” / “that dull narra- 35 tive”). What these texts share with critics such as John Ellis is the fact that they 36 discredit the Brothers Grimm as truthful mediators of either a fictionally “true” 37 course of events or an oral tradition. That in Dreesen’s tale it is a fictional char- 38 acter who sets the record straight, and not a scholar, opens up the possibility 39 for the retelling to be read not only as a parody of “Tom Thumb,” but also of S 40 Ellis’s critique of the Brothers Grimm. R 41

102

2nd Pass Pages 24360_06_099_115_r3ln.qxp 6/3/10 9:17 AM Page 103

BACK TO ÖLENBERG

An author who reflects more extensively on the Brothers Grimm’s editorial 1 process is Roald Dahl (1989). He includes an autoreflexive comment in the 2 scene where Gretel shoves the witch into the oven. 3 4 The Brothers Grimm who wrote this story 5 Made it a thousand times more gory. 6 I’ve taken out the foulest scene 7 8 In order that you won’t turn green. [ ...] 9 It might have been okay, who knows, 10 If there’d been humour in the prose. 11 Did I say humour? ? 12 There’s not a scrap of it in him. 13 (Rhyme Stew 63) 14 15 By holding Wilhelm responsible for the cruel content and lack of humor, Dahl 16 displays an awareness of popular theories regarding the genesis of the Grimm 17 collection. In academic discussions Wilhelm was indeed identified as the most 18 zealous editor and so the main target of critique. 19 In these retellings, the concept of truth becomes a shifting signifier that 20 changes meaning every time it is used by a new narrator. This strengthens the 21 impression that these stories deny the authority of any text, celebrating instead 22 the possibility of multiple versions and truths. In problematizing the idea of one 23 fixed fairy tale, retellings that make a fictional claim for truth can thus be placed 24 in what Linda Hutcheon calls “the project of postmodernism”: “The challenging 25 of certainty, the asking of questions, the revealing of fiction-making where we 26 might have once accepted the existence of some absolute ‘truth’—this is the 27 project of postmodernism” (48). As Elizabeth Wanning Harries argues: “[R]ecent 28 storytellers tend to stress the subjective unreliability of their narrators. Each new 29 tale is only one version of the many possible versions. They encourage to see the 30 new retelling as a version, as one, but not the only, way to tell a tale” (102). By de- 31 duction, the retellings—sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly—make an ap- 32 peal to their readers to consider every fairy tale as a version—in particular, the 33 canonized ones that they may once have considered “true” and “authentic.” 34 35 36 Recovering the Oral Tradition 37 By problematizing the concepts of truth and authorship, Ungerer, Dreesen, 38 and Dahl playfully break with the mythic status of the Grimm tales and legit- 39 imize their own right to adapt the stories. Few readers will consider their 40 S 41 R

103

2nd Pass Pages 24360_06_099_115_r3ln.qxp 6/3/10 9:17 AM Page 104

VANESSA JOOSEN

1 rewritings as more “truthful” or authentic than the tales in Die Kinder- und 2 Hausmärchen. Yet, in the wake of the critical debate on the Grimms’ editions, 3 other authors have turned to the older and supposedly more “authentic” ver- 4 sions in the Ölenberg manuscript. Without referring to the manuscript explic- 5 itly in the literary text itself, these retellings return to it implicitly through in- 6 tertextual links with the older versions. The authors sometimes reflect on this 7 process in peritextual material (prefaces or interviews). 8 A first strategy of return to the older variants is via the undoing of the 9 changes that occur in the Grimm editions after 1810. For example, several in- 10 fluential critics, including Bruno Bettelheim and Heinz Rölleke, have addressed 11 the Grimms’ replacement of biological mothers with in the second 12 edition of Die Kinder- und Hausmärchen (1819). In many retellings, stepmothers 13 are reconverted into biological mothers. An early example is Otto Gmelin’s 14 retelling of “Hansel and Gretel” (1978). He explains his adaptation as follows: 15 “Our variant printed above goes back to those before Grimm. [ ...] At the 16 same time the closeness to was a refusal of the Biedermeier and often 17 tarted up ‘Grimm fairy-tale treasure’ as it is still run-of-the-mill in many records 18 and radio broadcasts” (“Böses” 131).9 His adaptation of “,” most 19 notably the deletion of the and the change in the female protagonist’s atti- 20 tude toward the frog, is likewise informed by his knowledge of earlier (printed) 21 versions of the Grimm tales. Moreover, Gmelin, like most philological scholars, 22 distinguishes here between the attitudes of Wilhelm and regarding 23 the adaptation of the oral material (Tapfere Mädchen 66–67). 24 The Ölenberg manuscript is mentioned as a source of inspiration in the 25 peritextual material of several retellings of “,” most notably those 26 by Tom Naegels, Angela Carter, and Wim Hofman. These three authors incor- 27 porate longer passages from earlier versions. In “Spiegelliegeltje,” for instance, 28 Naegels adds a paragraph from the Ölenberg manuscript that is not included 29 in the 1812 printed edition of the Grimm tale.10 When the mother tells the tale 30 to her daughter, she resorts to a variant of the so-called expulsion episode: 31 32 Spiegelliegeltje was abandoned by her mommy in the dark forest. It 33 was a bad mommy, who was jealous of Spiegelliegeltje because 34 Spiegelliegeltje was so beautiful. More beautiful than mommy and 35 mommy couldn’t bear that! So she brought Spiegelliegeltje in her 36 coach into the forest, and in the middle of the forest, she said all of a 37 sudden: “Oh, do get out and pick some of those beautiful roses for 38 me!” But as soon as the girl had got out, the mother closed the door 39 and drove away at full speed. And she hoped that the wild animals S 40 would quickly devour her beautiful little daughter. (Naegels 96)11 R 41

