And if I can gain the public ear at all, I would rather whisper a few wholesome truths therein than much soft nonsense.
~ Preface to the second edition of The Tenant of Wildfell Hall by Anne Brontë
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
A Question: Are we meant to be in support of Jane's relationship with Mr. Rochester or against it?
Does Bronte mean to sympathize with Mr. Rochester, or are her feelings quite the reverse?
4 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Excellent! A question I've never pondered before...while I'm turning things over in my brain, could you tell me what in the novel could indicate that she is against Rochester? Perhaps the whole Bertha as Jane's double thing could add fuel to that argument, considering all the stuff she tries to do to him. Have you read 'Madwoman in the Attic'? I've been leafing through it lately,and I think some of their ideas could be relevent to this question...
Hi Mandy! I've read some parts of the "Madwoman in the Attic", although not all of it. I do think that their answers are relevant to this question. If we consider that Bertha is Jane's equivalent, but is trapped (by a man), then it doesn't seem too uplifting to think of Jane and Rochester's union, because there is the fear that Rochester might impose the same restrictions on Jane.
I found quite a few instances that caused alarm: 1. Mrs. Fairfax says that one does not know if, when Rochester speaks, whether he is in jest or in earnest. If so, how can one trust his words?
2. When Mr. Rochester berates Bertha, Jane cries that "She cannot help being mad". Then Mr. Rochester says that he wouldn't say the same of Jane if she were to go mad because her mind would be too precious to him. How does he know this? How can be continue to blame a mad person for committing acts that she has no knowledge of? How do we know if he would not treat Jane the same way.
3. He doesn't speak well of his mistresses. How do we know he wouldn't have done the same to Jane had she lived with him in France before being married to him? He is also not very kind to Adele.
Rochester needs to change, and I suppose we are to support Jane's relationship with the changed Rochester.
However, there is some uneasiness in the last chapter, when we learn that Rochester regains his sight in one eye. How do we know if this also means that he regains his former temperament, his tendency to speak ambigously (in jest or in earnest)?
I remember reading somewhere a piece of a letter wrote, I think to George Smith (I could be wrong), saying that she ment to make Rochester an admirable character. Of course he has his faults though; faults that have the potential to make Jane's life hell. So what is Charlotte trying to say by making Jane happily wed to this man? I've always had the impression that Charlotte never would write a faultless, 'sinless' character- even Helen, one of her saints, professes to be faulty (though to no terrible degree, to my mind). I was thinking this over yesterday, and I wondered: what if Bertha died one year before Jane came to Thornfield. Jane gets engaged to Rochester, then later finds out he was previously married to Bertha, and locked this 'madwoman' into the attic. Would Jane, discovering this new aspect to Rochester's life, still stay with him? Was it really fear of sin that originally made Jane flee from him, or was it fear of his new potential for destruction? I think I kind of got off track her with the original question- oh well, what do you think?
Of course he has his faults though; faults that have the potential to make Jane's life hell. So what is Charlotte trying to say by making Jane happily wed to this man?
I think the Rochester we are left with at the end is different from the one we meet earlier in the novel. He is changed. He realizes his mistake in attempting to marry Jane without disclosing his past, namely the existance of Bertha. He has faced misery after Jane left him. He has also tried to save Bertha when she set fire to the house, and must have been traumatized after the fire and the fall of Thornfield. Not to mention, he is physically maimed as well. His punishment makes him more aware of his mistakes and he acknowledges God's favor upon him when Jane returns.
Rochester tells Jane, “Jane! you think me, I daresay, an irreligious dog: but my heart swells with gratitude to the beneficent God of this earth just now. He sees not as man sees, but far clearer: judges not as man judges, but far more wisely. I did wrong: I would have sullied my innocent flower — breathed guilt on its purity: the Omnipotent snatched it from me. I, in my stiff-necked rebellion, almost cursed the dispensation: instead of bending to the decree, I defied it. Divine justice pursued its course; disasters came thick on me: I was forced to pass through the valley of the shadow of death. His chastisements are mighty; and one smote me which has humbled me for ever. You know I was proud of my strength: but what is it now, when I must give it over to foreign guidance, as a child does its weakness? Of late, Jane — only — only of late — I began to see and acknowledge the hand of God in my doom. I began to experience remorse, repentance; the wish for reconcilement to my Maker. I began sometimes to pray: very brief prayers they were, but very sincere."
