The anthologies the Grimms published served as a microcosm of German culture, representing Germany in a good light to the world in terms of international relevance whilst effectively unifying it culturally. The objective nuance between nationalism and international triumph in authorship is complicated, as one’s success in their home nation spiraling into international achievement may contradict one’s motives of unifying only Germanic peoples and not the entire world. Thus, Maria Tatar demonstrates how “success” in authorship is defined by a fine line; the national and international successes of the brothers contradict one another in terms of the brothers’ initial drive.
One reason for the international popularity is how the Brothers Grimm managed to set the standards for what fairy tale collecting, a subcategory of folktale preservation, should be. Wilhelm Grimm, in particular, has been credited for “creat[ing] the classic style of the Märchen-language” (Schmidt Ihms 48), setting the bar high for all others who preserve fairy tales the way he and his brother did. This consistency and eye for detail emerged even in the 1812 edition, so even after the collection of fifty tales selected for children was published, the phrasing remained formulaic and memorable. The attractiveness of their approach was impressive as David and David cite the duo’s ultimate success as the ability to “present [their work] in such a way that their humanity could be recognized by everyone - by children, by adults, and especially by later writers for whom, as the Grimms had hoped, the märchen[, fairy tales,] served as inspiration” (David and David 195). Schmidt Ihms even goes so far as to declare that the brothers’ revolutionary linguistic approach and stylistic choice in preserving German lore are “almost sacred like the language in the Bible” (48). Their way with words and complex themes gave them a reason to become more than just literary fads; what the Grimms have left behind is “a subtle blending of folklore and literary craftsmanship” (David and David 182).
Thus, it is not difficult to acknowledge how the brothers revolutionized what folktales mean to everyday life outside of Germany. In fact, what the Brothers Grimm contributed to society has been diluted because what has become popularized in society does not reflect their entire collection. The Kinder-und Hausmärchen “inspired folklorists in Europe and Great Britain to gather tales from their oral traditions to preserve as part of their cultural heritage” (Zipes, “How the Grimm Brothers Saved the Fairy Tale”) which represents how inherently nationalistic and patriotic the Kinder-und Hausmärchen is. By promoting their own nationalistic notions in their works, they ironically revolutionized the importance of folktales in other countries. Specifically in the United States, The Chicago Daily Tribune noted interest in the Grimms’ work as popular composers in Germany decided to adapt these stories into operas (MacGowan). In fact, Tatar goes so far as to assert that it was the United States’ warm welcome to the duo’s preservation of the tales that propelled the duo towards worldwide acclaim. She reveals, “The American adoption and popularization of German folklore marked a move that consolidated the dominance of the Grimms, ironically turning tales that had been recruited for a nationalist agenda into an international canon,” (Tatar 87-88). Thus, it can be argued that the works of the Grimms have become so ingrained in countries that are not Germany that they even ironically became a part of non-German cultures. Tatar concludes, “The Grimms’ Kinder-und Hausmärchen assumed an importance far beyond what the two brothers ever imagined, and in Anglo–American cultures, German folklore took root in ways that made it feel to many as if it were indigenous lore,” (85). This demonstrates how impactful the stories the brothers popularized became since these tales morphed into more than just literature, even over four thousand miles away.
The appeal to children, politically driven or not, embodies universality that the brothers likely did not anticipate would drive them into the spotlight outside of their birth nation. Zipes suggests, “[t]he variety of their tales is often overlooked because only a handful have been selected by parents, teachers, publishers, and critics for special attention to form what we might consider today the Grimm canon,” (Zipes, Enchanted Forests to the Modern World 47). So, while only some of the tales have become hugely successful relative to their counterparts, these unknown stories still manage to hold significance in the context of global literature. Specifically, maybe the stories were favorable to children not because their parents were attempting to force Christian ideals onto them but because these fairytales resonate with children; the social hierarchies represented can be interpreted as parallels with the child-adult dynamic in which children are at the bottom of the hierarchy (Schmidt Ihms 51). Not only were children accounted for in the brothers’ works, but women who felt voiceless in society had access to these tales. This almost gives them representation that they would not have outside of society. Hence, “[t]he one work by the Grimms that had the most lasting influence did not have ‘German’ in its title. The Kinder-und Hausmärchen, instead, emphasized that the tales in that volume were oriented toward an audience of children, and that they belonged to the domestic sphere, being something on the order of old wives’ tales,” (Tatar 81). Furthermore, “[c]leaning up the Kindermärchen was a job that the Grimms took seriously over the decades, as they progressively adapted, revised, edited, polished, standardized, and miniaturized the stories to develop what came to be known as a Märchenstil, a style both child-friendly, but also in general terms reader-friendly,” so the brothers’ work was accessible to those who did not necessarily get a formal education (85). This mirroring of social norms in their stories made the Brothers Grimm’s anthologies impactful to more than just academics, Romantics, and nationalists.
This intersection between creating a national identity for the sake of nationalism and accidentally popularizing one’s culture is ironic since the brothers had created an “international repertoire” instead of an innately German anthology (Tatar 86). Zipes remarks,
The Grimms wanted to bequeath the oral tales to the German people, not realizing that these tales would assume relevance in all cultures. Though the tales can be considered part of a German nationalist movement in the nineteenth century, they were also related to tales from many other nations, and this relationship accounts for their international appeal today.” (“How the Grimm Brothers Saved the Fairy Tale”)
This pertinence was unexpected and paradoxical. Since Americans eventually embraced the Grimms’ tales to be part of the American identity, the Grimms’ initial goal of creating something culturally rich for Germans to bond over had been overshadowed by their commercial success; the supposed source for German unity had become a source of international connection (Tatar). One reason for this is how the brothers’ national agenda became overlooked by the rest of the world. Schmidt Ihms suggests that the duo may have simply made their stories more timeless; because the political foundations can be disregarded, the social issues illuminated by the Grimms are applicable to any era (51). Furthermore, Tatar claims that in this century, it is not “logical to frame cultural spaces in national terms” as it had been when the brothers produced their anthologies (89). But even though the idea of national, ethnic, and cultural borders has changed by the twenty-first century, the fact that the duo’s works are recognized worldwide shows how they managed to penetrate through Germany’s cultural limits during a time when globalization had not peaked as it has now. Hence, the ironic relevance of the anthologies stood the tests of both borders and time, which catapulted the brothers into being the faces of German lore. This ultimately unifies the German identity, but it does so by way of international representation instead of just commonality.