Off ye lendings! King Lear and Mr Fairfax Rochester

[kiki1982]

In my last thread I demonstrated how Mr Rochester is supposed to be interpreted far from noble. In this paper I will take under scrutiny the one obvious to Shakespeare’s play King Lear in Jane Eyre , namely ‘Off ye lendings’ that is said by Mr Rochester in chapter XIX of Jane Eyre and by King Lear in act III of King Lear.
King Lear is one of the greatest tragedies of Shakespeare about a king who feels wronged by his daughters and suffers for his mistakes. With his play, Shakespeare showed the evil that the new-found individualism of the Renaissance could do. The play expresses Shakespeare’s views on loyalty in feudalistic medieval society and individualism that occurred in the Renaissance. Lear expects his daughters to be loyal to him because he will give them something. He wants to be the centre of their existence and reciprocally Cordelia is his centre of existence. The beginning of the play is especially constructed by Lear to justify his bigger love for Cordelia than for Goneril and Regan. Great is his amazement, however, when Cordelia states that she ‘love[s] [his] Majesty, According to [her] bond; no more nor less.’ In his narcissism, Lear wants to claim Cordelia exclusively for him, but Cordelia refuses. The future Lear planned entirely depended on Cordelia’s loyalty and when she declines his future crumbles and he denies her what she is entitled to as a daughter, according to their bond, namely a dowry. When his two first daughters undergo the capricious needs of Lear and confront him with it, he feels wronged but fails to see that his own inflated ego is to blame for it. From then on he will become old and broken-hearted. He will continually woe his own fate while he fails to see that he has sought it himself, but will also realise his own susceptibility.
The second storyline in the play is about Edmund, second and illegitimate son of the Earl of Gloucester who tricks his father into banning his brother from his castle.
All the individualism in the play will have bad consequences (1). Similarly in Jane Eyre, the individualism of Rochester has bad consequences, both for himself and the people around him. Rochester accuses his father of not giving him anything for an inheritance, which I established as quite normal in my last paper, as Edward Rochester was the second son. Similarly to Edmund in King Lear he finds that unfair, but fate awards him with the inheritance anyway as his older brother Rowland dies without wife or children. However, it is not there that the whole similarity between the two works ends. Charlotte put the words of Lear in Rochester’s mouth and there is indeed some likeness between the two characters. In the play Lear continually woes his fate, as does Rochester in the book, but Jane doesn’t buy it. She implies that she will be treated the same as Bertha by Rochester, but he adamantly denies tha . Lear tells his daughter Regan: ‘No, Regan, thou shalt never have my curse.’
Like Lear in the play says:

Thy tender-hefted nature shall not give
Thee o'er to harshness. Her eyes are fierce; but thine
Do comfort, and not burn. 'Tis not in thee
To grudge my pleasures,……

