Are we reading the same text?

What an astonishing collection of readings in Jane Eyre! Are we reading the same text? I'm delighted with the variety of impressions, since all can claim to a grain of truth. Egz.

“i think jane is a christ figure”
”i dont think feminism has a "prototype" in jane eyre at all.”

“My only worry is the way the liberals twist it all around and use it as a way to slam Christianity and promote feminism.”

“Jane Eyre, in my view, can be considered as a fictional version of J. S. Mill’s seminal work The Subjection of Women (1869).”

“It is very deep and probably too deep for anyone who hasn't really read a lot yet...”

“ An image of Paradise Lost’s Satan can also be found in the first watercolour Rochester chooses from Jane’s pile of paintings. The watercolour features a cormorant, which was Satan’s disguise in Paradise when he went to have a look how he could tempt Eve into eating the fruit of the Tree. “

“In my analysis of the text throughout this paper, I will take feminism approach. The method I will adopt is textual analysis, both interpretive textual analyses and content analysis.”

In the 04-19-2007 note, dirac1984 wrote “Jane Eyre has maintained to be a quite popular classic fiction since its publication in 1837. Even in a recent poll about reading classics in Great Britain Jane Eyre is on the third place after only Pride and Prejudice and The King of Rings.”, if valid and assuming a degree of discrimination in the reading public, I find it astonishing.
Since I'm not familiar with fantasy fiction and could not reference The King of the Rings, perhaps dirac1984 meant The Lord of the Rings by John Ronald Tolkien or is the cited author Joanne Rowling of the Harry Potter fantasy series? The three books, authors, as well as the reading public are so different. How are we to reconcile the popularity?
If dirac1984's reference is to Rowling, then I can use a most singular fact of the three authors: Joanne Rowling, 42, is the world’s richest author, $1.1 billion. A distinction that was not dreamt of by Austen or Bronte. Therefore what is the kernel of the popularity, bridging time, age and experience? I think that it is the ability to transfer an intense, direct, very subjective experience.
Charlotte Bronte is generally not regarded as equivalent to Jane Austen in style or depth of psychological exploration. In my opinion,The Professor, Shirley and Villette are minor works that do not repeat the intensity of Jane Eyre. Stylistically there is no continuity with the first novel, there is no overarching vision. One can't compare Bronte's subsequent writing to Austen's tread in Sense and Sensibility, Mansfield Park, Emma and Persuasion. Yet IMHOP Jane Eyre is a masterwork and it's core is the transference of an emotional truth. A personal yet universal, subjective truth, that is more akin to poetic experience than a rational exposition.
Therefore I'll argue Jane Eyre from this subjective view point. That “i think jane is a christ figure” is closer to pluming the meaning of Jane Eyre than kiki's very interesting gloss, that there are sub plots and meanings in allusions in Jane Eyre: “but rather that there is a mythic aspect and a magic aspect both at the same time, like there are beside that allusion to the Romans, allusions to Milton, allusions to Shakespeare and many others “.
Now, I like kiki's gloss, find it much more interesting but the simplistic “i think jane is a christ figure”, is closer to the mark in understanding Jane Eyre. Contradictions in art are not easy.

There are passages in which Jane and Jesus are identified, and her progress can be compared to a Passion of sorts. She's faced with temptation, she crosses the desert... But I think it's a reductive assimilation, and rather too easy. You often see people who, faced with a character who goes through suffering, abondonment etc., immediately reach for the "Christ figure" idea. The Christ figure in the novel seems rather to be Helen, who's compared to a martyr, who believes in mortification of the body, and whose place is not on earth but in heaven. Although even for her there may be doubts, since the point of Christ was that he was incarnated in a body - accepting it and not rejecting it as Helen does. Jane is too attached to the material world - she doesn't want a differed reward, she wants it here and now. And, details maybe, but: is she celibate? Does she accept to be crucified? Does she turn the other cheek? The Christic idea of elevation through abasement and suffering does not seem to fit her all that well.

