It's only a matter of time before this postern is ironically plastered across dorm rooms everywhere.

Also, is there supposed to be some veiled reference to warts here here?

Isn't it supposed to be a *frog* prince anyway?

Am I just stupid here? Because I totally don't get this...

Kiss a toad and he's still a smaller toad not a prince?

And what is the rat doing there? I am so lost. How is this promoting abstinance??

Abstinence from KISSING? And implicitly targeted specifically towards women?? What the...

i guess the message is: once you marry a toad, but not before, you can put your mouth towards him and he will become a prince. i don't see what's so confusing or bizarre about that...
it pains me that these poster-makin' people are using my tax dollars to do it, i don't doubt. PAINS. ouch.

i guess the message is: once you marry a toad, but not before, you can put your mouth towards him and he will become a prince. i don't see what's so confusing or bizarre about that...
it pains me that these poster-makin' people are using my tax dollars to do it, i don't doubt. PAINS. ouch.

I think the message is more: If a man wants to kiss a woman before marriage then he is a toad/rat (prince).

I think the bizarity comes from the confused message that seems to translate literally to: Kiss a toad and he's still a frog not a prince (that still looks like a frog).

I also don't recall the fairytale featuring a toad or a rat and the prince is supposed to be human.

I'm pretty sure this is not what the Grimm Brothers had in mind.

On the plus side it appears to be discontinued.

This has nothing to do with the abstinence poster, but let me say: Classic Concentration rocks. I had the good fortune to attend a panel about the game Concentration at the 2005 Game Show Congress.

They even made a quickie rebus from my first name "Mitchell": a baseball MITT + a SHELL that you find at the beach.

Neat, huh?

So you're supposed to marry the toad? What is it with Republicans and sex with animals? Santorum and his man-on-dog, Cornyn with his box turtles, Neal Horsley and his mule. Sick, sick people.

Christine-I want to know how your precious tax dollars had anything to do with this poster? I'm confused about that.

And yes, the poster is absolutely freakin' stoopid.

Heh. They got the fairy tale wrong, too. In the fairy tale, y'see, she promises the frog that if it retrives her toy for her, she'll let it eat off her plate, drink from her cup, and sleep with her in her bed.

It does, and she goes home. It shows up at the palace, and her father makes her keep her promise vis-a-vis the plate and cup, and then tries to force her to let it sleep in her bed. However, she is so repulsed at the thought of sleeping with a frog, that she actually picks it up and hurls it against the wall, at which point it becomes a handsome prince. They tell her father the next morning and she is happily married.

I like the moral of the actual fairy tale which seems to be a) nobody can force you to sleep with someone you don't want to, not even your father, even if you promised and b) if you don't make your wishes on the matter crystal clear, you won't get your handsome prince.

EG,

Hmmm... that's an interesting interpretation.

That is not how the morality of the tale is generally perceived. It's usuallly interpreted as being about a spoilt princess who learns about the true meaning of friendship and her own selfishness.

It's an interpretation consistent with the plot and reward structure of the tale. The idea of it being about "the true meaning of friendship" is odd. The friendship in the story is between the Frog King and Iron Heinrich, his faithful servant/friend, the bands around whose heart burst quite audibly with happiness at the King's happiness and release. Iron Heinrich is more important than most of us realize (he often gets left out of the story), because his name is often an alternate title of the tale, but he has little to do with the princess.

I really don't see what's selfish about not wanting to sleep with someone. One could make the argument that she shouldn't then have made the agreement, in which case the tale could also be cautionary, about thinking through one's promises, but nonetheless, she is rewarded for her refusal to sleep with someone she finds repellant.

She's not selfish because she rejects the kings choice of suitor...

She's selfish because she promises the frog friendship in return for getting her ball back, and then when he gets her the ball, she isn't thankful and she doesn't honor her promise (until her father forces her to).

That's why she's selfish, she expects to get everything for free and shows absolutely no gratitude for what she has.

It has nothing to do with some suitor.

In fact I just read the translation of the original german version, and there is no mention of a suitor or a wedding.