104

2nd Pass Pages 24360_06_099_115_r3ln.qxp 6/3/10 9:17 AM Page 105

BACK TO ÖLENBERG

This description differs from the canonical version of “Snow White,” in which 1 there is only one expulsion episode, when Snow White’s orders a 2 to kill her daughter. The double expulsion in Naegels’s retelling sig- 3 nals an intertextual return to the variant in the Ölenberg manuscript that was 4 later deleted: 5 6 And as the Lord King had once travelled to war, so she had her coach 7 harnessed & ordered to drive into a great dark forest & she took Snow 8 White with her. Now in the same forest stood many really beautiful 9 red roses. When she had now arrived there with her little daughter, 10 she spoke to her: oh Snow White do get out and break off some of 11 those beautiful roses for me! And as soon as she had left the coach to 12 obey this order, the wheels drove on at full speed, but the Lady Queen 13 had ordered it all like that because she hoped that the wild animals 14 would soon devour her. (Rölleke, Märchensammlung 244, 246)12 15 In the preface to the collection in which “Spiegelliegeltje” appeared, Naegels 16 explains that the basis of his retelling is the “oerversie,” the prototypical “Snow 17 White,” and “not the later version, adapted by Wilhelm Grimm, that is included 18 in all fairy-tale collections, not that of Disney” (10).13 In fact Naegels’s “Spiegel- 19 liegeltje” combines elements from the Ölenberg manuscript and the printed 20 editions of Die Kinder- und Hausmärchen with personal alterations.14 He re- 21 phrases the second expulsion episode in a style that dramatizes the reading- 22 aloud session with a young child. This is notable in the choice of words (“a bad 23 mommy”) and the addition of exclamation marks. The adaptation of the regis- 24 ter clashes with the non-adaptation of the disturbing content. The tale that 25 Spiegelliegeltje’s mother tells is in fact even crueler than the Grimms’ version, 26 because the mother replaces the name of Snow White with her own daughter’s, 27 thereby encouraging identification.15 28 Angela Carter’s retelling of “Snow White,” “The Snow Child” (1979), is in- 29 spired by a second variant based on a letter by Ferdinand Grimm from 1808 30 and included in the Ölenberg manuscript but not in the printed version of Die 31 Kinder- und Hausmärchen. The Ölenberg manuscript mentions it as an alterna- 32 tive beginning (Rölleke, Märchensammlung 250). This variant starts with a 33 count and countess who travel together in a coach. The count wishes for a 34 daughter with the features of Snow White, and the countess then tries to get 35 rid of her. Some of the scenes in Carter’s tale are reminiscent of the expulsion 36 episode in the Ölenberg manuscript and in Naegels’s retelling. The countess 37 asks the girl to retrieve her glove, for instance, in order that she should leave 38 the coach. In the Ölenberg manuscript, Snow White’s mother uses a similar 39 excuse to get rid of her daughter when she asks her to pick some roses. 40 S 41 R