I believe a apter comparison may be drawn between Jane and the figure of a pilgrim, feeling her way towards a city of God - a little like Pilgrim's Progress. But even there, it's again too easy to compare her to just one figure, especially as we quickly understand that the demands of the soul are quite incompatible with her other, more Romantic yearnings: to come into her identity, and to be free. She's a mixture of the angelic and the demoniac, even if she denies both facets of her character. And the novel could in part be about that: how to live according to Christian ideals and keep one's identity at the same time - in parallel with another question: how to be accepted in society and safeguard one's individuality.

First allow me to compliment you on your conversations with kiki. I found them interesting in that they expanded my understanding of Jane Eyre and I hope that we'll engage in a discussion.
I fear that my allusion to “christ figure” idea was misunderstood, it was not religious. Rather the meaning was transformational in an emotional sense. You are right that “ The Christ figure in the novel seems rather to be Helen.”

Chapter 6, Helen - “"Love your enemies; bless them that curse you; do good to them that hate you and despitefully use you."
But Jane - “Then I should love Mrs. Reed, which I cannot do; I should bless her son John, which is impossible."
For Jane -” make His word your rule, and His conduct your example." is not possible. Love has an immediate and emotional meaning, not a religious one. Your “Jane is too attached to the material world - she doesn't want a differed reward, she wants it here and now. “, I think correct and I'll quibble with the “too”.

Sciencefan has provided us with a very useful guide to video adaptations: http://eyreguide.bravehost.com/ I would like to resurect some observations from Lulabelli note, New Jane Eyre adaptation.. Specifiably the Jane Eyre, 2006 adaptation, Screenplay- Sandy Welch, Directed- Susanna White, Starring- Ruth Wilson, Toby Stevens.

In a note Newcomer 01-11-2008, comments on the 2006 adaptation using Jane Austen's observation, "The person, be it gentleman or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel, must be intolerably stupid.", applies equally well to film adaptations of novels. We poses highly specialized visual and language areas of the brain and derive complementary pleasure from both and it would be difficult to state which predominates. Steven Pinker writes “ Our language has a model of sex in it {actually, two models}, and conceptions of intimacy and power and fairness. Divinity, degradation, and danger are also ingrained in our mother tongue, together with a concept of well-being and a philosophy of free will.”. What a surprising and concise summation of Jane Eyre.

I think that Newcomer's comment “ as it illustrates a self righteous moral myopia, the inability to follow an aesthetic illustration of the developing character of Jane Eyre because of preconceived 'religious principles'.” is unnecessarily harsh. However kiki1982's, 06-29-2007 observation leaves me puzzled.
“They also changed a few crucial parts and above all they added the scene on her bed after the wedding was cancelled... They didn't at all get it??? I understand that for 2006-people religeous principles are not a priority, but Jane is very consequent in this, so it is absolutely unthinkable that she would have allowed him in her bedroom after that desastrous wedding, let alone lie in bed together and also let him kiss her.” What religious principles is kiki referring to? Those of 2006 or those of 1847? Those of a conventional young woman or those of a very unconventional Bronte's Jane?
Kiki were you expecting a morality play? I deeply respect your study of Jane Eyre but here I think that here you are of your mark.

kiki1982 is correct that the scene of Jane and Rochester on the bed is not in the text. However it is a prerequisite in Sandy Welch screenplay.
I'll use Newcomer 01-11-2008 post to explain:”In Moor House, in a flashback, Jane recalls her emotions when after the aborted wedding, she is caressed by Rochester and in spite of the emotional letdown, responds to him, yet makes the decision that she has to leave him. After the flashback, Jane sobs uncontrollably, overwhelmed by the memory of what she has lost. The scene is masterful conceived visualization of an inner emotional state, of her loss and of the love that she still bears him. In chapter 27 between “Mr. Rochester, I must leave you.”and “Mr. Rochester, I will not be yours”, Charlotte takes 18 pages to illustrate Jane's moral dilemma and another 8 before the resolution, “My daughter, flee temptation! “ - “Mother, I will.”. Susanna White and Sandy Welch does the same in the flashback scene. Which is more powerful, I'll leave it up to you, however the example illustrates the different requirements of prose and visualization to make an idea affective.”