Next time you take us to "school", perhaps you should know a little about what you're talking about.

The king does force the girl to sleep with the frog (not have sex with or marry a prince?), but only because she said she'd promise the frog anything and not because the king had plans to marry her to a prince.

In the original version, the other King takes his son back home, and there's no mention of a romance between him and the young princess.

I'd have to say that the morals to the story are "listen to your parents", "don't make promises you don't intend to keep", "always show gratitude for others when they help you" and "don't judge a book by its cover".

Nowhere does the story imply that you should disobey with your parents orders, because if she had, the frog would never had made it through the front door.

What is this suitor you're talking about? Do read what I wrote, which was that the King tries to force her to sleep with the frog. I quote from the tale: "Then said the King, "That which thou hast promised must thou perform."

I have no idea what "original German form" you could possibly be talking about--and indeed, fairy tales are my area of expertise. If you're interested in the history of the tale, you can try this site which is well known in fairy-tale scholars circles as being painstakingly accurate. There is a 13th-century Latin version; is that what you're referencing? Edgar Taylor, the first English translator of the tale, substantially altered the ending by combining the Grimms' "The Frog King" with their "Frog Prince," so that the princess receives her reward of a handsome prince after sleeping with the frog for three nights, and that fits into the didactic, moralistic, and sexist "lessons" that you propose are at the tale's heart, and indeed, are more palatable to many people. Not to me, though. I find the notion that one should keep one's promises to be far outweighed by the importance of not sleeping with people against one's will. As well as the importance of knowing that you can always change your mind about sleeping with people, even if you ought to keep your promises in other circumstances.

I prefer the original version, in which it is made clear that promising to have sex is not enforceable. The princess hurls the frog at the wall, and only then gets a happy ending.

There's a sixteenth-century Scottish version that combines the obedience and the violence--she shares her bed with the frog, keeping her distance from the repulsive creature, on the orders of her wicked stepmother, and then cuts off his head at his bidding.

I prefer the German one, though.

EG, this story is often interpreted as a coming of age tale, with the final act of the girl asserting her will, finding herself, and at that point being mature enough to join with the prince. So you are correct along those lines.

Since it was oral long before being written down, it changed a bit throughout Europe. The basic idea of the frog surprisingly turning out to be something better...a prince, is the common theme.

What I personally can appreciate in the Grimm story is the lesson that in order to find happiness you have to be open to other people (and frogs), who come your way, and take an active role in achieving that goal.

The princess was not happy. The prince (frog) was not free. Both had needs, and the frog's fate rested on the princess's willingness to open that front door.

I believe there are several indicators that the princess was very unfufilled and unhappy, and trapped in the life she had. For these reasons:

1. She lived with an authoritative father, the "youngest" of the daughters (the older sisters might have been given the opportunity to marry and get out of the house)

2. Even the Scottish version has a wicked step-mother as you pointed out, further evidence of a confining home life in either version.

3. The princess spends her time not with a suitor, a friend, or anyone else. Instead she goes into a "dark" forest to sit beside a well.

4. She is the most beautiful of the sisters, so beautiful the sun is astonished. Beauty, as you know, can be very isolating and lonely. The father-king may even delay allowing his daughter to marry and find suitors unworthy.

5. Even though it is oddly a golden ball (a material object) she has lost, she shows her lack of need or desire for material things by offering up —"my clothes, my pearls and jewels, and even the golden crown which I am wearing."

So she is unhappy, and she has no desire for material things, so what does she want?

This princess wants happiness. She wants a life for herself but cannot fathom how to obtain it. At the beginning the tale starts out: "In Olden times when wishing still helped one..." Wishing?? Yes, the princess wished, dreamed, yearned, wanted, but didn't know how to make it happen. I think it's interesting also that she sits by a well - often a symbol of wishing or foretelling of the future.

The frog appears, and is in reality a fufillment of her desires, but she cannot recognize him for what he is...a prince. She loses her golden ball and becomes hysterical. That ball represents her current life, and as requested the frog retrieves it for her. The princess runs away.

