











































The Sociocultural 
Feminist Implications of 
“Rumpelstiltskin” by the 
Brothers Grimm

Fairytales are considered a source 
of joy and inspiration for their 

audiences, but they can also portray 
the monsters that lurk within a 
culture. Rumpelstiltskin seems like 
an unlikely choice for a monster, 
but, like all literary monsters, he 
embodies the fears of the time when 
he was created. While this story was 
traditionally orally told, we will be 
using the version by the Brothers 
Grimm, based on European 
folklore and published in 1812. This 
edition is based on the first English 
translation by Edgar Taylor and 
Marian Edwardes in 1823. Our 
edition of “Rumpelstiltskin” will 
focus on fears relating to women’s 
roles in the early nineteenth 
century, particularly women’s roles 
in marriage and industry. We will 
discuss the repercussions and benefits of how “Rumpelstiltskin” has evolved to fit 
into the modern era in the form of television and children’s books.
 
WOMEN’S RIGHTS AT THE TIME OF “RUMPELSTILTSKIN”
 This tale has served throughout the decades as a tale of caution for women, 
in which they are told to behave and to conform to their place in society. However, 
“Rumpelstiltskin” is still shared in the modern era both as a warning and as an 

ABSTRACT
For years, the well-known Brothers 
Grimm fairytale “Rumpelstiltskin” 
was analyzed through the lens of 
historical context.  However, in this 
paper the fairytale is analyzed through 
a sociocultural and feminist lens, 
regarding topics such as weaving, the 
Industrial Revolution, and modern 
adaptations of the tale. Most can agree 
that Rumpelstiltskin is a detestable 
creature as he attempts to trick a woman 
into giving him her baby. However, this 
paper shows how Rumpelstiltskin is 
additionally monstrous because of his 
desire to wield power over others, which 
is illustrated through varying portrayals 
of his character, as well as his character 
acting as a warning for men invading the 
domestic sphere during the Industrial 
Revolution.

Emily Barsic, Emma Hartman, & Alexis Lawhorn, Ball State University

1Digital Literature Review, vol. 4 (2017).     Ball State University. All Rights Reserved.
Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce critical edition to dlr@bsu.edu.



example of the progression of women’s rights. According to the article, “Placing 
Women in History: Definitions and Challenges” by Gerda Lerner, most women 
within the early nineteenth century were not even perceived to be involved in 
the important events of history: “The resulting history of ‘notable women’ does 
not tell us much about those activities in which most women engaged, nor does 
it tell us about the significance of women’s activities to society as a whole” (5). 
Women’s activities and accomplishments were overshadowed by men’s and deemed 
irrelevant to history. This was due to the fact that women’s roles were restricted to 
the domestic sphere. In 1838 Sarah Stickney Ellis stated the gendered expectations 
for women quite plainly in her work, “The Women of England: Their Social Duties 
and Domestic Habits.” In the following quote, Ellis describes how a domesticated 
nineteenth-century woman influences her husband:

When the snares of the world were around him, and temptations from 
within and without have bribed over the witness in his own bosom, 
he has thought of the humble mistress who sat at alone, guarding the 
fireside comforts of his distant home; and the remembrance of her 
character, clothed in moral beauty, has scattered the clouds before his 
mental vision, and sent him back to that beloved home, a wiser and a 
better man. (1525)

According to Ellis, it is the woman’s duty to lead her husband back to moral 
ground, so that even the mere thought of her—as she sits fireside “clothed in moral 
beauty”—may encourage him to return to his home, in order to become “a wiser 
and a better man.” The Victorian woman is supposed to “guard the hearth” and 
not exit the domestic sphere. This ensures that she stays pure in order to purify 
her husband after he returns from his duties within the public sphere, from the 
“temptations of greed and pride” (Ellis 1526).
 
FEMALE MARRIAGE ROLES DURING THE TIME OF “RUMPELSTILTSKIN”
 Many fairy tales from the nineteenth century concluded with a woman being 
married, and this remains true for the protagonist in “Rumpelstiltskin.” However, 
in the nineteenth century, men and women held quite different views on marriage 
than they do today. During this time, many in society believed women should not 
try too hard to attain a husband, as they thought it was improper to express what 
was viewed as inappropriate sexual appetite. In fact, such people thought marriage 
was solely a means for a woman to become a mother and not a way to fulfill her 
desires. However, it must be noted that not all held this view. Mary Wollstonecraft 
defines marriage in “Vindication of the Rights of Women.” She says:

To speak disrespectfully of love is, I know, high treason against 

2Barsic, Hartman, Lawhorn



sentiment and fine feelings; but I wish to speak the simple language 
of truth, and rather to address the head than the heart. To endeavour 
to reason love out of the world, would be to out Quixote Cervantes, 
and equally offend against common sense; but an endeavour to 
restrain this tumultuous passion, and to prove that it should not be 
allowed to dethrone superior powers, or to usurp the sceptre which the 
understanding should very coolly wield, appears less wild. (299)

Clearly, not all thought that love was an unnecessary part of the marriage contract. 
 Sex, however, was another matter. One who held that women did not 
experience sexual feeling was the doctor, William Acton. He states, “The majority 
of women (happily for them) are not very much troubled with sexual feeling of any 
kind” (Hume 177). Acton and those he influenced did not even believe that women 
had a sexual drive to begin with. However, not all those considering female sexuality 
at the time were convinced that women did not have a sexual appetite. Elizabeth 
Blackwell, the first licensed female doctor in Britain, said,