To conclude “AND if they would get a woman to write the script and who can catch the reason why Jane falls in love.....”
But kiki, in the 2006 adaptation you have Sandy Welch (woman) doing the script and Susanna White (woman) directing and Ruth Wilson as a very creditable Jane, in my opinion, masterfully interpreting the conflicting emotions of Bronte's Jane.
Jane Eyre is not about Rochester, it is about Jane.

Hello! delighted with this topic.

Quote:

---

What religious principles is kiki referring to? Those of 2006 or those of 1847? Those of a conventional young woman or those of a very unconventional Bronte's Jane?
Kiki were you expecting a morality play? I deeply respect your study of Jane Eyre but here I think that here you are of your mark.

---

Later on, MeWeed and I discussed this point and we cleared up the fact that it was real, what Jane dreamed in her falshback. The flashbacks were truth mixed with imagination on Jane's side. You have to read MeWeed on that. I was indeed off my mark and didn't get that, but I am not a great filmwatcher in general, so I don't get subtle things like that.

About 19th century/Victorian morality:
Firstly it was taking great liberty for a man who was (un)married to come into the bedroom of a girl who was not of his family (that is to say: wife, sister, daughter, mistress, or servant). If you notice in the book the conversation does not take place in Jane's bedroom, but in the library. Notice that Rochester never actually comes into her bedroom, only a few times at her door. The first time he knocks and asks first if she is dressed, which was vital of course for Jane's reputation. The few times after his proposal (when he comes to ask whether she is ok during the thunder storm) are probably more relaxed because she is in the meantime his fiancée, but nonetheless he doesn't enter. What would we (even) think about a man who enters a bedroom and after a while comes out?
From a costume drama, and certainly the adaptation of a book, I expect (and it should be expected!) that the moral prudish standards of the time are not violated. If they are not respected, things get confusing. If Jane wants to kiss Rochester and embraces him, why not go off to France with him?

But the bed-scene we cleared up... It was a very interesting twist from the writer...

I found 2006's Rochester too flirtatious, too good-humoured, when he was not good-humoured, he was downright rude, he was also too noble. In the end, after the cancelled wedding, he was too pittiable. I should watch it again to be able to comment properly, but to me he seemed not bad enough, not enough King Lear-ish: sad case but down to himself alone. I found that he didn't capture the very odd combination of glentleman-personality a person of that walk of life needs to have in order to live on in society. I found that Ciaran Hinds captured that much better, just a shame of his script. Toby Stephens I also found looking too young. Although the man is 40 he looks not old enough for a man of 40 of the 19th century.
For me I found that Jane wasn't naive enough, didn't look 'of another world' enough. Don't forget that Jane was supposed to have seen and known nothing of the world for the whole of her life. That is what is so tragic about the proposal of Rochester to her... She came across too feminist for me. It is not because Jane had a strong mind of her own that she knows what she wants in life... The only thing she knows is that she wants to get out of Lowood and advertises. When she leaves Thornfield she has nowhere to go and only wants to get out of there. I found that Wilson looked too much in charge of her life to play Jane. Admittedly, she was better than Stephens in his role...
Because of Stephens' looks, the eew-feeling of a relationship and marriage with an age difference of 20 years wasn't there... And believe it or not, people at the time the book came out were quite disgusted with an age-difference of 20 years. The average was 5 to 10 years. Girls marrying their 'fathers' was not at all common, contrary to what is believed about that now.
A better couple in that respect was Samantha Morton and Ciaran Hinds. Although they had a very reduced script, they did evoke that feeling of 'pedophaelia'. To a certain extent Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke were also not bad, but for Thimothy's theatricalness and Zelah's natural age. She was ten years too old for her role, but still made a good attempt to the 'childishness' of Jane. Something that is inherent to age. On the one side Jane was a headstrong person, but on the other hand she was still very young and Zelah Clarke made a good show in trying to depict that.
Rochester is a very peculiar figure. I think a little like Darcy: bordering on the uncivil sometimes, but you can't get your eyes off him. He has an amount of charisma that makes up for his bad looks, bad behaviour, arrogance... You don't want to fall in love with him, yet you are in the middle of it before you realise it... Rochester from his side can't kling onto Jane from the start. He doesn't expect to fall in love with that plain servant of his, but finds himself strangely interested, to his own amazement. I believe that he also needs to overcome certain customs of his class, like that one Mrs Fairfax calls 'gentlemen are not accustomed to marrying their governesses'. Admittedly, he looked for a second wife, but among his class. Then he had mistresses which implied women of a lower class, but as a wife he had to overcome the fact that Jane wasn't of nobility. However it was a good thing, because she didn't have any family to meddle.
Rochester should be wished for without any rational reason apart from money to be wanted: ugly, bad-tempered, dissipated (before), enigmatic sometimes, a liar, and in the end proven to be untrustworthy. Yet, he keeps his place of highest ambition and iconic man to be chosen above a priest who never hurt a fly and was never dissipated... Very curious.