So it seems like Rochester has learnt a lesson over the course of the novel. I suppose this Rochester is a morally better character than the earlier Rochester.
what if Bertha died one year before Jane came to Thornfield. Jane gets engaged to Rochester, then later finds out he was previously married to Bertha, and locked this 'madwoman' into the attic. Would Jane, discovering this new aspect to Rochester's life, still stay with him?
I am not sure how much Jane was revolted by Bertha's being locked up in Thornfield. I understood that she left Rochester because he concealed secrets from her, that had a wife still living, whom he had also kept "trapped" in the attic.
If she had found out after her wedding to Rochester that his wife was kept in the attic, perhaps she would have asked him why he did so. He would have replied that she was mad. Perhaps, if he she really had been medically insane, being in a house and cared for by a servant is better than being in unsanitary, dilapidated public asylums back in the day. If Jane was not aware of how Rochester treated his wife when she was locked up in the attic, she might not have taken offense at his behavior. He might have given her a convincing story, as he did all throughout her stay at Thornfield (when Bertha sets fire on Rochester's bed, when Jane hears the laugh, when Jane has bad dreams).
Knowing that Bertha had died and is no longer his wife would have made Jane feel better.
This is of course, on the assumption that Bertha was indeed clinically mad. If, however, one were to assume that she was not mad, that Rochester accused her of being so for no reason, and that he trapped her unfairly, then the case is entirely different. If Jane was aware of such a fact, she would not have wanted to stay with Rochester. My hunch is that she was enamored with Rochester and would have believed him about his treatment of Bertha.
"Was it really fear of sin that originally made Jane flee from him, or was it fear of his new potential for destruction?"
Both, I believe. There is a strong allusion to religion and principles of virtue. Jane does wish to be righteous. Therefore, she could not settle for being his mistress, while his wife still lived. She needed to be married, so that their relationship would be validated completely.
However, Jane would have been angered by the fact that he concealed such an important fact from her. This concleament could potentially lead to problems in their relationship if they were together, so this unethical conduct of Rochester's turned her away from a union with him.
I am not sure if Jane questioned Bertha's insanity or whether she believed Rochester's assertion that Bertha was indeed insane. I am inclined to think that she did the latter...
4 comments:
Excellent! A question I've never pondered before...while I'm turning things over in my brain, could you tell me what in the novel could indicate that she is against Rochester? Perhaps the whole Bertha as Jane's double thing could add fuel to that argument, considering all the stuff she tries to do to him. Have you read 'Madwoman in the Attic'? I've been leafing through it lately,and I think some of their ideas could be relevent to this question...
Hi Mandy!
I've read some parts of the "Madwoman in the Attic", although not all of it. I do think that their answers are relevant to this question.
If we consider that Bertha is Jane's equivalent, but is trapped (by a man), then it doesn't seem too uplifting to think of Jane and Rochester's union, because there is the fear that Rochester might impose the same restrictions on Jane.
I found quite a few instances that caused alarm:
1. Mrs. Fairfax says that one does not know if, when Rochester speaks, whether he is in jest or in earnest.
If so, how can one trust his words?
2. When Mr. Rochester berates Bertha, Jane cries that "She cannot help being mad". Then Mr. Rochester says that he wouldn't say the same of Jane if she were to go mad because her mind would be too precious to him.
How does he know this? How can be continue to blame a mad person for committing acts that she has no knowledge of? How do we know if he would not treat Jane the same way.
3. He doesn't speak well of his mistresses. How do we know he wouldn't have done the same to Jane had she lived with him in France before being married to him? He is also not very kind to Adele.
Rochester needs to change, and I suppose we are to support Jane's relationship with the changed Rochester.
However, there is some uneasiness in the last chapter, when we learn that Rochester regains his sight in one eye. How do we know if this also means that he regains his former temperament, his tendency to speak ambigously (in jest or in earnest)?