105

2nd Pass Pages 24360_06_099_115_r3ln.qxp 6/3/10 9:17 AM Page 106

VANESSA JOOSEN

1 According to Soman Chainani, this variant is a “version of Snow White that es- 2 chews all the popularized, supposedly indispensable elements of the tale” 3 through which Angela Carter can “reclaim the story’s original meaning” (217). 4 It is, however, debatable whether the variant is more “original” than the other 5 manuscript version of “Snow White,” on which the subsequent editions were 6 based. That the latter was better known may have motivated the Brothers 7 Grimm to include it in the first edition. And that the concept of “originality” is 8 problematic in the discussion of “Snow White” variants also becomes apparent 9 in Chainani’s article. Whereas in the beginning of her article she still uses the 10 term “original meaning” with reference to the variant that includes the count 11 who is not Snow White’s father (217), a few pages later she uses “original story” 12 for the variant that lies at the basis of the 1812 edition: “Carter brings back the 13 King/father figure to imply that an unflinching depiction of current relations 14 provides sufficient context for a meaningful revision of the original story” (219). 15 Chainani discusses Carter’s tale in the context of her other fairy-tale 16 retellings and notices that “Snow Child” stands out because of an “apparent in- 17 completeness of revision”: in contrast to the other stories, where Carter mixes 18 fairy-tale elements with other genres, “Snow Child” “retains and even exagger- 19 ates the fairy-tale milieu” (218). In his attempt to determine the intertextual 20 pre-text of Wim Hofman’s Zwart als inkt (“Black as ink”), the Dutch scholar 21 Tom Baudoin comes to similar conclusions: “Hofman has not so much sought 22 alliance with the definitive version of Snow White as with the creative process 23 that the Grimms themselves went through” (379).16 In some aspects, Hofman’s 24 retelling returns to the Ölenberg manuscript. First, Snow White is not perse- 25 cuted by her stepmother, but by her biological mother. Second, in the first edi- 26 tion of Die Kinder- und Hausmärchen, it is not mentioned where Snow White’s 27 father has gone once his wife starts to pursue their daughter. Both the Ölenberg 28 manuscript and Hofman’s retelling do state his absence explicitly and give the 29 same explanation: he has gone to war (Rölleke, Märchensammlung 244; Hofman 30 11–12, 14). Third, the wish that Snow White’s mother expresses in Hofman is 31 more similar to the wish of the count in the alternative “Snow White” variant 32 included in the Ölenberg manuscript (1810 B) than to the first edition of 1812: 33 34 1810 (A) 35 then she wished & said: ah, if only I had a child, as white as this 36 snow, with cheeks as red as this red blood and eyes as black as this 37 window frame! (Rölleke, Märchensammlung 244)17 38 39 alternative variant 1810 (B) S 40 then the count wished and said: if only I had a girl, with cheeks R 41 as red as this blood! Soon thereafter three coal-black ravens flew over

106

2nd Pass Pages 24360_06_099_115_r3ln.qxp 6/3/10 9:17 AM Page 107

BACK TO ÖLENBERG

and the count wished once again for a girl with such black hair like 1 these ravens. (Rölleke, Märchensammlung 250, 252)18 2 3 1812 (C) 4 so she thought: if only I had a child white as snow, red as blood 5 and black as this window frame. (Rölleke, Märchensammlung 245)19 6 7 Hofman 8 She has to be white as snow, her lips red as blood and her hair as 9 black as those ravens there. (Hofman 14)20 10 11 Hofman’s wish includes the element “hair as black as ravens” (alternative variant 12 1810 B) but puts these words in the mouth of Snow White’s mother. In the long 13 version of 1810 (A), the mother wishes for a child with eyes as black as the win- 14 dow frame. The 1812 printed edition (C) leaves unspecified what aspect of the 15 child should be black, but does include the window frame as a reference point. 16 For another aspect of the wish, the fact that the girl’s lips should be red, the 1812 17 edition presents itself as a more relevant intertext: in the 1810 versions (A and B), 18 the mother (long version) and count (alternative version) do not wish for red lips, 19 but for red cheeks. Like Naegels, Hofman mixes elements from versions in the 20 Ölenberg manuscript with aspects from the printed tales and personal alterations. 21 Some of Hofman’s alterations intensify changes that the Grimms had 22 made, as Baudoin has noted but discusses only briefly. Hofman increases the 23 number of religious references, for instance, a dimension that the Grimms had 24 developed only in later editions (Hulsens 29). Likewise, the list of household 25 chores that Snow White is ordered to fulfill in exchange for her stay at 26 the seven dwarves’ house gradually increases in the later editions (30), and is 27 further expanded in Hofman’s retelling: 28 29 1810 30 The dwarves pitied her and invited her to stay with them, and to 31 cook their diner when they left for the mine. (Rölleke, Märchensamm- 32 lung 246, 248)21 33 34 1812 35 Then the dwarves pitied her and said: ‘if you take care of our 36 household, and cook, sew, make the beds, wash and knit, also keep 37 everything tidy and clean, you can stay with us and you will lack 38 nothing; in the evening we come home, then dinner has to be ready, 39 during the day we are in the mine and dig for gold, then you are 40 S alone. [ . . . ]’ (Rölleke, Märchensammlung 251)22 41 R

