My interpretation: Fortunately, what this story does have are very interesting parallels between this story and "The Dialogue Between Christ, a Youth, and the Devil." There were varying dates which the story was reportedly published, however, from my best estimation the original was published somewhere around 1786. While "The Dialogue" was somewhere around 1777...making them not too far apart in terms of the time in which they were published. However, where the two stories are different is in the idea that a sinner may be saved. For example, the story states,
"But oh, shame to tell, not one of them, except harry Harmless himself, could
repeat, or indeed had ever learned a singly prayer; upon which, Harry, justly
concluding, that those naughty boys who had so totally neglected their duty to
their Creator, could have no claim whatever to his protection, thought he should
be in more safety alone that in such wicked company, therefore moved to a
distance from them, and kneeled down to prayer himself; and he had not left hem
but a few minutes before two monstrous lions came and devoured every one of
them: after they had eaten these wicked boys, they went up to Harry Harmless but
instead of devouring him, as they had the others, they seemed as fond of him as
a dam of her young, licked his face and hands with their tongues, and then lay
down quietly upon the ground by his side; for God Almighty had heard his
prayers, as he always will those of all good little boys and girls, and had
converted the natural rage and fierceness of these dreadful bests into the
meekness and gentleness of lambs" (21).
Here, we see a "bad" child, (though he was not wicked in the sense that the other boys were wicked) being saved as a result of begging God's forgiveness. Whereas, in "The Dialogue" when the youth begs Gods forgiveness, Christ turns away and offers him to Death. Additionally, we see a purely "Good" character in Little King Pippin, (as is made abundantly clear through the repetition) who never falters. Let me just say, that if I was a child in this era, I would be pretty frightened. One either must be perfect and good, or wretchedly bad and going to hell. The characters offer little room for interpretation otherwise. Only Harry Harmless is saved even though he has a fault, however, his only fault was that he was associated with the "wicked" boys. The only thing that saved him was that he repented and remembered his prayers.
What this has to contribute to our discussion: The idea of the perfect child with absolutely no room for interpretation also reminded me of the Harry Potter post. Little King Pippin is the literal representation of what the author of that post wants Harry Potter to be...perfect, with absolutely no room for flaws. Good is always good, and bad is always bad (unless it's not THAT bad, in which case it can repent and become completely good, without ever making a mistake again). In my opinion, there is nothing to learn from a story like that...characters have flaws, just as people do...and we learn from their flaws just as we learn from our own. As Bettleheim mentioned, stories with blatant morals (such as Perrault's LRRH) don't offer as much for children to learn as stories which can be interpreted. This is because as the children grow up, so do their interpretations of stories. I'm quite certain my 13 year old sister doesn't read Harry Potter and take the same things from it that I do...but the important thing is that we can both read it, AND take something from it. The main thing I would take from Little King Pippin if I had read it in it's original time period, would be to be very afraid of making mistakes.
5 comments:
I agree with your interpretation that this story serves to warn people against any sort of mistake or "straying from the right path," and also that all people are flawed and cannot possibly be as perfect as King Pippin. However I also think that along with saying "you should be perfect" there is also some hope in that Harry Harmless is saved despite his association with the evil children, and in this respect I think the overall moral would be something along the lines of, if you can't be perfect (which you should try to be) you should not stray too far from the "path of god," for without his help you will surely perish.
This stuck out to me right away and I'm wondering if you think this was the authors intention. The little boys (besides Harry Harmless) were eaten by lions. This is quite commonly a symbol for God throughout Christian literature and even the Bible itself. I have to say I'm quite disturbed, although no longer surprised by the representation of God through this story and "A Dialogue Between Christ, Youth, and the Devil." Was this written by a Puritan author? Here's another thought, if the lion indeed is a symbol of God, do you think King Pippin may be a representation of Jesus? hmmmm, interesting!
I'm always intrigued by the original illustrations and cover work. That being said, I'm glad you included that in your blog. I think that the pictures can and often do say so much. Oh there is just so much in children's literature! exciting stuff.
I thought this was a very interesting post and I'm very glad this website was found so I could actually read the story. What stuck out to me the most is similar to what Danielle brings up at the end of her comment. I found the incident to where George Graceless (by the way i loved the naughty boys names) falls to his eventual untimely demise, that when he falls, the only thing he says is save me, and he is upset with himself for not listening to King Pippin. Here, I feel George Graceless who is at his end, puts Pippin on a pedestal not as a King, but as a higher power of some kind, either as a voice of God or maybe as Danielle says, an interpretation of Jesus?
The History of Little King Pippin was interesting to me because as I was reading it, the first thought that came to my mind to describe him was "goody-two shoes." His character kind of got on my nerves because he was so perfect. As I continued reading though, it became clear that not only was he hard-working, but he was also lucky, especially when he seemed to just miss unfortunate experiences. Instead of blaming his success on just the fact that he was perfect, a good boy, and always did his work, I think it could also be included that there is a lot of luck involved. It goes with what we discussed in class today about the evolution and appropriation of fairy tales. Here you see luck, which is a working class value, mixed with hard work which is a middle class value. It is also interesting that in our culture we always want to achieve more, and most of the time we are never really happy with what class we are naturally born into, unless it is aristocracy, or the highest class. Is it because of these types of lessons and fairy tales that we have heard throughout the centuries that we always want to achieve and become of the highest class? This seems apparent in Little King Pippin as he kept working harder and harder until he reached the aristocratic level and everyone looked up to him with admiration.
I also thought the emphasis put on attaining an aristocratic position in Little King Pippin was interesting. At the beginning of the story, Peter Pippin is incredibly poor, too poor even to go to school, but as he is a good boy and a hard worker, he gains the patronage of a rich and "bountiful" woman. Then at school he is elevated to the role of "king" and is given gifts and fineries (a "fine cap" with a feather and gold lettering) along with respect and power (all "disputes" were "referred to his decision"). And because he is lifted high above everyone else, he becomes separated from them. This separation is again emphasized during the shipwreck, when he chooses to stay on the ship alone while everyone else gets into the smaller boat. This decision saves his life but leaves him all alone on an island. When he becomes an official ruler, a governor, it is said that he treats his "inferiors" kindly, but they are still his inferiors, his "subjects." I just thought that this elevation and separation of King Pippin from other people was an interesting virtue in this story.
Post a Comment