Theft for Theft
The story
outlines a moral code of eye for an eye very quickly. Though many would
question the equality of the rapunzel from the garden for the baby, the story
makes the inference by naming the child Rapunzel. The sorceress, at least,
believes that these are an exchange of equal worth, possibly because the garden
is enchanted in some way. The sorceress further operates under this ideal with
casting out both Rapunzel and the prince. It is only through the force plot of
the story that the prince and Rapunzel reunite for their happily ever after.
Magic plants
The
rapunzel in the garden possess some kind of magical quality in order to so
enchant the woman. Even obtaining the food does nothing to satiate her need, as
it “had grown threefold.” Before that, the desire was such that she felt she
would die without it. Since the garden belongs to the sorceress, she would know
of any special properties, and this is the most logical explanation for
demanding the child as payment. Some piece of its magic transferred to the
child, which would explain the extreme length of her hair. Furthermore,
Rapunzel’s tears have the ability to restore the prince’s eyes.
Who’s the Father?
Rapunzel
gives birth to twins, but since there is no definitive scene where she is with
the prince, readers are left wondering about the parentage of the children. The
obvious solution is that the prince is indeed the father; however, the story is
leading the reader to a specific idea with its lack of definitive paternity. Without
a father, Rapunzel is having her own version of a virgin birth taking on the
role of Mary, and trying to cast her into a similar holy role.
It should
be noted that the 1812 version of this story was more explicit about what
Rapunzel and the prince did with lines such as “Thus they lived in joy and
pleasure for a long time” and “Rapunzel said to her, ‘Frau Gothel, tell me why
it is that my clothes are all too tight. They no longer fit me.’”
Witches Are Bad
Frau Gothel
is the victim in much of this story. It is her garden that is stolen from, and
Rapunzel clearly betrays the woman who raised her for the prince, but the story
will only ever see her as a villain, making her out to be cruel and vindictive
by demanding the child as payment, cutting Rapunzel’s hair, and casting the
prince to his doom. Gothel is typecast along with all other witches as evil and
to be avoided (though it is odd that Rapunzel’s parents actually living next to
a known sorceress).
Obligatory Happily Ever After
This story
was dark, wonderfully so until the end. I actually suspect (but sadly have no
proof) that the story originally ended with the blinding of the prince and
Rapunzel banished to the wilderness. However, in both the 1812 and 1857 version
of the story, we have the couple finding one another and the restoration of the
prince’s sight. This happily ever after comes out of nowhere, and is forced on
the reader. Neither Rapunzel nor the Prince did anything to earn this ending.
They are not actors who overcome an obstacle, who have proven themselves worthy
of this redemption at the very end. It is mere happenstance that they find one
another, and that Rapunzel’s magic tears (which smack of the power of true
love) restore his vision. Their actions in the story do not bear out this
outcome, however, as Rapunzel is betraying the person she called mother
throughout her life for a tryst with a boy.