107

2nd Pass Pages 24360_06_099_115_r3ln.qxp 6/3/10 9:17 AM Page 108

VANESSA JOOSEN

1 In Hofman, the dwarves become even more demanding and give Snow White 2 very specific instructions: 3 That’s how it began. The girl stayed / at home, they went to work. 4 [...] / A few weeks long they got soup. / From beans and nettles, / 5 plenty of nettles. / ‘You could cook something else, you know,’ / they 6 said. / She cooked apples and beans / and the leaves of a cabbage. / 7 ‘You should first take off the caterpillars,’ / the dwarves said. ‘Take off 8 the caterpillars / and throw them into the fire. / Just take care of the 9 garden a bit, / put ladybirds with the lice. / Hang the bunches of 10 onions / here on the joists. / Hang the bags of beans too. / The rats 11 can’t reach them then. / If you see a rat: kill it.[’] (Hofman 66)23 12 13 Whereas the dwarves in Grimm discuss the tasks when Snow White arrives, 14 Hofman’s dwarves gradually become more exigent. Their part of the arrange- 15 ment, which was still included in the Grimm version of 1812 (“you will lack 16 nothing”), remains more implicit in Hofman. The list of random instructions 17 becomes so elaborate, extending over several pages, that Snow White needs to 18 write it all down, which leads to even more orders (67). Her personal freedom 19 is increasingly curbed by trivial instructions that affect every single one of her 20 actions. She is required to attend to and maintain the household in exactly the 21 fashion preferred by the dwarves, and to sit still and be quiet for the rest of the 22 time. Several commands are patronizing and reminiscent of parents speaking 23 to a young child (“do not wobble your legs”); others seem to have no purpose 24 at all except to exert power (“crawl under the table”). From these examples, it 25 becomes clear that Hofman’s expansions can indeed be said to intensify the ed- 26 itorial process of the Grimms. However, Hofman’s retelling appeared after the 27 so-called second wave of feminism and its counterpart in fairy-tale criticism; 28 when the list of Snow White’s tasks extends over three pages it is clear that the 29 Grimms’ enumerations are exaggerated to a degree that invites criticism. Hofman 30 drives to the extreme some of the stylistic idiosyncrasies of the Gattung Grimm, 31 and the effect is a parody with an implied feminist twist. 32 33 Iring Fetscher’s Critical View on the Ölenberg Manuscript 34 35 For Carter, Naegels, and Hofman, the recovery of older Grimm editions 36 proved inspirational, and they engage approvingly with the textual material. 37 Iring Fetscher takes a more critical position with regard to research on the 38 Grimms’ manuscript and editions. In 1972, even before Rölleke had published 39 the annotated manuscript, Fetscher addressed the philological study of the S 40 Grimm tales in Wer hat Dornröschen wachgeküßt? (Who kissed Sleeping Beauty R 41 awake?). It contains several “Ur-Versionen,” which supposedly lie at the basis

108

2nd Pass Pages 24360_06_099_115_r3ln.qxp 6/3/10 9:17 AM Page 109

BACK TO ÖLENBERG

of the Grimms’ collection. Fetscher’s prototypes are in fact all parodies. His 1 “Ur-Version” of “Snow White,” in which the protagonist is depicted as a militant 2 member of the labor union, is concluded as follows: 3 4 This is what—reduced to its essential features—the proto-version of 5 “Snow White” must have looked like. The fearful adaptors from the 6 petty bourgeois or crofter circles, to whom we owe the version noted 7 by the Grimms, have done everything to disguise this prototypical 8 version so as to be unrecognizable: they turned Snow White’s volun- 9 tary, politically motivated decision into an expulsion from the court 10 motivated by the jealous stepmother’s private revenge. (61–62)24 11 In “” Fetscher shifts the focus of the authenticity question from the 12 Brothers Grimm to their oral sources: “It appears to me that in this case the 13 Brothers Grimm are not solely to blame for the adaptation. It is likely that they 14 have come across the fairy tale in an already fearfully distorted form and 15 merely harmonized and smoothed it further” (63).25 16 While Fetscher parodies the philological discourse on the Grimm edi- 17 tions, even before the most vehement debates had truly started, he had and 18 still has some interesting insights to offer. To what extent did the oral sources 19 of the Brothers Grimm, whether they were educated middle-class women or 20 elderly peasants, apply some form of self-censorship? And, one may add, if 21 this was the case, does that make their versions less representative of “the oral 22 tradition”? Is “the oral tradition” uniquely reserved for the lower social classes 23 and the illiterate? How is our concept of this tradition formed, and, to refer 24 back to Fetscher, is it ever possible to retrieve a tale in an “undistorted form”? 25 Fetscher’s parody explicitly addresses the Grimms’ tendency to harmonize the 26 tales, yet he also invites critical reflection on the contrived mythic status of 27 “the oral tradition,” a topic that Ruth B. Bottigheimer (2009) has picked up 28 again most recently in her alternative history of fairy tales. 29 Fetscher reproaches the philological paradigm for its arbitrariness and ir- 30 relevance and seems to be well acquainted with the methods and findings in 31 this field of research. From his retelling of “Snow White,” it becomes clear that 32 Fetscher was equally familiar with the research on the Grimm editions. His 33 retelling of “Mother Holle” provides further evidence. Fetscher claims that his 34 (fictional) alternative version is inspired by a textual fragment that was discov- 35 ered by philologists: “Fortunately the progressive folklorists’ year-long search 36 has now been rewarded with an unexpected find” (109).26 The report that 37 follows parodies the discovery of the Grimm manuscript in the monastery 38 of Ölenberg. Fetscher’s new version of “Mother Holle,” supposedly discovered 39 in a Franciscan monastery, turns the traditional versions upside down in a 40 S move reminiscent of the critical debate regarding the Ölenberg manuscript. In 41 R