Those who deny sexual feeling to women, or consider it so light a thing 
as hardly to be taken into account in social arrangements, confound 
appetite and passion; they quite lose sight of this immense spiritual 
force of attraction, which is distinctly human sexual power, and which 
exists in so very large a proportion in the womanly nature. (Hume 179) 

Blackwell is saying here that women in fact experience sexual feeling, but it is not so 
much a mere appetite; it is in fact tied to passion and attraction.
 Auguste Debay, who published a marriage manual which was best-selling 
in France during the nineteenth century, admitted that women have sexual desire 
(Hume 176). However, he felt that a woman should regulate her husband’s 
overzealous appetite, while allowing him to “exercise his rights two to four times a 
week” at the age of twenty to thirty years, with other intervals suggested at different 
ages (Debay qtd. in Hume 177). 
 During this time, women were also not allowed to talk to men unless a 
married female escort was present (Hume 177). The Grimms’ story “Rumpelstiltskin” 
exemplifies a woman stepping outside the bounds of acceptability when she commits 
the taboo act of speaking to Rumpelstiltskin, a male stranger, on her own. The story 
also reflects the way a woman’s sexuality is repressed when the miller and the king 
strike a deal and exchange the daughter as if she is a piece of property, which she 
quite literally is. Whether the girl would prefer to marry the king, and later conceive 
a child, is never taken into consideration by the men in “Rumpelstiltskin.”
 Before the Married Property Act was passed in 1882 in Britain, a woman’s 
wealth was transferred to her husband. This meant that wives were commodified 

3Barsic, Hartman, Lawhorn



and value was placed on them based on their personal wealth and possessions. In 
addition, women were to be under the care of a man at all times, and this duty 
transferred from father to husband at the point of marriage. A father had to give 
permission for a man to marry his daughter, and this choice often depended upon 
whether he thought the man could financially support his daughter.  If women were 
to have a job after they were married, all of their earnings would belong to their 
husbands, but the husbands were expected to be the sole provider in the household. 
 In “Rumpelstiltskin” women are controlled by men; the maid is controlled 
by the king - her future husband - and Rumpelstiltskin. This feature of control 
was modeled after events during the time period. Chauncey Savage discussed 
the Married Women’s Act of 1870 and how it impacted individuals in his article, 
“Some Points of Comparison between English and American Legislation, as to the 
Married Women’s Property”:

This act gave a married woman her earnings and the right to trade; 
allowed her ‘to deposit in banks, and to hold and transfer stocks, 
loans and so forth, as if sole; suffered her to hold to her separate use 
any property descending to her from an intestate, and money coming 
to her by deed and will, not exceeding in amount 2001.;1 [sic] and 
empowered her to sue or be sued alone in matters relating to her 
separate property. (4)

Essentially, women were separate financial entities from their husbands. This would 
have allowed major progress for women’s rights, if the act had not been repealed. 
 Similar notions are represented within “Rumpelstiltskin,” as the maid is 
forced to create large sums of gold for the king, while she retains no autonomy or 
financial separation. Savage states that, in reference to England’s legislation:

A clause in the Matrimonial and Divorce Causes Act of 1857, gave to 
a woman deserted by or judicially separated from her husband, power 
to act as a feme sole, obtaining in the former case from a court or 
magistrate a so-called protection order against her husband’s creditors. 
A curious statute in 1878 allowed the same privilege in cases of 
aggravated assault upon her by her husband. (763)

This also allowed a woman safety against her husband’s financial status, as she 
would then be considered financially independent and no longer tied to the 
consequences of her divorced husband’s fiscal decisions. The later statute detailed 
that the woman would obtain the same freedoms in a case of abuse from her 
husband. As women were considered men’s property, these statutes were quite 

4Barsic, Hartman, Lawhorn

¹ The punctuation acts as a monetary value, which would be equal to two pounds in 2017.



progressive in affording women autonomy. Rumpelstiltskin embodies a woman’s 
fear of being unable to retain her rightfully-owned possessions. He does this by 
striking up deals in exchange for the miller’s daughter’s jewelry and even her baby. 
The daughter must comply because her life is under threat by another man, the 
king. This situation reflects how, during this time, a woman could not be wholly 
autonomous and perhaps feared losing what little autonomy she already possessed.