Rochester says: ‘But Jane will give me her love: yes—nobly, generously.’ And holds out his arms as he is convinced that she will stay with him after his tale of woe. After, when Lear curses Regan too, he says: ‘this heart shall break into a hundred thousand flaws’, before the former, Rochester said: ‘without [Little Jane’s love], my heart is broken.’ In other words, both men are distraught to see that the people they love are ‘disloyal’ to them and, by telling them a tale of woe, they hope to change the minds of those who are critical towards them. In the minds of Lear and Rochester disloyalty equals not loving, whereas it is clear that those two are not the same, not to Shakespeare and not to Charlotte Brontë. Both men don’t understand that the love they expect from others consists solely out of blind loyalty towards them. Lear doesn’t understand how it is possible that his daughters would dare to criticise him because after all ‘[he] gave [them] all’. The same goes for Rochester when he accuses Jane of only valuing ‘[his] station and the rank of [his]wife’. With this he implies that she only wanted his money and didn’t actually love him for his person, like Lear implies that his daughters should be loyal to him because he gave them each half of his kingdom. So Rochester offers everything to Jane again by proposing to her to go to France together where she ‘shall be Mrs Rochester’. By doing this, in his logic, he is sure she will surrender, because loyalty (which he is seeking from her) depends on offering something. Of course for Jane loyalty and love are not about the possessions you gain, but the mere loyalty and love themselves, like it is for Kent and Cordelia: they are ‘disloyal’ to Lear, because they respectively feel that he is not right or that he is unreasonable. Lear doesn’t see it this way and strips Cordelia of her dowry and essentially banishes her, and banishes Kent as well. Rochester, also, sees Jane’s refusal (that he knows is coming) as a scheme against him: ‘you are thinking how to act—talking you consider is of no use. I know you—I am on my guard.’ Although she tells him that ‘[she] does not wish to act against [him]’ he refuses to understand: ‘Not in your sense of the word, but in mine you are scheming to destroy me.’ He admits in this however that it is only his logic that says so, and not hers. In that, Charlotte put irony in Rochester’s character. That that sentence occurs just before he tells his past is very significant. Lear and Rochester make out to be innocent whereas the public can see that they are both wrong in what they do, have done and are doing.
Not only the general tone of woe is similar in Lear and Rochester, but even their way of showing their love is the same. As I mentioned before, love and loyalty are the same for Lear and Rochester. Lear, in his role of king, claims, as a true medieval king, the loyalty of his lords by giving them land. However, it doesn’t end here: he acts in the same way with his daughters, buying their love, as it were. Rochester similarly ‘buys’ Jane’s love with presents, ‘a share of all [his] possessions’, etc. We have already established the fact that Lear denies his daughter Cordelia what she is entitled to, a dowry, because she is disloyal, read: she refuses to pledge full love to him. When they married, Rochester promised Bertha to have and to hold her, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health to love and to cherish her. In that, he vowed to respect her and to treat her with tenderness and affection (2). In calling her Messalina, Rochester implies that she was unfaithful to him (3). Like Lear, he feels that Bertha is disloyal and so, similarly to Lear, strips her of what she is entitled to as his wife: respect, tenderness and affection. In that, the fact that he locks her up is clearly linked with the refusal of a dowry to Cordelia: Bertha is disloyal so doesn’t get what she should get: care. In stead, he buys her a drunk companion. We cannot say that that is proper care, but his mind is eased because he gave her something, but in this case something inferior. As I have stated before, care for the mad was available, but was not sought for by Rochester. Céline Varens went the same way as Bertha, but didn’t go mad. In the beginning Rochester loved her and gave her a hotel room, dresses, etc. In short, everything a woman would want. But, she cheated on him with another man, and he stripped her of everything he gave her. He also grew tired of Clara and Giacintha and also left them without anything. Admittedly he bought them of, but he also admitted that having a mistress was ‘the next-best thing to buying a slave’, in other words to buy someone’s loyalty with money.
In Rochester, however, the love-possession connection goes even further to the point that Bertha is on the one end of the spectrum, getting nothing whatsoever and that Jane is on the other end, getting a load of presents she doesn’t want nor requires. Adèle on the other hand is somewhere in the middle: Rochester gets her presents and is somewhat in the dark about how it is possible that she wants presents every time she sees him. In other words, he spoils the child. This is quite remarkable, as Rochester publicly denies she is his daughter. As said in my last paper, he did love her dearly and it shows in his behaviour towards her. If we take the one end of the spectrum he hates, Bertha; she clearly cannot count on anything apart from a drunk attendant. Then Adèle is better off: not locked up in a room, with a governess and maid and a nice room, nice clothes etc. But she doesn’t go to school. ‘Too dear, [he] couldn’t afford it’. So Adèle can expect a lot less than Jane. For Jane anything goes, even bigamy and, consequently, prison. Nevertheless, maybe the diminished love Rochester shows Adèle has maybe to do with Victorian culture.
During their first meeting Rochester asks Jane whether ‘[she is] fond of presents.’ She then famously replies: ‘I hardly know, sir; I have little experience of them: they are generally thought pleasant things.’ The conversation goes on about the same thing as Rochester tries to find out what Jane actually thinks of presents. In the end he tells her that Jane ‘has taken great pains with [Adèle]…’ and Jane replies: ‘Sir, you have now given me my ‘cadeau;’ I am obliged to you: it is the meed teachers most covet—praise of their pupils’ progress.’ The only thing Rochester can answer to this, is an ‘ahum’ and be silent. Even here the difference in perception between Rochester and Jane is great. Rochester gives Adèle ‘playthings’, material matter/possessions as a ‘cadeau’, and Jane is already pleased with the ‘praise of [her] pupil’s progress’. Whatever the ‘ahum’ may mean, it is clear that Rochester doesn’t know how he should see this person who is easily pleased with the praise of her pupil rather than a material thing, as he then shuts up and starts on another subject after a long silence. Rochester is also puzzled that Jane doesn’t know what she thinks of presents. From the point of view taken from Lear, he must think that she has never been loved as she never got presents. Indeed, in the next chapter he will call her a ‘nonnette’ (a little nun). Surely he thinks she is above earthly or physical longing and love, which is also established in the fact that he associates her with supernatural creatures. She is devoted to a higher purpose than man, which is unattainable for him and not understandable to people who have not had the same experience. Not only that, but also the fact that she, were she a non, would have sworn an oath of poverty, which is unthinkable and not at all understandable for Rochester. What one would do without possessions is totally alien to him. The fact that Charlotte exactly chose the French of the word and not the English one, is also understandable, as the French form incorporates the words ‘non’, ‘none’ and ‘no’, which all feature the fact that Rochester sees Jane as a creature that has nothing and is nothing (without his possessions, as marrying him is the only way to gain a serious fortune, or at least enjoy it).
I already mentioned the fact that Lear’s future depended on Cordelia being there for him. When Cordelia refuses to pledge her love, Lear has to banish her and with that he becomes more and more old and senile. When his other two daughters cast him out, he is totally lost and will loose even his court. Like Lear, Rochester makes his future depend on Jane. He tells her: ‘Then you condemn me to live wretched and to die accursed?’ Of course, like Lear, he will have to pay for this individualism. Lear looses his court of 100 knights and will become mad and destitute; Rochester will loose his senses too, will dismiss all of his personnel but two (Mary and John), and will also loose Thornfield Hall in a fire and will become blind. This blindness is something that doesn’t occur in Lear, but does occur in the same play. Edmund’s father, the Earl of Gloucester, who stays loyal to King Lear, but fails to stay loyal to his own son Edgar becomes blind through the Duke of Cornwall, husband of Regan, who plucks out his eyes as a punishment for his disloyalty towards Regan and him. It is clear that this blindness is not only to be considered as a punishment for his disloyalty, but also stands as a metaphor for the ‘blindly’ believing of his son Edmund, who made him disown his son Edgar.
In chapter XIX, when Rochester dresses up as the gypsy, he doesn’t do it as merely an act of fun. He does it with a specific reason, which he tells Jane later: it is then that he tells Blanche Ingram that, in fact, his fortune ‘is not a third of what was supposed’. He later admits to Jane that he did it because her ‘pride need[ed] humbling’. At the time he dressed up as the gypsy he judged her, and that’s just what Lear did with Goneril and Regan in that farmhouse. Not only that is significant, Rochester dresses up in a character that is nomadic, a shrill contrast against ideals of an orderly society in cities. Thus the country was seen as a wilderness without civilisation. In other words, gypsies moved around in the wilderness (4). If we compare that to Rochester’s past before he came back to Thornfield, we can see how much the gypsy life is alike to his nomadic life around Europe. Therefore, like Lear, as the gypsy, Rochester finds himself on the heath in a storm. After the masquerade, he breaks the string, throws off his cloak and says: ‘Off, ye lendings!’ So, as Lear, he is in a storm, on the heath and throws off his clothes, only there is this little difference here between Lear and Rochester: Lear, after tearing at his clothes is naked/bare-chested, whereas Rochester only takes off a disguise. That is very significant, as Lear, at that moment in the play, realises his own humbleness, and results himself back to what he really is: a man. He is human and must now suffer. Being a king doesn’t rule out suffering (5). For Rochester, on the other hand, everything is a joke still: Thornfield hasn’t been taken off him yet, he was able to conquer the disloyalty of his wife (which will backfire in the end), he hasn’t lost his friends, nor his senses and neither his pride, which Lear does loose all. The fact that the gypsy is only a disguise is very sad for Rochester, because it shows that the tragedy is not at all over yet! On the one hand Jane didn’t buy the masquerade, only got enchanted for a while, then she realises her mistake and the suffering is only at the beginning. On the other hand, Rochester believes his prank was ‘well carried out’ and wants to hear from Jane what they said about the gypsy, to satisfy his own pride, no doubt. Here as well he insists, like he will insist in the end, but Jane does not give in, like she will not give in in the end either.