But NEED has a strange way of creeping back up on us all. And the frog does creep. He appears at the door.

Here is opportunity number two for her. She once again rejects him, and her future, because she cannot see it. Furthermore, she is absolutely petrified at the idea of change in her life. So much so that "her heart was beating violently." If the frog is merely a disgusting creature, and nothing to really be feared (I mean Grimm could have made him a wolf or jackel or boar or any number of things), then why the fear?

The frog then reminds her of what she said at the well, which was more or less that she would do anything if he would return her happiness to her. The frog is at the door, and really, that is what he is trying to do, ultimately.

So she does make the effort, opening the door, picking him up, letting him eat off her plate, etc. At the end, of course, after rejecting him once more, the prince reveals himself, with "kind" eyes.

I also found this next line very interesting:

"He by her father's will was now her dear companion and husband."

How telling is that! Her father already agreed (more or less tricked) into ordering her to accept the frog as her lifelong companion. Now that he is a prince, the father has to allow her to leave with him. Her desires and wishes are now fufilled.

totally reminds me of a piece i wrote on the most blasphemous "Bible for teenagers" ever published.

click here to read article

EG,

I don't see the frog as a sexual predator, he wants to eat from her plate, drink from her cup and sleep under her pillow. I think that is about friendship and acceptance. Maybe the frog behaves a bit differently in the version you are referring to. Is it online anywhere ?

I find the morality that you read into the tale rather dubious. Which seems to be, make any promises you like with no intention of keeping them, in order to manipulate (although be careful because you might have to keep them). Renege on your promises, then treat said promisee however you like because they look a bit icky and at the end of the day you don't owe anybody anything.

Do you not think our little froggy friend is mistreated in any way ? If you were to take the frogs request to sleep in her bed at face value, rather than assume he's after sex would that change the morality of the tale to you ?

MsJane,

I agree with most of what you said, except I think the maturing of the princess is less about her asserting herself and more about her learning about morality and responsibility.

Also, she only makes the effort because her father insists, I don't see how her father tricked her, he simply insisted she keep her promise and so it is by his will (to keep her promise) that she ends up with the prince.

EG - Your version may not be the historically accurate one, but I like it! While it's important to honor promises, it's not ok to bully people (or frogs or whatever) into friendship or anything else.

Everyone else - Yeah, the poster sucks and is kind of nonsensical. I really hope that my tax dollars didn't contribute to it.

The moral of the story: don't sleep with frogs or kiss rats. I think.

The poor old frog really seems to be getting it in the neck.

DT,

His actions aren't altruistic but that's a pretty strange definition of bullying.

I look at it as a Frankenstein sort of scenario. The frog wants companionship, love and acceptance and since it's not being offered to him freely he tries to bargain for it.

xyz, could the frog not be wanting a friend but rather a nice place to sleep and eat? Especially if he was once a prince, living in a lake/river must suck.

I don't think the frog is a saint, and I'd imagine he'd be more than interested in a few home comforts.

xyz, I don't see it as a story about responsibility at all. The princess was definitely outa there once the prince was revealed.

It's not about manipulation either. And if anyone is manipulating, isn't it the frog? He kept the witch's spell a secret. He could have simply told the girl all about it. Instead he pursuades her to promise something he knows no mortal would have to keep.

Why didn't the frog simply say, kiss me and you'll get a reward? It could have been over in 2 minutes. Why was it about a princess, why wasn't it about a poor country girl who was nice to frogs and animals and had plenty of responsibility and morals and was rewarded one day when she found a "diamond in the rough" so to speak. Niceness gets rewarded. But it isn't about that.

I think it's about being proactive in changing your life. There are frogs out there who could be princes. Be open-minded, see opportunities, recognize those who help you, open the door to things you wouldn't normally.

MsJane-

That assumes that the frog prince knows that throwing him against the wall will break the curse. Chances are, he had absolutely no idea what (if anything) could break the curse against him. Telling the girl that he was in fact a prince would probably just elicit disbelief and sarcastic laughter from the selfish princess.