HISTORY OF WOMEN IN THE SPINNING INDUSTRY
 At the time of the Industrial Revolution, literature evolved alongside various 
forms of industry. One way in which this can be studied is through analyzing the 
shifts in culture by recognizing shifts in literature. The story of “Rumpelstiltskin” is 
a perfect example of literary transformation because the story evolved to show how 
the practice of spinning underwent a transformation not only in industry but also 
in culture, due to industrialization. Though “Rumpelstiltskin” has been analyzed 
by various scholars, few have analyzed it with the intent of viewing the story in 
a sociocultural lens. However, scholar Jack Zipes analyzes “Rumpelstiltskin” in 
relation to the history of spinning and argues that this story told of the underlying 
shift from female productivity to the industrial male takeover of the spinning 
industry. By viewing this story through that lens, readers learn about how the male 
characters in “Rumpelstiltskin” resemble the monstrous way men took over the 
primarily female-run spinning industry during the Industrial Revolution.
         Gerbug Treush-Dieter, professor of sociology at the Free University of 
Berlin, relays important background information on the history of spinning when 
she says, “It is a historical fact that the spindle remained in the hands of women 
until the invention of the spinning machine. Spinning can be considered as the 
paradigm of female productivity” (qtd. in Zipes 50). Although the spinning 
industry was run by women and was the foundation for female productivity, the 
spinning industry became a double-edged sword for women. On one edge of the 
sword, women could take their own agency when they worked through spinning. 
On the other edge, spinning enabled men to participate in monstrous conduct 
as the spinning industry “enabled men to profit from the surplus production of 
women that lead to primitive accumulation and also enabled men to deny their 
dependence on women’s productivity by moving it out of their sight” (Zipes 52). 
The industry of spinning became even more of a tool against women when James 
Hargreaves’ spinning machine was created in 1764. With the rise of this invention, 
the spinning industry began to be taken over by men. Life was not better for 
those women who were able to work as “in those cases where women remained 
on the job, the management was predominantly in the hands of men” (Zipes 54-

5Barsic, Hartman, Lawhorn



55). Over time, as the spinning industry gradually was given over into the hands 
of men, ramifications showed up in various ways throughout society for women 
who worked as spinners. One way in which this happened was through the way 
men changed the definition of spinners, originally known as women who spun, 
to spinsters, now synonymous with the stereotypes of old maids (“Spinsters and 
Spinners”).  
 Therefore, readers can see that the character of Rumpelstiltskin functions 
as a monster throughout the story as he is a symbol of the men who took over 
the primarily female-run industry of spinning at this particular time in history. 
Rumpelstiltskin is a male character who ends up doing the miller’s daughter’s 
job, similar to how men ended up taking over the spinning industry and taking 
away female agency, for the monster is “an embodiment of a certain cultural 
moment” and its body “incorporates fear . . . [and] anxiety” (Cohen 4). By viewing 
Rumpelstiltskin through this monster theory lens, readers are able to make 
connections across the text and history, realizing that Rumpelstiltskin embodies 
the cultural moment of the Industrial Revolution. The way he is portrayed by 
storytellers also reflects the anxiety and fear that female spinners experienced 
during this time. Therefore, the character of Rumpelstiltskin reflects female 
spinners’ anxiety and fears regarding the male takeover of  the spinning industry in 
the Industrial Revolution.

ADAPTATIONS OF “RUMPELSTILTSKIN” RELATING TO WOMEN’S 
ROLES—DIANE STANLEY’S RUMPELSTILTSKIN’S DAUGHTER AND THE 
TELEVISION SERIES ONCE UPON A TIME
 Although “Rumpelstiltskin” is a well-known and old story, it contains motifs 
that have evolved over time and are still represented within modern culture, the 
main motif being that men are superior to women in society and wherever power 
is paramount. One instance of “Rumpelstiltskin” being retold in the modern era 
is Diane Stanley’s children’s picture book Rumpelstiltskin’s Daughter. Stanley’s 
children’s story is heralded as a feminist retelling, utilized to teach and to inspire 
her audience. Within the story, the gold-spinning maid does not marry the king, 
for he is of unreputable character. Instead, she marries Rumpelstiltskin, who is 
portrayed as a reliable, attractive guy - a departure from the original tale that 
makes it more relatable to a modern audience, who would want to see her choose 
her husband. The maid and Rumpelstiltskin conceive a daughter who stumbles 
into her mother’s footsteps. The young girl is captured by a greedy king and is 
commanded to spin straw into gold. However, the young damsel outwits the king 
and utilizes the gold to aid poor families, proving that abysmal situations can 
become beneficial. Afterwards, the maiden convinces the king to share his wealth 

6Barsic, Hartman, Lawhorn



with the farmers who then grow golden crops (Stanley). But, despite the fact that 
Rumpelstiltskin metamorphosed into the proverbial knight in shining armor, he 
still controls the maiden through his rescuing of her, which is similar to the original 
Rumpelstiltskin, who forced the maiden into a deal where she had little autonomy. 
Albeit, the daughter frees herself from capture and peril through manipulation, 
much as her father would. Despite maintaining some of the characterization from 
the traditional tale, the children’s book teaches young girls to take back the power 
that men wield over them. The daughter is empowered through her cleverness and 
does not allow men to rule over her. This, however, is only one modern version of 
“Rumpelstiltskin,” and not all such stories portray Rumpelstiltskin as the hero.
 In the television series Once Upon a Time, Rumpelstiltskin is the beast to 
Belle’s beauty. However, when he is transformed into a being known as the Dark 
One, despite his love for Belle, he perpetually abuses her — mainly emotionally, 
but at times physically as well. The relationship between Rumplestiltskin and Belle 
further illustrates that Rumpelstiltskin is a representation of men having control 
over women. However, as Rumplestiltskin chose to reject his role as the Dark One 
and become a hero for Belle’s safety, there was a belief among the other characters 
that Rumpelstiltskin could represent transformation and hope. This was disproved 
when he chose to become the Dark One again, as, ultimately, for him, power is 
paramount to everything else. Much like the characterization of Rumpelstiltskin 
from the Brothers Grimm tale, this Rumpelstiltskin is focused on maintaining 
control over others through deception and trickery for his own gain. Although the 
two modern adaptations illustrate different messages, both adaptations are utilized 
to address gender issues: Stanley’s book in order to educate a younger audience 
about self-empowerment regardless of gender, and Once Upon A Time in order to 
discuss issues of power and abuse within patriarchal society.