It is clear in the play how Lear is unreasonable and rants on about his fate of woe, whereas he caused it himself. However, in Jane Eyre it is not at all easy to pull down the mask of Rochester, although readers who lived at the time the book was published might have had a better view on the man than we have. That said, Charlotte left us with some very special clues about her leading man, one of which a sentence that comes straight out of Lear’s part of Shakespeare’s tragedy. If we take notice of that in chapter XIX, we can hardly believe Rochester’s tale of woe in chapter XXVII without any reservations, then we can rather understand it like we should understand Lear: unreasonable, selfish and narcissistic. The fact that the asterisks appear at the end of Rochester's big monologue, is a clear sign that there, there is an end to something. Indeed, there the old narcissistic Rochester dies, like Lear - after having said goodbye to Jane (Cordelia), now realising his mistake - to become new when Jane comes back to him in chapter XXXVII.


(1) http://www.scribd.com/doc/2870542/Egocentrism-in-King-Lear
(2) http://www.allwords.com/query.php?SearchType=0&Keyword=cherish&Language=ENG
(3) http://www.umd.umich.edu/casl/hum/eng/classes/434/charweb/Fawaz1.htm
(4) http://www.umd.umich.edu/casl/hum/eng/classes/434/charweb/GYPSIESI.htm
(5) http://descargas.cervantesvirtual.com/servlet/SirveObras/01715529104585000770035/014544_7.pdf

[MeWeed]

During their first meeting Rochester asks Jane whether ‘[she is] fond of presents.’ She then famously replies: ‘I hardly know, sir; I have little experience of them: they are generally thought pleasant things.’ The conversation goes on about the same thing as Rochester tries to find out what Jane actually thinks of presents. In the end he tells her that Jane ‘has taken great pains with [Adèle]…’ and Jane replies: ‘Sir, you have now given me my ‘cadeau;’ I am obliged to you: it is the meed teachers most covet—praise of their pupils’ progress.’ The only thing Rochester can answer to this, is an ‘ahum’ and be silent. Even here the difference in perception between Rochester and Jane is great. Rochester gives Adèle ‘playthings’, material matter/possessions as a ‘cadeau’, and Jane is already pleased with the ‘praise of [her] pupil’s progress’. Whatever the ‘ahum’ may mean, it is clear that Rochester doesn’t know how he should see this person who is easily pleased with the praise of her pupil rather than a material thing, as he then shuts up and starts on another subject after a long silence.

On Jane and gifts. Growing up in an affluent house as an unwanted guest, Jane saw the cousins around her spoiled - either like John, who could do no wrong for all his bullying, or all the cousins having attention lavished on them. They were never wont for anything (that we know of, anyway). Jane, on the other hand, was rejected repeatedly by the Reed family. Jane could have curled up into a ball and lived an "I'm worthless" life with very low self-esteem, but she did not. From a very early age Jane became her own best friend. She kept her self-respect especially when treated unfairly by her aunt. This is why Aunt Reed calls her an "unnatural child."

At Lowood School, again Jane is primarily her own best friend. Friendships with Helen and Miss Temple contain 'gifts' of conversation & time. Again, gifts of THINGS are not part of her life. The "single little pearl ornament which Miss Temple gave me as a parting keepsake" was her only gift of something tangible.

Praise for her work is Jane's 'cadeau'. It is praise for the gifts she brings - her skill as a teacher.

After Jane becomes engaged to Mr. Rocheseter, he takes her into town to get gowns and jewels - everything she will need to be the wife of a wealthy man. She feels very uncomfortable by the whole business. She decides she will write to Uncle John Eyre as a way of insuring she will be bringing some money into this relationship, so that she can better tolerate the feeling of being "bought" now. She also wants to use the money she earns to buy her own things. Independent self-reliance is how Jane has lived her whole life. (I think if he had just bought her the pearl necklace, she would have been much more comfortable with the whole situation. Pearls are not as flashy as Rochester "jewels" which she had rejected - the gift withdrawn.)

Mr. Rochester, on the other hand, grew up in a circle of society that puts value on things. Money... estates... marrying well... these were the norms. Can you imagine any one of his guests doing anything merely for the praise alone? Do any of the guests 'work' for a living? Or do these people just live off the inheritance of their ancestors? The Ingrams look down on the working class - especially governnesses. (It is a very different time from today!)

The difference between Rochester and Jane can be summed up by Martin Luther King Jr., who put it this way: "not be judged by the color of their skin [a.k.a. class in society] but by the content of their character."