As far as manipulation is concerned, the frog is only seizing opportunity.

Manipulation assumes some kind of devious and dastardly planning to force someone to do something against their will.

I would go along with it if the frog had caused the ball to fall into the well... but he didn't. The princess dropped it in there on her own. The frog merely came up and suggested a trade. She gets him the ball and he gets to eat and sleep with her and become her companion/friend.

She agrees and in every version I've seen she agrees knowing that she won't hold true to her bargain.

The frog is the one manipulated.

He is tricked into getting the ball by being promised a payment for his service that the princess never intends to pay.

According to your analysis Jane, if a housepainter were to offer you their services and you promised them 10,000 dollars to do the job...never intending to pay the sum at all...and your house was painted, and you stiffed the housepainter only to be forced by the courts to pay the housepainter...according to you, the housepainter manipulated you. Obviously, that makes no sense whatsoever, since it was in fact you who manipulated the housepainter (by getting him to render services you never intended to pay for).

Telling the girl that he was in fact a prince would probably just elicit disbelief and sarcastic laughter from the selfish princess.

But the frog can talk! If I met a talking frog I wouldn't have a big problem then believing it was a prince under a spell. would you?

Suspension of disbelief covers that.

And it's integral to the story that the princess detests the frog. So, even if the frog said "hey girl, I'm a prince", she would have to detest the frog. She wouldn't believe him if he told her.

Telling the girl that he was in fact a prince would probably just elicit disbelief and sarcastic laughter from the selfish princess.

But the frog can talk! If I met a talking frog I wouldn't have a big problem then believing it was a prince under a spell. would you?

Actualy (sorry if this has double posted) maybe it is likely that she was so stunned that a frog can talk that she didn't really believe it was happening let alone that it would actually go and get her ball back so she went along with it just to see what happened. Then the frog comes back with the ball and she's stuck keeping the bargain she never really thought would happen.

I'm surprised you aren't questioning the heart condition and cure that the servant suffers from because of the prince's enchantment. I don't know how exactly metal bands would be wrapped around a heart, or how they would aid an ailing heart, or how a cured heart could break the bands...but that seems like the most unlikely part of this story.

In case you don't know about suspension of disbelief, in a story there are certain rules in the storybook world that aren't meant to be questioned by the audience.

For example in "A Midsummer Nights Dream" faeries don't really exist, there aren't flowers that act as a love potion and it's impossible to turn a man into a beast. But, when these events occur in the play, you are supposed to take them at face value, because in the universe that the play takes place in these events can and do occur. The characters likewise don't find these events fantastic, because in their world/universe, these events are quite possible.

In the world presented by "The Frog Prince, likewise, talking frogs and evil curses are possible and their existance would never be deemed strange by the characters, because in the world presented by the story, they think these events are perfectly normal.

I always thought of the (dimly remembered) princess/frog/golden ball story as yet another example of rich girl = bitch. The poor girls, however, are generally presented as being humble and sweet.

But that depends on how long ago the stories were made up. What would seem implausable now may seem reasonable in a time when gods and such were thought to control the forces of nature.

Compare say a Terry Pratchet book written in the last decade to the norse gods and the suspension of belief I should think would be subjective.

One the other hand of course these stories could be relatively new (realtive to the kind of beliefs I'm talking about) and written for the sake of amusement in which case I'm wrong.

Either way, in the context of the story, the princess would disbelieve the frog saying he was in actuality a prince trapped as a frog, and not the fact that it was possible or the fact that a frog was talking to her.

"That assumes that the frog prince knows that throwing him against the wall will break the curse."
Posted by: Eshew Obfuscation

EO, there are different versions and throwing against the wall is not in every story. The frog is not planning a specific act like being thrown against a wall. He knows his pursuit of the princess can lead to his freedom.

"Chances are, he had absolutely no idea what (if anything) could break the curse against him"
Posted by: Eshew Obfuscation

He knew very well that the princess could break the spell. He tells her in the story that "only she" could break the spell.