“Rumpelstiltskin” by Brothers Grimm2

 By the side of a wood, in a country a long way off, ran a fine stream of 
water; and upon the stream there stood a mill. The miller’s house was close by, and 
the miller, you must know, had a very beautiful daughter. She was, moreover, very 
shrewd and clever; and the miller was so proud of her, that he one day told the king 

7Barsic, Hartman, Lawhorn

2 The Brothers Grimm version of “Rumpelstiltskin” is an example of a story that was most likely told by 
female spinners during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, which served simultaneously as a form of 
entertainment and a warning for female spinners (Zipes 43).
3 The king’s action reflects the commodification of women before the Married Property Act was passed. 
This means that, after marriage, all of the spun gold would become the king’s.



of the land, who used to come and hunt in the wood, that his daughter could spin 
gold out of straw. Now this king was very fond of money; and when he heard the 
miller’s boast his greediness was raised, and he sent for the girl to be brought before 
him.3 Then he led her to a chamber in his palace where there was a great heap of 
straw, and gave her a spinning-wheel, and said, ‘All this must be spun into gold 
before morning, as you love your life.’4 It was in vain that the poor maiden said that 
it was only a silly boast of her father, for that she could do no such thing as spin 
straw into gold: the chamber door was locked, and she was left alone.
 She sat down in one corner of the room, and began to bewail her hard fate; 
when on a sudden the door opened, and a droll-looking little man hobbled in, and 
said, ‘Good morrow to you, my good lass; what are you weeping for?’ ‘Alas!’ said she, 
‘I must spin this straw into gold, and I know not how.’ ‘What will you give me,’ said 
the hobgoblin5, ‘to do it for you?’ ‘My necklace,’ replied the maiden. He took her at 
her word, and sat himself down to the wheel, and whistled and sang:

‘Round about, round about,
    Lo and behold!
  Reel away, reel away,
    Straw into gold!’ 

 And round about the wheel went merrily; the work was quickly done, and 
the straw was all spun into gold.
 When the king came and saw this, he was greatly astonished and pleased; 
but his heart grew still more greedy of gain, and he shut up the poor miller’s 
daughter again with a fresh task. Then she knew not what to do, and sat down once 
more to weep; but the dwarf soon opened the door, and said, ‘What will you give 
me to do your task?’6 ‘The ring on my finger,’ said she. So her little friend took the 
ring, and began to work at the wheel again, and whistled and sang:

‘Round about, round about,
    Lo and behold!
  Reel away, reel away,
    Straw into gold!’ 

till, long before morning, all was done again.
 The king was greatly delighted to see all this glittering treasure; but still he 

8Barsic, Hartman, Lawhorn

4 When realizing that the spinning industry was being taken over by males when this story was created, 
readers can see that the King character represents a male-run industry that employed women but that was 
managed by males and their greed.
5A hobgoblin is a “mischievous imp or sprite” and a “fearsome mythological creature” (“Hobgoblin”).
6 Almost all of the versions of “Rumpelstiltskin” portray him as making deals that he thinks will benefit him. 
These characteristics are taken from the Brothers Grimm “Rumpelstiltskin.”



had not enough: so he took the miller’s daughter to a yet larger heap, and said, ‘All 
this must be spun tonight; and if it is, you shall be my queen.’ As soon as she was 
alone that dwarf came in, and said, ‘What will you give me to spin gold for you this 
third time?’ ‘I have nothing left,’ said she. ‘Then say you will give me,’ said the little 
man, ‘the first little child that you may have when you are queen.’ ‘That may never 
be,’ thought the miller’s daughter: and as she knew no other way to get her task 
done, she said she would do what he asked. Round went the wheel again to the old 
song, and the manikin once more spun the heap into gold. The king came in the 
morning, and, finding all he wanted, was forced to keep his word; so he married the 
miller’s daughter, and she really became queen.
 At the birth of her first little child she was very glad, and forgot the dwarf, 
and what she had said. But one day he came into her room, where she was sitting 
playing with her baby, and put her in mind of it. Then she grieved sorely at her 
misfortune, and said she would give him all the wealth of the kingdom if he would 
let her off, but in vain; till at last her tears softened him, and he said, ‘I will give you 
three days’ grace, and if during that time you tell me my name, you shall keep your 
child.’
 Now the queen lay awake all night, thinking of all the odd names that she 
had ever heard; and she sent messengers all over the land to find out new ones. 
The next day the little man came, and she began with TIMOTHY, ICHABOD, 
BENJAMIN, JEREMIAH, and all the names she could remember; but to all and 
each of them he said, ‘Madam, that is not my name.’
 The second day she began with all the comical names she could hear of, 
BANDY-LEGS, HUNCHBACK, CROOK-SHANKS, and so on; but the little 
gentleman still said to every one of them, ‘Madam, that is not my name.’
 The third day one of the messengers came back, and said, ‘I have travelled 
two days without hearing of any other names; but yesterday, as I was climbing a 
high hill, among the trees of the forest where the fox and the hare bid each other 
good night, I saw a little hut; and before the hut burnt a fire; and round about the 
fire a funny little dwarf was dancing upon one leg, and singing:

 “Merrily the feast I’ll make.
  Today I’ll brew, tomorrow bake;
  Merrily I’ll dance and sing,
  For next day will a stranger bring.
  Little does my lady dream
  Rumpelstiltskin is my name!”