109

2nd Pass Pages 24360_06_099_115_r3ln.qxp 6/3/10 9:17 AM Page 110

VANESSA JOOSEN

1 comparison with the old text, the printed Grimm version of “Mother Holle” is 2 shown to promote racial purity and blind obedience. In nonfictional fairy-tale 3 criticism, findings of older texts by feminists did the same with regard to gen- 4 der: scholars such as Zipes, Bottigheimer, and Rölleke revealed that Wilhelm 5 Grimm had inscribed the tales with patriarchal ideology and argued that the 6 Ölenberg manuscript and earlier editions of Die Kinder- und Hausmärchen still 7 showed aspects that were more controversial to the nineteenth-century middle- 8 class image of women (for instance, the existence of the bad mother). These 9 older versions also featured heroines with greater personal freedom and 10 agency.27 Yet the subtleties in the research of these scholars contrast with the 11 exaggerated results that Fetscher’s critics achieve. His claim that philologists 12 manipulate textual material to confirm any random meaning is supported by 13 the fact that the fictional fifteenth-century manuscript links up perfectly with 14 twentieth-century Marxist and feminist critiques, as well as with the reproach 15 of the late 1940s that the Grimm tales were “partially responsible for generat- 16 ing attitudes that led to the acceptance of the Nazis and their monstrous 17 crimes” (Zipes, Brothers Grimm 231). Fetcher’s warning that philologists may 18 use the older texts to support a contemporary ideological agenda also has 19 validity outside the fictional realm. 20 21 Conclusion 22 23 The motto of Wim Hofman’s Zwart als inkt is a quotation from T. S. Eliot’s “Lit- 24 tle Gidding.” It can be read as a metacomment on his use of intertextuality and 25 on the use of intertextuality in the genre of fairy-tale retellings as a whole: 26 “What we call the beginning is often the end / And to make an end is to make 27 a beginning” (qtd. in Hofman 5). Whereas the final edition of Die Kinder- und 28 Hausmärchen, with its status as the “ultimate” fairy-tale collection, has been 29 said to have curbed the oral tradition,28 Hofman shows that it also creates new 30 beginnings: the beginning of intertextual play with the old and the canonized 31 versions, and the beginning of a new tradition of parodies and retellings. Tom 32 Baudoin convincingly shows that Zwart als inkt, like other fairy-tale retellings, 33 thus creates an alliance with a fundamental characteristic of the oral tradi- 34 tion—its performativity and flexibility: “In the process of telling and retelling 35 some constant elements can be noted, yet fundamental for the story is the act of 36 telling itself, with all its improvisations, additions and accentuations” (Baudoin 37 379).29 Some of these additions can be connected intertextually to fairy-tale 38 criticism, yet the examples above show that the retellings rarely duplicate the 39 criticism directly, completely, or uncritically. Rather, what can be perceived is a S 40 dynamic process that involves a combination of textual elements from various R 41

110

2nd Pass Pages 24360_06_099_115_r3ln.qxp 6/3/10 9:17 AM Page 111

BACK TO ÖLENBERG

pasts with aspects and interests of the present, a fascinating amalgam of critical 1 insights and creative . 2 3 4 Notes 5 1. See, for example, Tom Baudoin, David L. Russell, Claire Malarte-Feldman, and 6 Belinda Stott. 7 2. See Joosen (2004; 2007; 2008). 8 3. Notable publications include Ernest Tonnelat’s Les contes des frères Grimm (1912 9 [The fairy tales of the Brothers Grimm]); Elisabeth Freitag’s doctoral thesis, “Die 10 Kinder- und Hausmärchen der Brüder Grimm im ersten Stadium ihrer stilgeschichtlichen Entwicklung” (1929 [“The Children’s and Household Tales of 11 the Brothers Grimm at the first stage of their historical stylistic development”]); 12 and Wilhelm Schoof’s Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Grimmschen Märchen (1959 13 [On the origin of Grimm’s fairy tales]). 14 4. All the translations included in the body of this essay are my own. The original 15 text is given in the endnotes. Original text for Rölleke: “Sie haben zu diesen Din- gen nur geschwiegen, vieldeutig geschwiegen, wie man an der Wirkung sieht.” 16 5. Note that this is an equally popular strategy in fairy-tale films, such as Hood- 17 winked and Ever After. 18 6. “Das kleine Mädchen in Rot, es hieß ...ja...das habt ihr längst erraten, es hieß 19 Rotkäppchen. Aber es war nicht das Rotkäppchen, von dem ihr vielleicht schon 20 einmal gelesen habt. Nein. Dieses Rotkäppchen hier ist das echte, richtige 21 Rotkäppchen, nicht das aus dem albernen Märchen, und diese Geschichte ist, hundert zu eins gewettet, seine wahre Geschichte.” 22 7. “In de bundel ‘Sprookjes’ wordt het oorspronkelijke gegeven niet vervormd. 23 Soms zelfs—zoals in het sprookje van Roodkapje—nog verder teruggebracht 24 naar de oorspronkelijke vorm, voordat de gebroeders Grimm het bewerkten.” 25 8. “Klein Duimpje. Zeg maar Duim. Ik ben oud en ziek, en ik wil mijn verhaal 26 vertellen. Het zal, dat beloof ik, grimmiger zijn dan het fletse vertelsel dat door twee Duitse broers de wereld werd ingestuurd. Zij hadden het over een huisje in 27 het bos, over een vrouwtje en een reus, en over zevenmijlslaarzen waarmee de 28 reus over het land liep, op zoek naar mij en mijn zes broers. Belachelijk!” 29 9. “Unsere oben gedruckte variante ging auf solche vor Grimm zurück. [ ...] Zu- 30 gleich war die folklorische nähe eine absage an den biedermeierlich und oft verk- 31 itschten ‘märchenschatz Grimm,’ wie er in vielen schallplatten und funksedungen 32 auch heute noch gang und gäbe ist.” Note that Gmelin uses alternative spelling, refraining from using capitals for nouns, as is common in German. 33 10. “Spiegelliegeltje” is an untranslatable title, a nonsense word relying on wordplay. It 34 refers to the name of the little girl in the story and is an extension of the Dutch word 35 “spiegel” (). The association with the verb “liegen” (lying) is also possible. 36 11. “Spiegelliegeltje werd achtergelaten door haar mama in het donkere bos. Het was 37 een slechte mama, die jaloers was op Spiegelliegeltje omdat Spiegelliegeltje zo mooi was. Mooier dan mama en dat kon mama niet verdragen! Dus bracht ze Spiegel- 38 liegeltje met haar koets het bos in, en in het midden van het bos zei ze plots: ‘Och, 39 stap toch uit en pluk van die mooie rozen voor mij!’ Maar zodra het meisje uit- 40 S 41 R