"The frog merely came up and suggested a trade."
Posted by: Eshew Obfuscation

Merely a trade? It's more along the lines of a faustian bargain than a fair trade. The frog is being deceptive. He expresses a desire to be something to her which is not possible. He is also taking advantage of moment of desperation, when the girl will promise the moon to get back what she lost.

"He is tricked into getting the ball."

How is he tricked? The girl is just crying and sad. She proposes no deal. It is the frog who solicits the deal. And really, what has he to lose? It takes little effort to pick up a ball in a well in which you live in, swim in, and eat in every day. It would be the same as if I was in my backyard, and your soccer ball went into my yard, and I stood there and asked what it's worth for you to get it back.

Also, the painter analogy you described is inaccurate.

A better variation on the painter who is being contracted out for work, is the analogy of a painter walking up to someone's house after a kid sprayed graffiti all over the front wall, the same day the woman is expecting guests to buy the house. The painter stands there with an extra bucket of paint. The woman is scrubbing the graffiti but can't get it off, and starts crying. The painter approaches her, and offers to put on a few brushstrokes to cover the graffiti. The woman offers to pay for his services (as the princess offers her jewels), and the painter oddly declines. Instead, he asks her to promise to marry him if her house blows up in 15 minutes. She laughs and says ok. But the painter belongs to a terrorist organization, and he has prior knowledge that her block will be attacked. Then some bombs explode and the woman's house blows up just like the painter said. Is the woman being selfish for refusing to marry the painter? Is the painter being honest or an opportunist?

Even with all that said, I don't blame the frog for anything. He is a prince trying to escape from a spell, and his destiny is to marry the princess, anyway. The manipulation factor is something you brought up, I didn't originally see it that way.

Ok Ms. Jane, you are wrong, and I'm about to show you why, in a way that you can understand.

"EO, there are different versions and throwing against the wall is not in every story. The frog is not planning a specific act like being thrown against a wall. He knows his pursuit of the princess can lead to his freedom."

Show me a non-translated "original version" that shows where the act that freed the prince wasn't throwing him against the wall in a fit of rage.

And you said "He knew very well that the princess could break the spell. He tells her in the story that "only she" could break the spell."

Again show me an "original" non-translated version where he says this. If he is being deceptive and not telling her about the spell, how can he say that "only she can break the spell", either he is being deceptive by not telling her about the spell or he tells her about the spell saying "only (you) can break the spell". If what you are saying is true, you are contradicting your earlier statement.

And then you say...

"Merely a trade? It's more along the lines of a faustian bargain than a fair trade. The frog is being deceptive. He expresses a desire to be something to her which is not possible. He is also taking advantage of moment of desperation, when the girl will promise the moon to get back what she lost."

How is promising that the frog will be her best friend and will hang out with her always expressing a desire to do something impssible. He doesn't ask her to feel anything for him, he just asks to join her in all of her tasks. That is entirely possible, whether or not she desires it.

And then you said...

"How is he tricked? The girl is just crying and sad. She proposes no deal. It is the frog who solicits the deal. And really, what has he to lose? It takes little effort to pick up a ball in a well in which you live in, swim in, and eat in every day. It would be the same as if I was in my backyard, and your soccer ball went into my yard, and I stood there and asked what it's worth for you to get it back. "

Again you're wrong. She promises the frog "anything" to get it back before he proposes the deal. She says, jewels, wealth, "anything". He hasn't even said at this point that he can, in fact, retrieve the ball. It is she who requests his services at any price possible and not even he who offers his services. She then agrees to be his constant companion, because she feels that there is no way possible that he can expect to be paid. She is expecting something for nothing. She says she would give anything to get the ball, and then it turns out that she is, in fact, full of shit.

You are wrong, it is in fact she who solicited the deal by saying that she would give anything to get it back. He merely responds to the proposition by offering his terms. Terms she accepts with no intention of honoring. That is how the frog is tricked. She offers a deal, he responds with an offer, she accepts the offer with no intention of honoring the offer. In good faith, the frog honors his end of the bargain, and the girl accepts her profit from her end of the bargain without repaying the frog with her end of the deal. It doesn't matter what he "has to lose". By the same token, what does she have "to lose" by honoring her end of the bargain and allowing the frog companionship. Absolutely nothing. You are wrong.