 When the queen heard this she jumped for joy, and as soon as her little 
friend came she sat down upon her throne, and called all her court round to 

9Barsic, Hartman, Lawhorn



enjoy the fun; and the nurse stood by her side with the baby in her arms, as if 
it was quite ready to be given up. Then the little man began to chuckle at the 
thought of having the poor child, to take home with him to his hut in the woods; 
and he cried out, ‘Now, lady, what is my name?’ ‘Is it JOHN?’ asked she. ‘No, 
madam!’ ‘Is it TOM?’ ‘No, madam!’ ‘Is it JEMMY?’ ‘It is not.’ ‘Can your name be 
RUMPELSTILTSKIN?’ said the lady slyly. ‘Some witch told you that!—some 
witch told you that!’ cried the little man, and dashed his right foot in a rage so deep 
into the floor, that he was forced to lay hold of it with both hands to pull it out.
 Then he made the best of his way off, while the nurse laughed and the 
baby crowed; and all the court jeered at him for having had so much trouble for 
nothing, and said, ‘We wish you a very good morning, and a merry feast, Mr 
RUMPLESTILTSKIN!’

EXCERPT FROM “A VINDICATION OF THE RIGHTS OF WOMAN”
         Published in 1792, Mary Wollstonecraft’s “A Vindication of the Rights of 
Woman” argues that, in order to be a man’s equal, a “woman must be educated 
in order to spread knowledge, virtue, and truth” (210). Wollstonecraft’s work is, 
arguably, some of the first feminist writing in England. As such, Wollstonecraft’s 
beliefs regarding the education of women are reflected in the following statement: 

Women are told from their infancy, and taught by the example of their 
mothers, that a little knowledge of human weakness, justly termed 
cunning, softness of temper, outward obedience, and a scrupulous 
attention to a puerile kind of propriety, will obtain for them the 
protection of a man; and should they be beautiful, every thing else is 
needless, for, at least, twenty years of their lives. (295)

This indication of the ideology of women’s behavior is well represented within 
“Rumpelstiltskin,” as the miller’s daughter seeks only to obtain the protection of 
a husband through obedience, thus spinning gold. However, the maid displays 
only outward obedience towards Rumpelstiltskin as she cunningly discovers his 
name, allowing her to save her firstborn child. The maid is defying gender norms, 
as she tricks Rumpelstiltskin with her cunning and intellect, and thus does not 
wholly obey his word. However, the miller’s daughter still abides by the rules of 
Rumpelstiltskin’s deal and still marries the man who manipulated her into creating 
wealth for his use; thus she is still conforming to society’s ideals. Wollstonecraft 
argues against this type of behavior.  While “Rumpelstiltskin” is an example of how 
monstrous gender norms can be, “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman” sought 
to free women from those constricting bonds by spreading education of feminist 
ideals.

10Barsic, Hartman, Lawhorn



EXCERPT FROM: “THE WEAVER AND THE FACTORY MAID”
         Before the Brothers Grimm published “Rumpelstiltskin” in 1812, various 
versions of the story were told orally. Songs were another traditional method of 
oral storytelling. “The Weaver and the Factory Maid” is a broadside by Preston 
Harkness.  A broadside is “a descriptive or narrative verse or song, commonly in 
a simple ballad form, on a popular theme, and sung or recited in public places or 
printed on broadsides for sale in the streets” (“Broadside Ballad”). These broadsides 
were paid for and passed on orally, similar to the process by which “Rumpelstiltskin” 
was told and evolved.
 Although the lyrics in the broadside below refer to weaving as opposed to 
spinning seen in “Rumpelstiltskin,” both art forms can be analyzed as industries 
that historically employed women until the Industrial Revolution. Since the 
Industrial Revolution influenced the creation of machine looms at the end of the 
eighteenth century, many female weavers and spinners were put out of business and 
replaced by machine loom operators, who were either male or female (Gullickson 
195). However, females who operated machine looms were seen as monstrous for 
not fitting into society’s gender roles of domesticity at that time. Furthermore, 
skilled workers were being replaced by unskilled machine workers for lower pay, 
while rich men still controlled the factories. Along with this, since textile work 
was leaving the domestic sphere in general, women who wanted to engage in those 
careers now had to work solely for men.
 In “The Weaver and the Factory Maid” by Preston Harkness, readers also see 
how the narrator is treated based on cultural expectations when he reveals his love 
of a factory maid while he still has a rare job as a hand weaver:

I am a hand weaver to my trade,
I fell in love with a factory maid;
And if I could but her favour win,
I’d stand beside her and weave by steam.
 
My father to me scornful said,
‘How could you fancy a factory maid,
When you could have girls fine and gay,
And dressed like to the Queen of May?’
 
