[p. 21] The rough mapping out for the purposes of our study of the whole area from the Atlantic eastward to the farthest confines of India has suggested that large differences may be found in the attitude of story-tellers toward their traditional material. The clear-cut distinction made by the Irish between legends supposed to be true and purely fictional tales would be very rare, for example, in India. The student of the folktale therefore finds it very difficult to arrive at valid definitions of the various forms which the tale may assume. If he is dealing with the traditional fiction of a single country, it is usually possible to work out some rather exact definitions, but when he seeks to apply these to a distant area, all his sharp differentiations become blurred and in many cases disappear entirely.

In the English language little attempt has ever been made to arrive at sharp distinctions of this kind. The term "folktale" has always been used loosely to cover the whole range of traditional oral narrative. Sometimes the expression "wonder tale" or "fairy tale" is applied to stories filled with incredible marvels, in contrast to legends, which are presumably based, upon fact. This general distinction between the legend [6] and the fictional tale holds good over a large part of this European-Asiatic area, but especially throughout Europe, and is therefore of great practical value.

The various expressions for "folktale" or "fairy tale" in other lands than England, though well established, are all vaguely and carelessly used. The French conte populaire, the German Märchen, the Norwegian eventyr, the Swedish saga, and the Russian skazka are certainly not always exactly the same thing. The Germans have made a very special attempt to achieve [p. 22] exactness in their use of the word Märchen, but they have succeeded only in arriving at what are essentially private definitions. The very laborious efforts of Albert Wesselski, [7] for example, have only shown that the usual German use of the word Märchen has been very loose and that such a collection as the Grimms' Kinder–und Hausmärchen contains not only stories like Cinderella (which he thinks of as having the only true Märchen style), but also legends of saints and of places, pious tales from the Middle Ages, and many jokes and anecdotes. Inaccuracy like this is painful to the student of literary forms, used as he is to the conscious development and growth of special styles in the various national literatures. Thus Wesselski, keeping his eye upon what he considers the typical Märchen—Snow White, Puss in Boots, Faithful John—and closely analyzing its particular stylistic effects, decides that this form is essentially a product of the Renaissance and that it probably does not go back before the sixteenth century.

Such a conclusion has its proper historic interest. But a student of any of the tales just mentioned soon realizes that even these may exist quite independently of this very special style popularized by Perrault and Grimm. In the life history of any of our most popular folktales, one must usually go farther back than the sixteenth century and much farther afield than western Europe. If the term Märchen is to be confined to the very special style suggested by Wesselski, we shall find that a large number of versions of our best known Märchen are not Märchen at all.

The number of folktales which in at least some of their versions are considered fictitious and which have some currency in Europe and western Asia is indicated fairly well by the listen the Aarrne-Thompson Types of the Folk-Tale where are found some 700 stories, ranging from the simplest incident to the most complex wonder tale. Many of these stories, of course, have traveled a long distance to Africa or America, but there seems no doubt that their origin and principal history has been within the area we are considering.

For the practical grouping of tales, stylistic subtleties are of little value. The same tale in different lands takes on varying forms and is variously received by hearers and readers. [8] One distinction, however, is so common as to make it useful to anyone who tries to make a synopsis of the folklore activity of extensive areas. The simple anecdote, usually consisting of a single narrative motif, does not usually require any great skill or memory and seems nearly everywhere to be thought of as proper to particular social occasions different from those at which the longer complicated tale is enjoyed. There is, certainly, no absolute line to be drawn between these groups of tales, either in origin or function, and the distinction is often purely arbitrary. [p. 23]

It will, however, be convenient for our present purpose to make this distinction. We shall therefore postpone all notice of simple anecdotes [9] and first direct our attention entirely to those tales of Europe and western Asia which show complexity in their structure. Because these tales consist of a considerable series of motifs, they offer special difficulty in fitting into a satisfactory classification; and because most of them have existed over long periods of time and in many lands, their history is far from simple. For many of the tales these questions of classification and history have been seriously attempted by scholars, but the general results of such studies have never been brought together. In the pages which follow, we shall therefore pass in review not only the tales themselves, with their varieties of plot and treatment, but also whatever conclusions of folktale scholars now seem valid. [10]