111

2nd Pass Pages 24360_06_099_115_r3ln.qxp 6/3/10 9:17 AM Page 112

VANESSA JOOSEN

1 gestapt was, sloot de boze moeder de deur en reed er in volle vaart vandoor. En ze 2 hoopte dat de wilde dieren haar mooie dochtertje snel zouden opeten.” 3 12. “Wie nun der Herr König einmal in den Krieg verreist war, so ließ sie ihren Wagen an [ . . . ] spannen u. befahl in einen weiten dunkeln Wald zu fahren, u. nahm 4 das Schneeweißchen mit. In dem selben Wald aber standen viel gar schöne rothe 5 Rosen. Als sie nun mit ihrem Töchterlein daselbst angekommen war, so sprach 6 sie zu ihm: ach Schneeweißchen steig doch aus u. brich mir von den schönen 7 Rosen ab! Und sobald es diesem Befehl zu gehorchen aus dem Wagen gegangen 8 war, fuhren die Räder [ ...] in größter Schnelligkeit fort, aber die Frau Königin 9 hatte [es, HR] alles so befolen. weil sie hoffte, daß es die wilden Thiere bald verzehren sollten.” 10 13. “niet de latere, door Wilhelm Grimm herwerkte versie die in alle sprookjesboeken 11 staat, niet die van Disney.” 12 14. Naegels also doubles the ending, combining both Disney’s (the kiss) and the 13 Brothers Grimm’s (Snow White coughs up the apple). 14 15. “Spiegelliegeltje” is a retelling for children that tells the story of a mother who suf- fers from manic depression and attempts to kill her daughter with a poisoned 15 apple. It is unclear whether the daughter dies and is revived by magic or if she 16 simply pretends to have died. At the end of the story, the mother kisses her back 17 to life. 18 16. “Hofman niet zozeer aansluiting zoekt bij de definitieve versie van Sneeuwwitje 19 als wel bij het creatieve proces dat de Grimms zelf doormaakten.” 20 17. “da wünschte sie u. sprach: ach hätte ich doch ein Kind, so weiß wie diesen Schnee, so rothbackigt wie dies rothe Blut u. so schwarzäugig wie diesen Fenster- 21 rahm!” 22 18. “da wünschte der Graf u. sprach: hätte ich ein Mädchen, mit so rothen Wangen, 23 als dieses Blut! Bald darnach flogen drei kohlschwarze Raben vorüber u. der Graf 24 wünschte wiederum ein Mädchen von so schwarzem Haar, wie diese Raben.” 25 19. “so dachte sie: hätt ich doch ein Kind so weiß wie Schnee, so roth wie das Blut und so schwarz wie dieser Rahmen.” 26 20. “Wit moet ze zijn als sneeuw, haar lippen rood als bloed en haar haar zo zwart als 27 die raven daar.” 28 21. “Die Zwerge hatten Mitleiden mit ihm u. ersuchten es, bei ihnen zu bleiben, u. 29 ihnen das Eßen zu kochen, wann sie ins Bergwerk ausgingen.” 30 22. “Da hatten die Zwerge Mitleiden und sagten: ‘wenn du unsern Haushalt versehen, 31 und kochen, nähen, betten, waschen und stricken willst, auch alles ordentlich und reinlich halten, sollst du bei uns bleiben und soll dir an nichts fehlen; Abens 32 kommen wir nach Haus, da muß das Essen fertig seyn, am Tage aber sind wir im 33 Bergwerk und graben Gold, da bist du allein [ ...].’” 34 23. “Zo begon het. Het meisje bleef / in huis zij gingen werken. [ ...] / Een paar 35 weken lang kregen ze soep. / Van bonen en brandnetels, / brandnetels genoeg. / 36 ‘Je mag ook wel iets anders koken,’ / zeiden ze. / Ze kookte appels en bonen / en de bladeren van een kool. / ‘Je moet wel eerst de rupsen eraf halen,’ / zeiden de 37 dwergen. ‘Haal de rupsen eraf / en gooi ze in het vuur. / Zorg maar wat voor de 38 tuin, / zet lieveheersbeestjes bij de luizen. / Hang de bosjes met uien / maar hier 39 aan de balken. / Hang de zakjes bonen ook maar op. / De ratten kunnen er dan S 40 niet bij. / Als je een rat ziet: sla hem dan dood.[’]” R 41