[MeWeed]

Kiki, I enjoyed reading more thoroughly your comparison of Lear and Rochester. It is well thought out. I have not read King Lear, so I can not comment on that.

Concerning Rochester and the ‘loves’ in his life....

Bertha was, in essence, an arranged marriage. The courtship was very short – they were married before he realized it. He had no time to fall in love with Bertha. At best, he was infatuated with her charms. As her behavior started to deteriorate almost immediately after the wedding, Rochester had little chance to develop a feeling of love for her. What he felt was duty to his obligation/vows, however much he disliked it. He could have taken her to Ferndean where she would have died from the poor conditions, but he didn’t let that happen. (She could also have fallen overboard during one of her outbursts during the journey to England, but then there would have been no story.)

Rochester’s comment that “hiring a mistress was the next worst thing to buying a slave” is profound. A slave has no freedom or personal identity. You can’t ‘hire’ love. I feel that in his previous relationships, Rochester has confused sex/lust with love. Near the end of the same scene,
...he crossed the floor and seized my arm, and grasped my waist. ... "Never," said he, as he ground his teeth, "never was anything at once so frail and so indomitable. A mere reed she feels in my hand! (and he shook me with the force of his hold). I could bend her with my finger and thumb, and what good would it do the resolute, wild, free thing looking out of it, defying me, with more than courage, with a stern triumph. Whatever I do with its cage, I cannot get at it, the savage, beautiful creature!" "...And it is you, spirit, with will and energy, and virtue and purity, that I want; not alone your brittle frame.” Jane is not a slave he can buy, at any price! It makes him crazy—he’s never met someone who stands up to him like this. This is actually the third time the two discuss this theme.

The first time is in their second conversation at Thornfield, during the conversation where Jane comments that she is surprised someone who pays her for her work would care what she thought/felt. Rochester says, ’And will you consent to dispense with a great many conventional forms and phrases, without thinking that the omission arises from insolence?’ Then from Jane, ’I am sure, sir, I should never mistake informality for insolence; one, I rather like; the other, nothing free-born would submit to, even for a salary.’ Rochester replies, “Humbug! Most things free-born will submit to anything for a salary...’

The second time was during the wonderful gypsy scene, when Rochester-as-gypsy is reading Jane’s face.

“I see no enemy to a fortunate issue but in the brow; and that brow professes to say—‘I can live alone, if self-respect and circumstances require me to do so. I need not sell my soul to buy bliss. I have an inward treasure, born with me, which can keep me alive if all extraneous delights should be withheld, or offered only at a price I cannot afford to give.’ ...”
“Well said, forehead; your declaration shall be respected. I have formed my plans—right plans I deem them...”
The plan is hatched to deceive Jane for now and tell her the truth a year and a day after their wedding.

A few minutes later, when Rochester removes the disguise, and Jane lets him know of Mason’s arrival, there is a conversation that gives Rochester false hope.

“If all these people came in a body and sit t me, what would you do, Jane?”
“Turn them out of the room, sir, if I could.”
He half smiled. “But if I were to go to them, an they only looked at me coldly, and whispered sneeringly among each other, and then dropped off and left me, one by one, what then? Would you go with them?”
“I rather think not, sir; I should have more pleasure in staying with you.”
“To comfort me?”
“Yes, sir, to comfort you, as well as I could.”
“And if they laid you under a ban for adhering to me?”
“I probably should know nothing about their ban; and if I did, I should care nothing about it.”
“Then, you could dare censure for my sake?”
Rochester thinks that Jane just might go along with living (in ignorance) as his not-quite-wife in France, in that secluded villa. This is the hope he clings to when things fall apart after the non-wedding, that Jane will stay with him.

You mentioned that “admittedly [Rochester] bought them off (the previous mistresses).” What responsibility did he have to do that? In contemporary times, couples only have to worry about alimony after a divorce, not a break up of unmarried lovers. People just go their separate way. How was it different in the mid-1800’s?

Also, how was property shared between a husband and wife back then? Rochester offers Jane half of his estate if she would marry him. Wouldn’t Blanche have gotten that, too, if she married him? Isn’t that why Blanche wanted to marry him—because he was a wealthy catch?

When you mentioned the reference to Jane as a ‘nonette’ I saw it differently. To me, it was his way of saying that she has led a very sheltered life, and knows little of life in the world outside Lowood. Besides the minister, what men were parts of the life of the inmates (students and teachers) of Lowood? They were discouraged from having friends in the neighboring community. They had almost no experience of ‘society.’

About Rochester and his woes. We first encounter his mentioning them, again, during the second conversation with Jane-her nonjudgmental listening is like writing in a diary.

He says, ‘When fate wronged me, I had not the wisdom to remain cool; I turned desperate; then I degenerated. ...Dread remorse when you are tempted to err, Miss Eyre; remorse is the poison of life.”
“Repentance is said to be its cure, sir.”
“It is not its cure. Reformation may be its cure; and I could reform—I have strength for that—if—but where is the use of thinking of it, hampered, burdened, cursed as I am? Besides, since happiness is irrevocably denied me, I have a right to get pleasure out of life; and I will get it, cost what it may.” (This conversation continues on to foreshadow the entire story.)

In my life, ‘fate wronged me’ with the death of my infant son. The way I saw it, whether or not I survived was not the question (suicide was not an option!). What that survival looked like was fully my choice. I could be the victim, or I could embrace that dreadful event and learn all I could from it and become stronger. Rochester is stuck in the “I’m the victim of my life” mentality. Jane suggests the other path.

[kiki1982]

Well thank you for the reply! There are not a lot of people who would discuss the book so deeply as we are doing now...:)

You had a few questions, I perceive...


