Starting with snow white

 
9
 
Jones argues that a specific tale’s “structural and thematic core plays a vital role in maintaining the form 
and meaning of the tale as it passes from teller to teller and country to country” allowing the tale to “retain” 
a definitive shape and meaning.” In other words, the episodes and themes together ensure that “the form 
and message of the tale” are “maintain[ed]” (
New Comparative 
81). 

---

26
artistry, that ultimately produced this “model,” in addition to some of the formal elements 
defining its creation. In his work with children’s literature and understanding influence, 
David Blamires likewise recognizes the Grimms’ versions as “models,” surpassing others 
in the German tradition at the time in favor of the Grimms’ “scholarly approach and 
Wilhelm’s stylistic skill [which] managed to establish a norm of length, language and 
tone for printing traditional tales that has dominated the field ever since” (
Telling Tales 
51). In this layering of critical methodologies, I find that both the episodic or thematic 
framing of folklore, as well as formal “stylistic” adjustments have contributed to the 
continuity of the Grimms’ tales. However, I argue that each approach, while relevant, 
only operates on a single factor undergirding the formulation of a “classic” 
Snow White 
tale. Therefore, I suggest combining the two. Further, I point toward two additional 
attributes concerning the artistic production of the tale lend to its justification, as a 
classic—the cultural consciousness and adaptive ability of the creator. Thus, in this 
chapter, I contend that it is not one of these measures that justifies “what counts” in the 
minds of a of a wider audience, across geographical space and time, but four factors 
operating together: 
1)
a folkloric foundation, 
2)
the cultural consciousness of the creator, 
3)
a distinct formal style, and
4)
adaptation. 
To show the significance of what I term this multilayered approach, I will examine 
three literary adaptations of 
Snow White
that have assumed almost canonical status in 
fairy tale scholarship: Giambattista Basile’s “La schiavottella” (“The Young Slave”) 
(1634-6), Johann Karl August Musäus’ “Richilda” (1782), and Wilhelm and Jacob 

---

27
Grimm’s “Sneewittchen” (“Little Snow White”) (1812-1815). After providing a short 
critical rationale for the use of these three versions specifically, I will examine the 
workings of Jones’ structural classification, featuring this folkloric approach to 
identification in and of its own right. While Jones’ method alone does not justify a tale’s 
persistence, it does offer a lens essential to understanding the evolution of the 
Snow 
White
tales which this chapter inspects. Building history into this folkloric foundation, I 
draw in Christine Shojaei Kawan’s “A Brief Literary History of 
Snow White
,” which 
finds fault with Jones’ study and even the three traditionally conceptualized 
Snow White
tales which I highlight here. Analyses of both serve to show how the folkloric method 
alone, or even in conjunction with an historical approach, only further prompts the 
question: what “counts” as an early literary version of the 
Snow White
tale? As a result, 
one begins to see the pitfalls of relying purely on a folkloric analysis of episodic 
structure. However, by layering this approach with subsequent interrogations into 
cultural consciousness or sensitivity,
10
formal style, and adaptation and progressing 
through the tale’s traditionally referenced historical lineage (from the earliest version, 
Basile’s, to the most recent historical precursor, that of the Grimms), I display how these 
attributes together have effectuated what is now most commonly thought of as the 
“classic” early version of the