And then you went on in vain to say...

"A better variation on the painter who is being contracted out for work, is the analogy of a painter walking up to someone's house after a kid sprayed graffiti all over the front wall, the same day the woman is expecting guests to buy the house. The painter stands there with an extra bucket of paint. The woman is scrubbing the graffiti but can't get it off, and starts crying. The painter approaches her, and offers to put on a few brushstrokes to cover the graffiti. The woman offers to pay for his services (as the princess offers her jewels), and the painter oddly declines. Instead, he asks her to promise to marry him if her house blows up in 15 minutes. She laughs and says ok. But the painter belongs to a terrorist organization, and he has prior knowledge that her block will be attacked. Then some bombs explode and the woman's house blows up just like the painter said. Is the woman being selfish for refusing to marry the painter? Is the painter being honest or an opportunist? "

Either way, why promise something you don't intend to deliver on for services rendered. Again, it was the princess who first said that she would do anything to get the ball back before the prince offered his service. It doesn't matter what the princess promised, it's the fact that she promised it. She expected to get something for nothing. The least she could have done is been cordial and thankful to the frog for returning her precious treasure. Was she? No. She tried to ignore his pleas to enter her castle. She acted as if he had done nothing for her.

And of course you can't blame the frog, he's done nothing malicious.

If the princess thought that she couldn't honor the terms of the frogs agreement, she should have just said "no thanks, I'll figure out another way to get my ball back". However, she didn't. And then she tried (unsuccessfully) to rip the frog off. This is how the frog was manipulated. Again SHE PROMISED SOMETHING SHE DIDN'T INTEND TO HONOR. That was the princesses mistake.

YOU ARE WRONG.

I have no idea what "non-translated original version" you are asking for. Neither did EG. I am talking about the Grimm tale. If you have some other "proof" of your version which is different than how everyone else in the world knows the story then link it here.

The frog proposes the deal. It does not happen the other way around as you claim. The Princess does not rent herself out to the frog, she offers simple material things as payment.

"Be quiet, and do not weep," answered the frog. "I can help thee, but what wilt thou give me if I bring thy plaything up again?" "Whatever thou wilt have, dear frog," said she—"my clothes, my pearls and jewels, and even the golden crown which I am wearing."

MsJane:

You may wish to look at the versions available.

There are two Grimm tales, nearly identical, with different endings, and oddly, one translation that translated the beginning of the first and the end of the second into yet another version. There are also a number of variants.

In the first version (and just to be clear, we are talking about the Grimm fairy tale here, as of the 1812 publication), although the princess does first offer (presumably honestly) her material goods, she also, in fact, falsly promises what the frog actually wants, and there's no reason to believe that the frog would know that being hurled against a wall would break an enchantment.

I strongly caution against assigning complex morals to folk tales, however. As a general rule, if it isn't something a small child would have immediately comprehended, it probably wasn't intended by the author. Here, the only lesson I'd take away is, "You must keep your promises," and maybe "Although keeping a promise may be unpleasant at first, there are big rewards at the end if you do."

I am not at all a fan of the form of deconstructionism that seems to be the crux of this argument.

Thank you Zed for interjecting.

And I agree, the major moral is to not make promises you don't intend to keep, and to keep the promises you do make.

A minor moral would be not to judge a person (or animal) based on their outward appearance.

And thank you Zed for clarifying which version of the story I was referring to. If there are variations of the story where the prince knows what will break his spell and where the prince offers to retrieve the ball without being asked, I'm almost positive they were variations that came after the 1812 publication (which was my point).

The major reason I feel like the girl manipulated the frog is because when she makes the promise she laughs inside her own head because she knows it will be rediculous for the frog to expect her to uphold the bargain and yet she still promises to be the frogs companion. If that isn't manipulative, I don't know what is.