Can you imagine any one of his guests doing anything merely for the praise alone? Do any of the guests 'work' for a living? Or do these people just live off the inheritance of their ancestors? The Ingrams look down on the working class - especially governnesses. (It is a very different time from today!)

A few of the guests had a job, although it is hard to believe... Colonel Dent, as his title says, was a colonel in the army. And Mr Eshton magistrate (the same one who actually threatened to put the gypsy in the stocks). The women didn't work, of course, and Mr Lynn (2) and Mr Ingram (the son of Mrs Ingram) didn't work because it was beneeth themselves, being of old nobility. Although Mr Ingram had inherited a lot of debt from his father, he would still not consider working. The latter would indeed have lived on the inheritance, which was left to the eldest son so as to not devide the estate up (a problem for the other men in the family that was often addressed by writers, like Brontë as a matter of fact, but also by Shakespeare, Schiller etc.).
Of course, with Colonel Dent and Mr Eshton we do have to make a remark as to what they realy did... The job of so-called colonel for Dent won't have been all that serious... In those days parents (fathers) could also buy their son a title in the army without him going through training of any kind... And I don't suppose that something would have been expected of him... As to Mr eshton: he probable worked, but not all that much , I suppose, as he can just go off to that party of Rochester for three weeks...
Actually those people should have done more for only praise and less for money, because they had it already (apart from Ingram). That's probably what Charlotte wanted to discuss, for one thing...


You mentioned that “admittedly [Rochester] bought them off (the previous mistresses).” What responsibility did he have to do that? In contemporary times, couples only have to worry about alimony after a divorce, not a break up of unmarried lovers. People just go their separate way. How was it different in the mid-1800’s?

Rochester said about Céline Varens:
Opening the window, I walked in upon them; liberated Céline from my protection; gave her notice to vacate her hotel; offered her a purse for immediate exigencies; disregarded screams, hysterics, prayers, protestations, convulsions; made an appointment with the vicomte for a meeting at the Bois de Boulogne.
and about Clara:
Clara was honest and quiet; but heavy, mindless, and unimpressible: not one whit to my taste. I was glad to give her a sufficient sum to set her up in a good line of business, and so get decently rid of her.
It doesn't say anything of the kind about Giacintha, but probably he would have given her money too...

In the mid 1800s, men were responsable for women. In general, we only think about their wives and daughters, but they could also have mistresses. A mistress could be kept, or not be kept (certain living expenses paid for by the lover). I suppose, mostly, they would have been kept, as a person like Mr Rochester would not have been seen dead with a woman who couldn't pay for a new dress for every party. Obviously, after a break-up, the mistress wouldn't have got an 'allowance', that was not even granted to women who got divorced (rather the opposite as the man could claim their earnings and children), but he would have offered her money to keep away. In a sense you can see it as a kind of 'hush money' so the former mistress wouldn't actually tell too many (maybe nasty) secrets about the man she had a relationship with. Although women had no rights, men were very much aware of their duties towards them. So, when you had a mistress, you just didn't throw her out without any leaving gift. A mistress also had to live, and you, as the lover, were responsable for that. The society of today is all about rights and less about duties in a way... So, in marriage and relationships, it is the right of the partnr to leave when he likes and not pay his wife an allowance, if he was married to her. Of course, the judge can tel him to do so, but then the mney if rather meant for the upkeep of the children that are both partners'. The (former) wife or girlfriend doesn't have to ask for money because she can work. In the society of then, women didn't work, or did work but didn't have a right to the money. Sad of course if your husband went to spend everything on drink, but good if you were a mistress or rich woman, because, even if your husband didn't really love you, he would still feel responsable to you and would pay for your dresses... Of corse, we don't talk about extreme cases of hate like Rochester feels towards Bertha.
Women, now, have earnt their freedom but have gained a lot of difficulties with that...
Even the children that were left behind after such a relationship, like Adèle, were often left to the care of the (former) lover. It seems quite heartless now, Céline running off to Italy with another man and leaving her daughter behind, but Rochester had the duty to look after his off-spring, and it was apparently quite common that mistresses would leave their illegitimate children behind to be cared for by the father.


Also, how was property shared between a husband and wife back then? Rochester offers Jane half of his estate if she would marry him. Wouldn’t Blanche have gotten that, too, if she married him? Isn’t that why Blanche wanted to marry him—because he was a wealthy catch?

Property (sadly and hard to believe nowadays!) was not shared at all. Everything belonged to the husband. That Rochester offers Jane a share of his estate is total bullocks... Of course, she was allowed to use it, as she would live there with him, but other than that, he could even lock her up like Bertha and nobody would say anything about it. She didn't have right to his property at all. Women couldn't even prosecute for a criminal act performed upon them, as it was the husband who was responsable, and so he was the only one who could prosecute... Sad... :bawling:
Blanche was in a very bad position. Blanche came from an empoverished old noble family and so had to do her best to secure a good marriage, having not the ability of offering a huge and handsome dowry, like Bertha did. Of course, both, if married to him, could have maybe inherited the estate, but only if they didn't have a son who was above 25 (I think age of majority then). Otherwise, he would run the show, like the young Mr Ingram has power over his mother...
There is one other thing: when they married women lost their dowry to their husbands (like Rochester got the dowry of Bertha when they married) who could freely hold and/or spend the money, even on mistresses and prostitutes if they pleased. Of course, if there was a marriage contract made, the family of the bride could ensure that her money would be paid into a trust and that it was given back to her when there were problems. Then she could live on her own fortune. That's what I think was the problem for initial divorce for Rochester. If he would have to give back the only 30000 pounds he had, well... he would have ended up a poor poor man.
Other than that, there was the question of the name and family tree... Rochester was part of the high middle class that didn't have a noble name, but was so rich he didn't have to work. Ingram, on the other hand, was part of a noble family but poor, the family had debts as they tried to maintain their lifestyle of before. The Ingram family would have been keen on securing money for the family (as it would also be possible for the family-in-law to live, for a part, on the money of, in this case, Rochester, and maybe to pay off the debts, so that Rochester could get his hands partly on the estate, which would have made him three estates) and Rochester would have been keen on tying his name to a noble title, for his children then probably...


