February 28th

         In this entry, I wanted to do something a little bit different by talking about the morals of the Perrault version of Bluebeard. It is the only version with a written moral and I found it fascinating while reading all of the other stories to reflect back on this portion of this one version. Morality, while believing that one action is write and acceptable while another is wrong and bad, is what makes us innately human. It is especially interesting to me that Perrault wrote this version, for many reasons I will disclose. 

        Perrault was a trained lawyer and was said to be a part of a group of Moderns who believed that while society progressed, so did literature. In 17th century France more particularly in which Perrault lived, women were deemed property of their father until they were married, then of their husband. They were confined to their households, which in this version the wife was. Women were also forged into their identity by their husband and his wished, often becoming submissive, cooperative and a "yes man". Independent women were scary to 17th century men, and they were especially fearful of women who banded together to solve a problem or stand up for something. 

        In this version of Bluebeard, the wife actively chose to go against her husbands wishes and look inside the one room he told her not to. While this could be argued religiously as a child of God straying away from goodness and falling into sin, I think in this instance, it was a woman showing true independence from a man. In return, Bluebeard became furious with her, as he did with all of his previous wives, and wanted to kill her. He could not understand how he, a man, could be disobeyed by a woman-- with full autonomy -- who was lower than him. She was supposed to do what he said, she was supposed to obey him like a daughter does a father. However, in this moment, in a breach of contract and in a flawed second of femininity, she did what she wanted to do and she received death. What is even more astounding, is that her sister is the one who helped save her. Yes her brothers physically came to the rescue, but her sister was the one who aided in her time of need -- two women banding together to stop the man from making a rash decision in a fit of rage. Yet, Perrault ends this story with another moral, "And whatever colors their beards might be, It's not hard to tell which of the pair is master." 

           The true moral is, is that at the end of the day, even after a women has stolen back her independence and stood up to a man, Perrault still viewed Bluebeard as "in the right" and "the master" even after his murderous actions. Notice the plural. I end this with a question I still do not understand the answer to: Does Perrault understand morality is higher than social responsibility? On a social level, it makes sense to take the side of the man in 17th century France. On a moral spectrum, it would be quite clear what the true stake of the piece is, yet he finishes the story with not just one moral stake, but TWO.