‘As for your fine girls, I do not care;
And could I but enjoy my dear,
I’d stand in the factory all the day,
And she and I’d keep our shuttles in play.’ (1-12)

11Barsic, Hartman, Lawhorn



When the narrator admits he is a hand weaver, readers learn that he is a skilled 
weaver. He states that “he fell in love with a factory maid,” which is another 
name for a girl who operates a steam loom in a factory. To say that he “would 
stand beside her and weave by steam” at the same factory is an abomination to 
the weaver’s family and other hand weavers, as skilled hand weavers were being 
replaced by machinery, i.e. steam looms, operated mainly by male workers and other 
cheap labor. The father in these lyrics represents the revolting working class as those 
in the working class and other hand weavers would likely ask:

‘How could you fancy a factory maid, 
When you could have girls fine and gay, 
And dressed like to the Queen of May?’ (Harkness 6-8)

These lyrics also reveal how the working class viewed the women who worked 
at steam loom factories as monstrous.  As men were traditionally the prime 
operators of machinery, women were monsterized for not being domestic and 
submissive. Along with this, the skilled male hand weaver in the poem above has 
been displaced by the cheap labor of the female steam weaver and his father does 
not approve of him joining her in the factory to work side by side. Although not a 
direct parallel, readers can see how the character of Rumpelstiltskin relates to the 
struggles of the working class in this poem as Rumpelstiltskin is a skilled hand 
weaver who has been displaced by the cheap labor of the maiden. Subsequently, 
readers learn that, although the working class see these factory maids as monstrous, 
the true monstrosity lies with those like the father who represent the working class 
as he does not consent for his son, nor his son’s lover, to cross the boundaries of 
social propriety. 

EXCERPT FROM: “TOM TIT TOT”
  Published in 1898,“Tom Tit Tot,” an English variant of the Brothers Grimm 
“Rumpelstiltskin,” showcases foundational aspects of the plot and culture that both 
stories, and other versions of “Rumpelstiltskin,” are built upon. For example, in both 
“Tom Tit Tot” and “Rumpelstiltskin,” there are male characters who take advantage 
of female spinners. One of these characters is the king figure. In “Rumpelstiltskin,” 
the king’s greed compels the king to have the maiden spin straw into gold not 
once, but three times, with a larger amount of straw being spun each time. As a 
reward, he tells the maiden that, if she can spin all of the straw in an even larger 
heap into gold, he will marry her, and she will become queen. Here, readers see the 
similarities between the king in “Rumpelstiltskin” mentioned above and the king in 

12Barsic, Hartman, Lawhorn



“Tom Tit Tot” below:
 Then he said: “Look you here, I want a wife, and I’ll marry your 

darter. But look you here,’ says he, ‘’leven months out o’the year she 
shall have all the vittles she likes to eat, and all the gownds she likes to 
git, and all the cumpny she likes to hev; but the last month o’ the year 
she’ll ha’ to spin five skeins iv’ry day, an’ if she doon’t, I shall kill her.’ 
(Clodd 11)

In both versions of the story, the king offers to marry the maiden if she will spin 
for him. It is important to note that, even though each version has different 
requirements ordered by the king figure, the concept and symbolism behind each 
king’s desire is the same. Both king characters imply that, during this time, spinning 
was an industry that employed women but was managed by males and their greed. 
Therefore, this greed makes the king characters seem monstrous to readers in both 
stories, as the king in “Rumpelstiltskin” tells her to spin all the gold before morning 
“as you love your life,” (The Brothers Grimm) and the king in “Tom Tit Tot” will 
kill the maiden if she does not reach the quota of five skeins, or lengths of gold 
thread, every day for a month (Clodd 11).
 Another concept in both “Rumpelstiltskin” and “Tom Tit Tot” is that a male 
creature helps the maiden spin. Along with this, in both stories, the maiden has to 
figure out the creature’s name so that she will not lose vital aspects of her life. In 
“Rumpelstiltskin” the creature is defined as a hobgoblin who gives the maiden three 
chances to figure out his name. Below, readers see how the creature who helps the 
maiden is portrayed in “Tom Tit Tot”:

 Well, she were that frightened. She’d allus been such a gatless 
mawther, the she didn’t se much as know how to spin, an’ what were 
she to dew tomorrer, with no one to come nigh her to help her. She sat 
down on a stool in the kitchen, and lork! How she did cry!
 Howsivir, all on a sudden she hard a sort of a knockin’ low down 
on the door. She upped and oped it, an’ what should she see but a small 
little black thing with a long tail. That looked up at her right kewrious, 
an’ that she said-
 ‘What are yew a crin’ for?’
 ‘Wha’s that to yew?’ says she.
 ‘Niver yew mind,’ that said, ‘but tell me what you’re a cryin’ for.’
 ‘That oon’t dew me noo good if I dew,’ says she.
 ‘Yew doon’t know that,’ that said an’ twirled that’s tail round.
 ‘Well,’ says she, ‘that oon’t dew no harm, if that doon’t dew 
no good,’ and she upped and told about the pies an’ the skeins an’ 

13Barsic, Hartman, Lawhorn



everything.
 ‘This is what I’ll dew,’ says the little black thing: ‘I’ll come to yar 
winder iv’ry mornin’ an’ take the flax an’ bring it spun at night.’
 ‘What’s your pay?’ says she.
 That looked out o’ the corners o’ that’s eyes an’ that said: ‘I’ll 
give you three guesses every night to guess my name, an’ if you hain’t 
guessed it afore the month’s up, yew shall be mine.’ (Clodd 11-12)