112

2nd Pass Pages 24360_06_099_115_r3ln.qxp 6/3/10 9:17 AM Page 113

BACK TO ÖLENBERG

24. “So muß—auf die wesentlichen Züge reduziert—das Ur- etwa 1 ausgesehen haben. Die ängstlichen Bearbeiter aus dem kleinbürgerlichen oder 2 kleinbäuerlichen Milieu, denen wir die von dem Grimms notierte Fassung ver- 3 dankten, haben alles getan, um diese Urform unkenntlich zu machen: Aus dem 4 freiwilligen, politisch motivierten Entschluß Schneewittchens machten sie diese Verbannung vom Hofe auf Grund eines privaten Racheaktes der eifersüchtigen 5 Stiefmutter.” 6 25. “Mir scheint, in diesem Fall darf man den Brüdern Grimm jedenfalls nicht allein 7 die Schuld an der Umarbeitung geben. Sie haben das Märchen vermutlich schon 8 in ängstlich deformierter Gestalt vorgefunden und es lediglich weiter harmon- 9 isiert und geglättet.” 26. “Zum Glück ist nun aber die jahrelange Suche der progressiven Volkskundler 10 durch einen überraschenden Fund belohnt worden.” 11 27. See, for example, Bottigheimer’s analysis of “Our Lady’s Child” in various editions 12 (Bad Girls 87). 13 28. See Pischke, “Das veränderte Märchen” (“The altered fairy tale”). 14 29. “In het proces van navertellen en doorvertellen zijn weliswaar enkele constanten 15 aan te wijzen, maar wezenlijk voor het verhaal is het vertellen zelf, met al zijn im- provisaties, toevoegingen en accentueringen. [ . . . D]eze openheid en dynamiek 16 [zijn] ook kenmerkend voor de versie van Wim Hofman.” 17 18 19 Works Cited 20 Baudoin, Tom. “Illusies en desillusies. Hoop en wanhoop: Over Wim Hoffmans 21 Sneeuwwitje.” Literatuur zonder leeftijd 43 (1997): 377–94. 22 Bennett, Bruce. “The True Story of Snow White.” 1999. The Poets’ Grimm: 20th Century 23 Poems from Grimm Fairy Tales. Eds. Jeanne Marie Beaumont and Claudia Carlson. 24 Ashland, OR: Story Line Press, 2003. 177. 25 Bettelheim, Bruno. : The Meaning and Importance of Fairy Tales. 26 London: Thames and Hudson, 1976. Bottigheimer, Ruth B. Fairy Tales: A New History. Albany: State U of New York P, 2009. 27 ———. Grimms’ Bad Girls and Bold Boys: The Moral and Social Vision of the Tales. New 28 Haven, CT: Yale UP, 1987. 29 Carter, Angela. Burning Your Boats: Collected Short Stories. London: Vintage, 1996. 30 Chainani, Soman. “Sadeian Tragedy: The Politics of Content Revision in Angela Carter’s 31 ‘Snow Child.’” Marvels & Tales 17.2 (2003): 212–35. Dahl, Roald. Rhyme Stew. London: Penguin, 1989. 32 Doderer, Klaus. Reisen in Erdachtes Land: Literarische Spuren von Ort—Essays. München: 33 Iudicium, 1998. 117–29. 34 Dreesen, Jaak. “De wraak van Klein Duimpje.” Héél lang geleden: bekende schrijvers 35 vertellen hun lievelingssprookjes. Ed. Belle Kuijken. Tielt, Belgium: Lannoo, 2002. 36 46–53. 37 Ellis, John M. One Fairy Story Too Many: The Brothers Grimm and Their Tales. Chicago: Uof Chicago P, 1983. 38 Fetscher, Iring. 1972. Wer hat Dornröschen wachgeküßt? Das Märchen-Verwirrbuch. 39 Frechen: Komet, 2000. 40 S 41 R