I remember reading somewhere a piece of a letter wrote, I think to George Smith (I could be wrong), saying that she ment to make Rochester an admirable character. Of course he has his faults though; faults that have the potential to make Jane's life hell. So what is Charlotte trying to say by making Jane happily wed to this man? I've always had the impression that Charlotte never would write a faultless, 'sinless' character- even Helen, one of her saints, professes to be faulty (though to no terrible degree, to my mind). I was thinking this over yesterday, and I wondered: what if Bertha died one year before Jane came to Thornfield. Jane gets engaged to Rochester, then later finds out he was previously married to Bertha, and locked this 'madwoman' into the attic. Would Jane, discovering this new aspect to Rochester's life, still stay with him? Was it really fear of sin that originally made Jane flee from him, or was it fear of his new potential for destruction? I think I kind of got off track her with the original question- oh well, what do you think?
Of course he has his faults though; faults that have the potential to make Jane's life hell. So what is Charlotte trying to say by making Jane happily wed to this man?
I think the Rochester we are left with at the end is different from the one we meet earlier in the novel. He is changed. He realizes his mistake in attempting to marry Jane without disclosing his past, namely the existance of Bertha. He has faced misery after Jane left him. He has also tried to save Bertha when she set fire to the house, and must have been traumatized after the fire and the fall of Thornfield. Not to mention, he is physically maimed as well. His punishment makes him more aware of his mistakes and he acknowledges God's favor upon him when Jane returns.
Rochester tells Jane, “Jane! you think me, I daresay, an irreligious dog: but my heart swells with gratitude to the beneficent God of this earth just now. He sees not as man sees, but far clearer: judges not as man judges, but far more wisely. I did wrong: I would have sullied my innocent flower — breathed guilt on its purity: the Omnipotent snatched it from me. I, in my stiff-necked rebellion, almost cursed the dispensation: instead of bending to the decree, I defied it. Divine justice pursued its course; disasters came thick on me: I was forced to pass through the valley of the shadow of death. His chastisements are mighty; and one smote me which has humbled me for ever. You know I was proud of my strength: but what is it now, when I must give it over to foreign guidance, as a child does its weakness? Of late, Jane — only — only of late — I began to see and acknowledge the hand of God in my doom. I began to experience remorse, repentance; the wish for reconcilement to my Maker. I began sometimes to pray: very brief prayers they were, but very sincere."
So it seems like Rochester has learnt a lesson over the course of the novel. I suppose this Rochester is a morally better character than the earlier Rochester.
what if Bertha died one year before Jane came to Thornfield. Jane gets engaged to Rochester, then later finds out he was previously married to Bertha, and locked this 'madwoman' into the attic. Would Jane, discovering this new aspect to Rochester's life, still stay with him?
I am not sure how much Jane was revolted by Bertha's being locked up in Thornfield. I understood that she left Rochester because he concealed secrets from her, that had a wife still living, whom he had also kept "trapped" in the attic.
If she had found out after her wedding to Rochester that his wife was kept in the attic, perhaps she would have asked him why he did so. He would have replied that she was mad. Perhaps, if he she really had been medically insane, being in a house and cared for by a servant is better than being in unsanitary, dilapidated public asylums back in the day. If Jane was not aware of how Rochester treated his wife when she was locked up in the attic, she might not have taken offense at his behavior. He might have given her a convincing story, as he did all throughout her stay at Thornfield (when Bertha sets fire on Rochester's bed, when Jane hears the laugh, when Jane has bad dreams).
Knowing that Bertha had died and is no longer his wife would have made Jane feel better.
This is of course, on the assumption that Bertha was indeed clinically mad. If, however, one were to assume that she was not mad, that Rochester accused her of being so for no reason, and that he trapped her unfairly, then the case is entirely different. If Jane was aware of such a fact, she would not have wanted to stay with Rochester. My hunch is that she was enamored with Rochester and would have believed him about his treatment of Bertha.
"Was it really fear of sin that originally made Jane flee from him, or was it fear of his new potential for destruction?"
Both, I believe. There is a strong allusion to religion and principles of virtue. Jane does wish to be righteous. Therefore, she could not settle for being his mistress, while his wife still lived. She needed to be married, so that their relationship would be validated completely.
However, Jane would have been angered by the fact that he concealed such an important fact from her. This concleament could potentially lead to problems in their relationship if they were together, so this unethical conduct of Rochester's turned her away from a union with him.
I am not sure if Jane questioned Bertha's insanity or whether she believed Rochester's assertion that Bertha was indeed insane. I am inclined to think that she did the latter...
Great questions, Mandy. Do keep them coming!!
Post a Comment