Just as readers saw how the king characters in both stories were different in how 
they satisfied their greed but similar in their symbolic meaning, the creatures’ 
physical attributes in both stories are different, though both have the same 
symbolism. The symbolism of the creatures is defined below: 

As the old legends show, and as is also manifest in the ‘Tom Tit Tot’ 
group of stories, he [the creature who assists the maiden in spinning] 
is the transformed giant or wizard with the superadded features of the 
fiend whose aim it is to induce the unwary to agree to sell themselves 
to him at the price of some fleeting advantage. (Clodd 48)

In this case, although the creature in “Tom Tit Tot” is described as “a black thing” 
and the creature in “Rumpelstiltskin” is described as a “hobgoblin,” both characters 
symbolize those who take advantage of and manipulate others; as the creatures’ 
aims are to “induce the unwary to agree to sell themselves to him at the price of 
some fleeting advantage” (Clodd 48). When keeping in mind the historical lenses 
through which the reader can analyze these stories, readers see that these creatures 
symbolize men who took over the spinning industry, as the maiden has to rely on 
the male creatures’ seemingly magical power of spinning when she can either not 
spin enough or her spinning is not of a high enough quality. 

EXCERPTS FROM: “THE PHILOSOPHY OF RUMPELSTILT-SKIN”
 A.W.T. and Edward Clodd’s “Philosophy” consists of detailed summaries 
of each of the fourteen versions of “Rumpelstiltskin,” which were told in various 
regions of Europe and other places. This piece was originally read before the 
Folklore Society on February 26th, 1889. Looking at different versions of the same 
story is helpful in identifying common themes which present themselves across 
the variants. Those themes, which are common to variants of “Rumpelstiltskin,” are 
about the events of marriage as well as the discovery of the name of the stranger 
who helps the female protagonist. The general plotline remains the same as well, 
with a favor offered on the terms of a specified condition, which is foiled only if the 
woman can discover the name of the helper.
           After the summary of each story and their respective plotlines, A.W.T. and 

14Barsic, Hartman, Lawhorn



Clodd provide three points from which to view the stories and to explain what is 
to be gained from their comparison. The first point explains the sacred nature of 
names in most world religions, including the Abrahamic religions: Christianity, 
Islam, and Judaism. This first point also mentions a similar phenomenon which is 
apparent in the beliefs of indigenous peoples, who are, in this piece, referred to as 
“savages,” an outdated term more commonly used during the time it was written. It 
reads:

If we incline to accept the testimony of spiritualists we may find like 
correspondences between barbarian and civilized in the belief that to 
name the spirits is to invoke their appearance, an idea surviving in the 
saying, “Talk of the devil and you’ll see his horns,” and illustrated by 
the legend of the Norse witches who tied up wind and foul matter in a 
bag, and then, undoing the knots, shouted “Wind in the devil’s name,” 
when the hurricane is swept over land or sea….We may not therefore 
feign surprise when we hear that in Borneo, when a child is ill, its 
name is changed so as to confuse or deceive the bad spirits, to whom 
all diseases and death, which last is rarely regarded as a natural event 
by the savage, are ascribed. Among some South American tribes, when 
a man dies, his friends and kinsmen change their names so as to elude 
death if he comes after them, or to prevent the departed spirits being 
attracted back to earth by hearing the old name. (A.W.T. and Clodd 
156)

This pattern is relevant to the Brother Grimm’s “Rumpelstiltskin” because of the 
power that Rumpelstiltskin’s name had to free the protagonist from having to give 
up her first born child. The inspiration for the manner in which the woman is freed 
must have come from one of the folk beliefs which associate names with power. 
Though where the inspiration originated cannot be confirmed, A.W.T. and Clodd 
provide relevant examples from around the world. The second point illustrated by 
“The Philosophy of Rumpelstilt-Skin” explains how the reluctance to utter names 
elevates with the status of the particular person in question. Many examples are 
provided from various cultures at the time. It reads:

we find that the Australian has a strong reluctance to tell his real 
name to strangers. So has the Kaffir, and among this race no woman 
may pronounce the names of any of her husband’s male relations in 
the ascending line, nor even any word in which the principal syllable 
of the name of her father-in-law occurs. The Amazulu woman, when 
addressing or speaking of her husband, calls him “Father of So-and-
so,” mentioning one of his children, and in like manner a Hindoo wife 

15Barsic, Hartman, Lawhorn



speaks of her husband as “He,” “Swamy,” or “the Master,” avoiding the 
mention of his name. Dorman says that the New Mexican tribes never 
made known their own names or those of friends to a stranger, lest 
these should be used in sorcery. Among the Ojibways husbands and 
wives never told each others’ names, and the children were warned that 
if they repeated their own names they would stop growing. (A.W.T. 
and Clodd 159)

These various examples illustrate how important and mystical names were in the 
folklore of the time, and they also show how names were believed to be innately 
tied to the human to which they were ascribed. The third and final point serves as a 
conclusion to the article and comments on the piece as a whole:

We have scampered across wide areas in our search after ideas 
common to those which lie at the heart of “Tom Tit Tot,” and we 
find its variants, and the barbaric notions cognate to those ideas, 
contributing their evidence to that of the great cloud of witnesses 
testifying to the like attitude of the mind before like phenomena 
which frightened and bewildered it, until Science created sympathy 
between man and the objects of his undisciplined fears. (A.W.T. and 
Clodd 161)

16Barsic, Hartman, Lawhorn



WORKS CITED

A. W. T., and Edward Clodd. “The Philosophy of Rumpelstilt-Skin.” The Folk-
Lore Journal, vol. 7, no. 2, 1889, pp. 135–163. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/
stable/1252656. Accessed 20 Feb. 2017.

