Irving Washington’s book “Rip Van Winkle,” was among the greatest early American literature works on revolutionization and which still stands out up to date. The book centrally revolves around Rip, the main actor, whose iconic status was attained with a lot of criticism from academicians and society. The theme of the book majorly relates to celebrating the American Revolution publicly. According to the book, Rip’s family disintegrates after his escape from the tyrannies of his wife Van Winkle.
The family is reunited twenty years later after his return from a Dutch village, which hosted him. Rip’s wife is associated with the “yoke of Matrimony” and “the petticoat government” and “the yoke of ancient England,” due to her accusations of laziness to her husband who could not stand out in the patrimonial estate. This was the argument the British used against Americans during the war between France and India. Accusations were made against American men for their domestic negligence to support the British Empire in their country. Metamophically Rip’s nagging wife is the British petticoat governor in the colonial era, and Rip’s reunion with his family symbolizes the American Revolution (Gabler-Hover & Sattelmeyer, 2006). Rip’s character is explored in Franklin’s ideology of work ethics hereafter.
Early American writers questioned Rip Van Winkle’s character on whether it could be considered as Ben Franklin’s antithesis and its stand on work ethics among the Americans. Dr. Woodlief believed that Franklin advocated for hard work, a belief which was seconded by another writer, Dana. They both held to the belief that Rip’s character was an antithesis of Franklin’s belief (Jackson, 2002). Rip’s character towards work ethics was positive.
It’s factual that Rip worked hard to support his family, though he worked at his neighbor’s place, his nagging wife was the one who never worked. If she had some support for her husband, might be Rip could be more fatherly in terms of domestic support. This goes contrary to Franklin’s allegations that just like all American men, Rip never worked to support his family (Gabler-Hover & Sattelmeyer, 2006).
Dr. Woodlief also stated that Rip’s Character was challenging to Franklin’s tradition and belief, that negatives stereotypes were perpetuated against wives. Dame Van Winkle’s shrewish character is the one that made her husband escape her tyranny. Rip’s character never showcased her wife in negative stereotypes, but it was her real character which was compared with the British Monarchy and “Petticoat government” (Jackson, 2002).
Rip’s character goes against Franklin’s ideology of work ethics when he goes on the mountains and starts playing the famous game instead of working for his family. His exile was too long for a man to abandon his family duties. However, his concern for patrimony is evidenced in his return to his home after the death of his wife. If he was lazy and unconcerned as pointed out in Franklin’s stance, he wouldn’t have returned to his home (Jackson, 2002).
Conclusion
Ben Franklin’s stance on Rip’s character was a contrast to the latter’s identity. Though Franklin advocated for the American men to stand up against their patrimonial duties in terms of domestic work (work ethics), there are no strong points to totally declare that Rip was a lazy man. His henpecking and shrew wife is the one who made him shun away from his domestic support, though he was hardworking.
Works Cited
Gabler-Hover, J & Sattelmeyer, R. “Rip Van Winkle.” American History through Literature.
Gale Cengage, 2006. eNotes. Web.
Jackson, C. “Washington Irving.” ENGL 571. 2002. Web.