When you mentioned the reference to Jane as a ‘nonette’ I saw it differently. To me, it was his way of saying that she has led a very sheltered life, and knows little of life in the world outside Lowood. Besides the minister, what men were parts of the life of the inmates (students and teachers) of Lowood? They were discouraged from having friends in the neighboring community. They had almost no experience of ‘society.’

About the 'nonnette', of course that's what it means, but Charlotte could have used the English version of the word: 'nun'. I think she didn't because of the association with 'no', 'none', a kind of 'nonet' if you get what I mean, a 'none-t', like 'piglet' is a little pig, 'none-t' would be a little nothing...
About men: I don't think that there were any men available in girls' schools, apart from, of course, head masters like Brocklehurst. Male teachers were reserved for boys from the age of about 10 or 12 maybe. I guess from the moment they wuld be concious of their sexe... Schools were either for boys only or girls only. I suppose that typical 'man-jobs' like the maintenance of the gardens, repairs to building, doctors that came round, etc. would have been performed by men, but that were then the only men the girls would have seen in their lives. That's what Rochester talks about when he asks Jane if she adores Brocklehurst, him being the only man she has ever seen closely.
Women couldn't be alone with men before they were married. They were always chaperoned by another older (mostly married) woman: their mother, aunt, grandmother, acquaintance of the family... Private conversation among possible future partners was not very common, although they probably tried stuff... ;) Certainly not close to each other anyway.
That's was what I also noticed: the fact that Jane hasn't got any family means she doesn't really have a chaperone, although Mrs Fairfax does try to protect her though she has her duties and can be dismissed by Rochester when he pleases. That makes Jane very susceptible to the tricks of Rochester. It wouldn't have gone the same way with Ingram, if he was genuinely interested in her, with a brother and a mother and sister that would have done their best to check his past...



What you mentioned at the end... Indeed, Rochester got stuck there, like King Lear, that's the essence of the King Lear interpretation. But not only he got stuck into 'fate wronged me', but fails to see that he himself made his fate by only going for appearance/possession, which he is still doing it when he dares to offer Jane the position of, essentially, mistress. That's also the large point in King Lear...

If you have any more questions please feel free to ask...

It is, for you, kind of sad that Rochester's story appeals to you so much. I feel sorry for you, but in the end it matters indeed how you learn from that problem and not hiding it like Rochester does in the beginning.

You should really read King Lear.
If you have time, there is another thread of mine 'Mr Rochester...', that deals with the links to, among others, literature that Rochester has. That was in an attempt to proove that Rochester was not all that noble and positive in the beginning. We had a long long discussion about the locking up of Bertha here months ago, which became quite personal...

[MeWeed]

I'm having fun with this! I haven't gotten to discuss anything like this since school, which ended over 15 years ago. It feels good to exercise these mental muscles again! :D

Just a quick response...


It is, for you, kind of sad that Rochester's story appeals to you so much. I feel sorry for you, but in the end it matters indeed how you learn from that problem and not hiding it like Rochester does in the beginning.

I really like the stories of both Rochester and Jane. I can understand both characters - they are both so rich! I'm so much smarter now (thanks to life experience) than I was when I was Jane's age! When young, I lived more like Rochester, as a victim of life experiences I had no control over. There is an expression I heard once: "Life lessons are repeated until they are learned. The lessons will get more and more difficult until they are learned." Finally, my lessons of 'unconditional love' and 'saying goodbye' became too overwhelming to ignore anymore! At last, I chose Jane's path - embracing the experience 110% and the becoming stronger from it. "I get it now, Universe!"

How is it that you know so much about life in Victorian times? Is it an area you study? I appreciate your information about life back then. It gives me a lot more insight. Makes me appreciate the time I live in, with all of its imperfections!

[kiki1982]

Waw I have to remember that expression, I'll have to write it in my quote book...:)
I think my father also learned that way... I wasn't allowed to have a boyfriend, and he got angry. I left home and I married my boyfriend in 2003. He has had to give in since then... I suppose it was also a 'saying goodbye' lesson for him in a way... I did ruing my education with it as I had to go out to work, but I still don't regret it, as my diploma wouldn't have gven me any assets like I see now with my friends...

I actually started to study about Victorian society because of this book. I didn't really have a lot of knowledge apart from the usual stigmas people have about it (prudishness, concervativity, that kind of stuff...) but a few things about Jane Eyre puzzled me, like the mistress who leaves her daughter behind, the lunatic locked up in an, at first sight for us, normal way (which isn't at all the case!), the divorce-thing etc. etc.
Other than that I have always been interested in history, and rather that 'history behind the history' bit (behind the political history). How people lived, principles, diseases (that's my favourite:D ), laws, society on the whole...

It makes you indeed appreciate today's situation of women better, although there was something to say about the situation then too... How many women are now poor because their former husbands refuse to pay alimony (?) and they have to take care of the kids themselves. Ok, now we have the choice whether we want to divorce and we can even keep the children, but at least then men felt responsability. It's kind of double that feeling...
At least it makes it clearer how the society became what it is. It makes you understand certain aspects much better than when you would just study it from a modern point of view.

It's great to study books. Just reading them is one thing, but in this book there is so much to understand, there is no end to it. I've now been researching for a year (I drive my husband mad with it), and I am still not at the end, I feel. It's wonderful!!

[MeWeed]

Of course, if there was a marriage contract made, the family of the bride could ensure that her money would be paid into a trust and that it was given back to her when there were problems.