“Broadside Ballad.” Encyclopædia Britannica, www.britannica.com/art/broadside-
ballad. Accessed 22 Feb. 2017.

The Brothers Grimm. “Rumpelstiltskin.” Grimms’ Fairy Tales. Translated by Edgar 
Taylor and Marian Edwardes, The Project Gutenberg, https://www.gutenberg.
org/files/2591/2591-h/2591-h.htm#link2H_4_0027. Accessed 14 Dec. 2016.

Cohen, Jeffrey Jerome. “Monster Culture (Seven Theses).” Monster Theory: Reading 
Culture, edited by Jeffrey Jerome Cohen, University of Minnesota Press, 
1996, pp. 3-25.

Clodd, Edward. “Tom Tit Tot: An Essay on Savage Philosophy in Folk-Tale.”
 Duckworth, 1898, pp. 9-48.

Ellis, Sarah Stickney. “The Women of England: Their Social Duties and Domestic 
Habits.” The Longman Anthology of British Literature, edited by David 
Damrosch and Kevin J. H. Dettmar, Pearson, 2012, pp. 1525-1527.

Gullickson, Gay L. Spinners and weavers of Auffay: rural industry and the sexual 
division of labor in a French village, 1750-1850. Cambridge, Cambridge 
University Press, 2002.

Harkness, Preston. “The Weaver and the Factory Maid.” The Oxford Book of English 
Traditional Verse, edited by Fred Woods, Oxford University Press, 1983, pp. 
303–304.

“Hobgoblin.” Oxford Dictionaries, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/
hobgoblin, Accessed 22 Feb. 2017.

Hume, P. Leslie. Victorian Women: A Documentary Account of Women’s Lives in 
Nineteenth Century England, France, and the United States. Edited by 

17Barsic, Hartman, Lawhorn

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1252656
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1252656
http://www.britannica.com/art/broadside-ballad
http://www.britannica.com/art/broadside-ballad
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2591/2591-h/2591-h.htm#link2H_4_0027
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2591/2591-h/2591-h.htm#link2H_4_0027
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/hobgoblin
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/hobgoblin


Hellerstein, Erna Olafson, et. al. Stanford University Press, 1981.
Lerner, Gerda. “Placing Women in History: Definitions and Challenges.”
 Feminist Studies, vol. 3, No. ½, 1975, pp 5-14. JSTOR,www.jstor.org/stable/

pdf/3518951.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents. Accessed 17 Nov. 2016.

Stauffer, Derek. “’Once Upon a Time’: Why Rumple Becoming the Dark One 
Again Is Infuriating.”. buddyTV.com, 7 Dec. 2015, www.buddytv.com/articles/
once-upon-a-time/once-upon-a-time-why-rumple-bc-58260.aspx. Accessed 
17 Nov. 2016.

Savage, Charles Chauncey. “Some Points of Comparison between English and 
American Legislation, as to Married Women’s Property.” The American Law 
Register (1852-1891), vol. 31, no. 12, 1883, pp. 761–768. JSTOR, www.jstor.
org/stable/3304576. Accessed 6 Feb. 2017.

“Spinsters and Spinners.” Knights of the Pain Table , Knights of the Pain Table, 30 
May 2011, knightsofthepaintable.com/blog/2011/05/30/medieval-life-106-
spinsters-and-spinners/. Accessed 10 Nov. 2016.

Stanley, Diane. Rumpelstiltskin’s Daughter. HarperCollins US, 1997, www.
harpercollins.com/web-sampler/9780064410953. Accessed 01 Dec. 2016.

Wollstonecraft, Mary. “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman.” The Longman 
Anthology of British Literature, edited by David Damrosch and Kevin J. H. 
Dettmar, Pearson Education, 2010, pp. 288-310.

Zipes, Jack. “Spinning with Fate: Rumpelstiltskin and the Decline of Female 
 Productivity.” Western Folklore, vol. 52, no. 1, 1993, pp. 43–60. JSTOR, www.

jstor.org/stable/1499492. Accessed 6 Feb. 2017.

18Barsic, Hartman, Lawhorn

http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3518951.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3518951.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
http://www.buddytv.com/articles/once-upon-a-time/once-upon-a-time-why-rumple-bc-58260.aspx
http://www.buddytv.com/articles/once-upon-a-time/once-upon-a-time-why-rumple-bc-58260.aspx
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3304576
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3304576
http://knightsofthepaintable.com/blog/2011/05/30/medieval-life-106-spinsters-and-spinners/
http://knightsofthepaintable.com/blog/2011/05/30/medieval-life-106-spinsters-and-spinners/
http://www.harpercollins.com/web-sampler/9780064410953
http://www.harpercollins.com/web-sampler/9780064410953
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1499492
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1499492