113

2nd Pass Pages 24360_06_099_115_r3ln.qxp 6/3/10 9:17 AM Page 114

VANESSA JOOSEN

1 Freitag, Elisabeth. “Die Kinder- und Hausmärchen der Brüder Grimm im ersten Sta- 2 dium ihrer stilgeschichtlichen Entwicklung.” PhD thesis. Frankfurt (1929). 3 Gmelin, Otto F. “Böses kommt aus Märchen.” Die Grundschule 3.3 (1975): 124–31. ———. Märchen für tapfere Mädchen. Illus. Doris Lerche. Gießen: Edition Schlot, 1978. 4 Harries, Elizabeth Wanning. Twice Upon a Time: Women Writers and the History of the 5 Fairy Tale. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 2001. 6 Hofman, Wim. Zwart als inkt. Amsterdam: Querido, 1998. 7 Hulsens, Eric. “De dooier en het eiwit: De evolutie van het Sneeuwwitjeverhaal in de 8 handen van de Gebroeders Grimm.” Sprookjesnummer. Ed. Johan Diepstraten. Den 9 Haag: BZZTÔH, 1982. 27–32. Hutcheon, Linda. A Poetics of Postmodernism: History, Theory, Fiction. New York: Rout- 10 ledge, 1988. 11 Joosen, Vanessa. “The Apple That Was Not Poisoned.” New Voices in Children’s Literature 12 Criticism. Ed. Sebastien Chapleau. Lichfield: Pied Piper Press, 2004. 29–37. 13 ———. “New Perspectives on Fairy Tales: The Intertextual Dialogue between Fairy- 14 Tale Criticism and German, English, and Dutch Fairy-Tale Retellings in the Period from 1970 to 2006.” Diss. U of , 2008. 15 ———. “To Be or Not to Be Tamed? Bruno Bettelheim, Jacqueline Rose, and Gillian 16 Cross on the Wolf and the Unconscious in ‘Little Red Riding Hood.’” Phrasis 17 (2007): 7–27. 18 Malarte-Feldman, Claire. “Folk Materials, Re-Visions, and Narrative Images: The Inter- 19 textual Games They Play.” Children’s Literature Association Quarterly 28.4 20 (2003–2004): 210–18. Murphy, Louise. The True Story of Hansel and Gretel. New York: Puffin, 2003. 21 Naegels, Tom. “Spiegelliegeltje.” Héél lang geleden: bekende schrijvers vertellen hun lievel- 22 ingssprookjes. Ed. Belle Kuijken. Tielt, Belgium: Lannoo, 2002. 93–99. 23 Nikolajeva, Maria. Children’s Literature Comes of Age. New York: Garland, 1996. 24 Neumann, Siegfried. “The Brothers Grimm as Collectors and Editors of German Folk- 25 tales.” The Reception of Grimms’ Fairy Tales: Response, Reactions, Revisions. Ed. Don- ald Haase. Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1993. 24–40. 26 Oertel, Liya Liv. “The Real Story of Sleeping Beauty.” Newfangled Fairy Tales. Ed. Bruce 27 Lansky. New York: Meadowbrook Press, 1997. 61–72. 28 Pischke, Hildegard. “Das veränderte Märchen: Untersuchungen zu einer neuen Gattung 29 der Kinderliteratur.” Literatur für Kinder: Studien über ihr Verhältnis zur Gesamtliter- 30 atur. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977. 94–113. 31 Rölleke, Heinz, ed. Die älteste Märchensammlung der Brüder Grimm: Synopse der hand- schriftlichen Urfassung von 1810 und der Erstdrucke von 1812. Cologny-Genève: 32 Fondation Martin Bodmer, 1975. 33 ———. “Die Kinder- und Hausmärchen der Brüder Grimm: Einige neuere Forschungen 34 und Erkenntnisse.” Märchen in unserer Zeit: Zu Erscheinungsformen eines populären 35 Erzählgenres. Ed. Hans-Jörg Uther. München: Diederichs, 1990. 92–101. 36 ———. Die Märchen der Brüder Grimm: Quellen und Studien; Gesammelte Aufsätze. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, 2000. 37 Russell, David L. “Young Adult Fairy Tales for the New Age: Francesca Lia Block’s The 38 Rose and the Beast.” Children’s Literature in Education 33.2 (2002): 107–15. 39 Schoof, Wilhelm. Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Grimmschen Märchen. Hamburg: S 40 Hauswedell, [1959]. R 41

114

2nd Pass Pages 24360_06_099_115_r3ln.qxp 6/3/10 9:17 AM Page 115

BACK TO ÖLENBERG

Scieszka, Jon. The True Story of the 3 Little Pigs! By A. Wolf. Illus. Lane Smith. London: 1 Puffin, 1991. 2 Solms, Wilhelm. Die Moral von Grimms Märchen. Darmstadt: Primus Verlag, 1999. 3 Stott, Belinda. “Cinderella the Strong and Reader Empowerment.” New Review of Children’s 4 Literature and Librarianship 10.1 (2004): 15–26. Tatar, Maria. The Hard Facts of the Grimms’ Fairy Tales. 2nd ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton 5 UP, 2003. 6 Teeuwen-Opheij, Nel. “Eigentijdse bewerkingen van bekende sprookjes.” Leestekens 7 2.3 (1982): 108–10. 8 Tonnelat, Ernest. Les contes des frères Grimm. Paris: Colin, 1912. 9 Ungerer, Tomi. Märchenbuch. Zürich: Diogenes, 2001. Zipes, Jack. Breaking the Magic Spell: Radical Theories of Folk and Fairy Tales. Rev. ed. 10 Lexington: U of Kentucky P, 2002. 11 ———. The Brothers Grimm: From Enchanted Forests to the Modern World. 2nd ed. New 12 York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002. 13 ———. Fairy Tales and the Art of Subversion: The Classical Genre for Children and the 14 Process of Civilization. New York: Methuen, 1983. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 S 41 R

115

2nd Pass Pages