I was wondering about what a marriage contract was when I read this scene on the journey home from the big shopping spree. Rochester: "Why, Jane, what would you have? I fear you will compel me to go through a private marriage ceremony, besides that performed at the alter. You will stipulate, I see, for peculiar terms--what will they be?"

Is the 'private marriage ceremony' similar to the marriage contract?


Women couldn't be alone with men before they were married. They were always chaperoned by another older (mostly married) woman: their mother, aunt, grandmother, acquaintance of the family... Private conversation among possible future partners was not very common, although they probably tried stuff... ;) Certainly not close to each other anyway.
That's was what I also noticed: the fact that Jane hasn't got any family means she doesn't really have a chaperone, although Mrs Fairfax does try to protect her though she has her duties and can be dismissed by Rochester when he pleases. That makes Jane very susceptible to the tricks of Rochester. It wouldn't have gone the same way with Ingram, if he was genuinely interested in her, with a brother and a mother and sister that would have done their best to check his past...

So this is why Mrs Fairfax was so upset when she searched the house and could find neither Jane or Rochester anywhere, only to stumble upon them kissing in the entry once they got out of the rain.

I've been thinking more about Rochester's change/growth at the end of the story. The initial engagement may have been another 'conquest' for him. "Fairfax Rochester's girl-bride" prize. When Jane is asking him questions the morning after their engagement, he mentioned that he feigned liking Blanche as a way to make Jane fall as madly in live with him as he was with her. At this stage in their friendship, I think he was, for the first time in his life, really developing a friendship with her, but still quite full of status appearances. At the end of the book, with loss of his eyesight, and a year of living like a hermit, the trappings of society became unimportant, and real feelings of love can grow. As the line in The Little Prince says, "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what's important is invisible to the eye." As Rochester said, the jewels and a wedding gown are not needed for the wedding this time. I think he got it - it's not about the wedding, it's about the marriage!

(I'm such a romantic...!)


(Kiki- I sent you a private message.)

[kiki1982]

I didn't really pick that up at first! Indeed, you're right.

I believe, just before that, when they are talking about the bazaars of Stamboul, he is actually finding out what she would do if he cheated on her. She goes along with the harem-metaphore and compares him to a bashaw (pasha). She would preach liberty to the women in the harem and then they would stand up against the pasha. She is talking about womankind rather that about herself, though, as she says there: 'and you, three-tailed bashaw as you are, sir, shall in a trice find yourself fettered amongst our hands.' She says she would never go away until he would sign a document (kind of truce).
He tries to calm her down by saying that he would be at her mercy but she doesn't buy it and even that she doesn't trust him because he would violate the conditions anyway.
That's when he says what you mentioned... I wonder whether Charlotte had a previous contract in mind that maybe stated a kind of 'compensation' if he left Bertha,...

About marriage contracts:
I don't really know a lot about them, but Alexandre Dumas mentions one in his Count of Monte Cristo, also among two wealthy families... They would get two notaries together (or solicitors as you call them, I guess). Notaries are special people who have the role of doing the paperwork for buying and selling houses, inheritance, marriage contracts, divorces, money matters (giving large sums of money to family member f.e.). They have to make sure that everything is above board, according to the law and that each party is treated fairly. So they would get the two notaries together (one for each partner/family) and they would discuss the terms of the marriage. I suppose, apart from money (what fortune the couple would start with, who brings what into the marriage etc...), there could also be other conditions involved. Otherwise I can't see why they would get notaries to discuss the marriage. Maybe there could be stipulations in there about adultery, children, housing, money that was earned/inherited by either party, etc. I don't have a lot of knowledge about that, and it is pure speculation, but I suppose it is possible that conditions like that were made, beside what the law said about marriage in general.
In The count of Monte Cristo, the marriage contract goes together with a lot of ceremony and a big party with a lot of guests... So it could well be that Rochester means that by 'private marriage ceremony'. Of course, then it would be logic that he would fear such thing happening, as a notary would check the identity of the two parties frist thing. Rochester's former marriage would come to light first thing as well as a result of that...
There is one other possibility that I could understand as 'private marriage ceremony', but that's quite impossible: in coutries that Napoleon occupied (among which Belgium, where Charlotte was in school), if you want(ed) to get married you have and had to go through 2 ceremonies. One for the state and one for the church, if you wanted. The state marriage, in the townhall, had to be first and then you could get married in church, not vice versa. It still happens like that now! The state marriage is done by a civil servant or the counseler who is responsable for the register. That state marriage I could also understand as 'private marriage ceremony', but as England wasn't occupied by Napoleon, they don't have that system.
I guess the only possibility is the first one...
Now, if Jane really speaks about the whole of womankind then she actually argues that a woman should be allowed to do her own stuff - because that's the conclusion, that she will keep on governessing and then 'earn' her money - not only that but that she wants to earn Rochester's regard. Of course, as I said before, he doens't really know what she means and why the hell that should happen, but put in the general idea about womenkind, you would be able to say that Charlotte actually argued there that women would earn more respect from their husbands if they would occupie themselves with something useful than if they would just obey and look after the children... That's where St John would come in. Jane says he wanted 'a real marriage'. Now, if you would not see that in the sense it is usually argued ('a marriage where she would have to have sex with him and have a husband that didn't really love her'), but rather in the sense that I mentioned before (as 'a marriage where she would have to obey him and not do what she liked but rather what he wanted, a marriage where she would have to go to India with him and do his work rather than what she chose herself') then the argument about womankind after the shopping spree makes sense.
Also, the fact that Rochester is blind when she marries him would make even more sense... He wouldn't be 'castrated' as is often argued (his real manhood taken away because he can't see, so Jane has really all responsibility), but contrary to that Jane is useful and so he will respect her more than when Rochester wasn't blind yet. She even tells him that she feels more comfortable now she can be useful to him than in his 'proud state of independance' (one-before-last chapter).