I just have to say I'm thoroughly enjoying this discussion. I hope it goes on for ever! (I'm being serious). I'm too tired to say anything remotely pertinent.

I'm starting to think all issues should be discussed in relation to talking frogs and people.

Thank you Zed, for the link. You'll notice there are two versions from Grimm. I have been talking all this time about the most well known version, which is dated 1815. This is how it is described:

1814. Volume two of Kinder- und Hausmärchen appears in print, pre-dated 1815, adding 70 stories to the previous collection. This famous work will see six additional editions during the Grimms' lifetime. In its final version it will contain 200 numbered stories plus 10 "Children's Legends." It is destined to become the best known and most influential book ever created in the German language.

There also happens to be, to which I guess EO is going nuts about, a first volume of stories which is described thusly:

1812. The Grimm brothers publish volume one of Kinder- und Hausmärchen (Children' and Household Tales), an unpretentious book containing 86 numbered folktales.

So obviously I am speaking about the most famous version of this story. The two versions are compared here:

Link to two Grimm versions

Although in EO's version, the princess acts a bit more spoiled, I maintain that she never directly proposes anything to the frog, much less a bargain that the frog has in mind. This Zed, you agreed with, but I don't align with your view that the frog did not know the princess was his ticket to freedom. In the 1815 version, the frog tells the princess, after becoming a princess:

"...he told her how he had been bewitched by a wicked witch, and how no one could have delivered him from the well but herself."

Here is a full length version of the story:

Pretty Nat Geographic Link to Grimm

I would also like to make note that we can go back further in time, if the dates matter so much. Grimm talked about a much earlier Gaelic version, right on your website Zed, which I found very interesting. It made a lot of sense to me and read more like a myth than a bedtime story. And I like that. It's called "The Queen who sought a drink from a certain well," based from "Wearie Well at the Warldis End."

In that version, there is a Queen, not a King, and her daughters try to retrieve water at the well to cure their mother. The frog (yet again!) proposes his faustian bargain, and demands she marry him and he will allow her to retrieve the water. The brave princess agrees, and brings him inside the house. Still (as the first princess) she is relucant to get close to the frog, regardless of her promise. She is human, after all. She rejects him, then cuts off his head, and he turns into the prince.

There is also an entertaining old Hindu tale where the frog also tries to force his way into joining with a princess, and he turns back to a prince due to prayer. The mother of the frog is said to have had a magical power, also. This story is Here.

It's good to see in a lot of other versions I have read, the strength of the women.

This is not about keeping a promise. And, the more I read, the more I understand that is it not about the princess, either. It is about the frog, and the encounter with it.

EO:

Actually, if you check the link I posted, you'll see that both "The Frog King" and "The Frog Prince" were published at the same time (in the same book, even). In the latter, the princess only wants unclouded water, not a ball, there are three princesses involved, and the frog does know what will break the curse, but on the other hand, the princess keeps her promise on her own (at least for three days). The moral is a little strange -- the only simple thing I can work out is "give even repulsive people a chance for three days".

When I referred to the other story ("The Frog King") as the first version, I meant that that it was the first of the two in reading order, not that it came prior chronologically.

My apologies for being unclear.

Zed thanks for the link. I posted back, but received a message saying that my post had to be reviewed by the administrator before being published.

There were two versions of the frog king published by Grimm, one in an early first book and the other in a second volume which was more widely distributed. The second one is the version I have read and been quoting off of. And yes, there is also a frog prince story which is altered quite a bit. Grimm used an old Gaelic story as inspiration, and I also read that and found the females portrayed as strong and determining their own fate. I also liked the frog sound effects. It makes for smoother re-telling and a more entertaining oral story, which is how it was all passed along to begin with.

MsJane, do you have a link to the old Gaelic story? I'd like to read it.

Ned, it is on YOUR link already.

Go to "The Queen who Sought and Drink from a Certain Well.," and then go down to the comments to read the history. It's interesting.

Here's a Hindu version on a similar theme:

Hindu Frog Story

Thanks.