About Mrs Fairfax: obviously she was upset when she couldn't find them in the house anywhere. But it was even worse... For a Victorian is the fact that Rochester is shaking 'the water out of [Jane's] loosened hair' a kind of 'erotic' scene... Hair of women was always put up into a hairdo of some kind. Only young girls wore their hair loose. The only people who were allowed to see women with loose hair were husbands who saw their wives with loose hair in the bedroom, and maybe their daughters as they would get ready for parties or so. Thus, loose hair for a woman was something only for in the bedroom or for private erotic moments with her husband/lover. That Rochester is shaking that water out of Jane's loose hair is an erotic moment and Mrs Fairfax, as a widow, who sees it, is 'pale, grave and amazed' as she witnesses an erotic scene in front of her eyes. An erotic scene between one very experienced man (she probably doesn't want to imagine what he gets up to, as a single man, abroad...) and a very naive girl who is a member of his personnel and 20 years younger in the bargain. The eroticness of loose hair is also probably the reason why Rochester asks her in chapter XXVII when she says she is going that she is going to 'smoothe her hair'. He would have known that it was highly improper for her to be with him, unmarried, with disorderly hair, as that was something reserved for deep courtship (ending in marriage) or the conjugal bed. In short, I don't think Mrs Fairfax thinks that Rochester is serious about Jane... Like she says the next day: 'Gentlemen in his station are not accustomed to marry their governesses.' I suppose she thought that Rochester was just having fun with Jane, what often happened... And then the maid would become pregnant with the master or the son of the house and she ould be shipped off...

About the change at the end:
I also believe that materialism is very important for Rochester I. For Rochester II it is less important, because he can't see it anyway and his great pride has been taken anyway... He also starts to believe in God again, something totally materialless...
Alhtough his pride is not totally gone yet, because he offers her the pearl necklace he bought for her before the first wedding... Then on the other hand the necklace was on his own neck under his shirt so then you could argue that he actually offered something that he didn't actually buy for her, but something he cherished for a year around his own neck so he offered her something that was part of his heart/flesh/self rather than something part of his wallet...

Romantic isn't it... :)

Thank you for your message, I'll certainly note it down in my book. ;)

[MeWeed]

In the US, marriages are only official if the couple has filed the Marriage License, issued by the state the couple is married in. There are two ways to have the ceremony. For a religious ceremony, the minister and witnesses fill out the marriage license, along with the couple. The couple can also just have a civil ceremony, a officiated by a judge, or clerk from the Marriage License department of the county government office. (I know of a couple whose wedding that was ceremonial only - no license - the couple did NOT want to be legally married, but their family wanted the ceremony.)

Notaries here handle all the details about legal documents being properly signed and filed. (As we say, "all the i's dotted, and the t's crossed.") Lawyers would prepare the papers ahead of time, working out all the details.

Did you notice in Jane Eyre, that the first wedding between Jane and Edward was to be held in a church, just the couple, minister and witness. For their second wedding, Edward says, "We must become one flesh without any delay, Jane; there is but the license to get--then we marry--" For the first wedding there was no mention of a license! Was that an oversight by Bronte, or was the first wedding to be for show, only!? I know the answer!

Thank you for the information about Victorian era hair styles, or lack thereof and what that signifies! (A very different time from now!) About Jane, hair, and chapperones.... Is that one of the reasons that Rochester does NOT want Mrs Fairfax summoned after the fire in his bedroom? Because Jane is there, with hair down, in her nightgown, in the middle of the night... very inappropriate, yet necessary to save a life?

[kiki1982]

It's interesting to know about the US, thank you for that!

About the marriage licence in the UK:
According to Wikipedia there were two possibilities to get married in the UK: either with marriage licences or without. Without, your intention of marrying would be called in the church three weeks in a row annd people were asked to come forward in case of impediment. In case of marriage licence, those three weeks would be avoided... But this was not an issue, as Rochester gives Jane four weeks (a month) before they will get married... BUT the marriage licence required going to the bishop, archbishop or archdeacon. So Rochester didn't obtain a licence so he could marry Jane instantly, because the bishop/archbishop or archdeacon would have checked his record, and would have found his former marriage... He had to go through these three weeks of banns (as they called them), but was of course sure that nobody knew about any impediment, not even the curate of his parish. Dr Carter lived too far away. If it had not been for Jane herself who ironically signs her own deathwarrant by writing to her uncle in Madeira who knows Mason and so discloses Rochester's whole plan...
For obtaining a licence the bridegroom had to swear that there was no legal impediment for marrying. Obviously he couldn't do that either...

So the first wedding was not going to be for show only, Rochester wasn't that bad... Although it would have been annulled after the plan was discovered, so he would have just made Jane a fallen woman, in the end...

I can imagine that the fact that Jane was there in her nighty was probably one of the reasons that he did not want Mrs Fairfax coming in... Although the woman couldn't keep her mouth shut, so he probably also didn't want Mrs Faifax to know that Bertha had been astray again, because she could have blabbed...
Also, did you notice what happens in that scene after Jane throws the water over Rochester? She says: 'I will fetch a candle, sir.' and he says: 'At your peril you will fetch a candle!' and he looks for a dressing gown and then tells to go and get a candle... Ever wondered why? As men used to sleep in night gowns like women I don't want to imagine how he looked soaking wet... No trousers and a very thin long shirt soaking wet and probably klinging to his body... Maybe with some knee-long trousers, but not at all very concealing... For a prudish Victorian gentlemen standing in front of his young and naive servant (who he fancies nevertheless, but who has never seen a man in all his glory) it would have been quite an experience... :p So he firstly gets a dressing gown... how sweet... ;)