The book/adaptation is indeed not about Rochester, but he is very important. Maybe in that he has Jane look in the face of love/happiness for a first time... Indeed, before she knew friendship, kindness, forgiveness and all such things part of life, but not love. When she says her master created it, she is right. If Rochester hadn't been there, would she have accepted St John's proposal? For her going to India to preach is not at all a problem, but it is the marriage that is the problem. After Rochester she knows what a marriage she wants, not before him. In a certain sense, Rochester is one of those people that make you think different when you meet them on your path of life. No matter what they do to you. In that he is a turning point in her life which actually makes her realise that there is more than duty/occupation to be wanted.

In 2006 they indeed did a good job of making Jane's contradicting feelings apparent, but they also need to be present in Rochester. The size only of his part is much bigger than St John's or the rest of the secondary characters. Jane and Rochester talk much more than Jane and St John, and Rochester says much more about himself than St John, consequently enabling the reader to identify more with Rochester than with St John and allowing for a deeper psychological profile than St John's. Thus he is not really a secondary character and although the title of the book reads 'Jane Eyre, an autobiography' it was not intended as one but merely given the title because it was fashionable. even when it would just be called 'Jane Eyre', she eventually became voluntarily a part of her Edward and so her Edward is more important than seems at first sight. Even from the beginning.

Kiki delighted to have this conversation with you.

First, I do not have as thorough a knowledge of Bronte or have analyzed Jane Eyre as you, so if I go of on a tangent please keep it in mind and laugh. That is important.
Having perused your postings, we search for understanding from different perspectives. Also I love a good argument, so I'll apologize in advance if I'll offend, since I hope no offense will ever be intended.
My note of Dec. 9 was primarily concerned with the 2006 adaptation, script by Sandy Welch, and specifically with the criticism of the bedroom scene. You are quite right that it is not in Bronte's text, may be at odds with English 19th. century standards or cause confusion in certain viewers. All that's beside the point: Susanna White's direction gets the crucial emotional meaning of Charlotte's prose and text right as does Ruth Wilson Jane. I do not primarily look for textual fidelity in an adaptation, rather of an emotional transference of the authors intent. I know – it's slippery, subjective, based on our unique experience, but there you have it. I can't do better than that. The visual translation has unique requirements from that of textual historic criticism.
I hope that answers your - “From a costume drama, and certainly the adaptation of a book, I expect (and it should be expected!) that the moral prudish standards of the time are not violated. If they are not respected, things get confusing. If Jane wants to kiss Rochester and embraces him, why not go off to France with him? “
As to going off to France – that's a rhetorical question and you'll have to ask Charlotte!

Your - “For me I found that Jane wasn't naive enough, didn't look 'of another world' enough. Don't forget that Jane was supposed to have seen and known nothing of the world for the whole of her life. That is what is so tragic about the proposal of Rochester to her... She came across too feminist for me. It is not because Jane had a strong mind of her own that she knows what she wants in life... The only thing she knows is that she wants to get out of Lowood and advertises.”, is more substantive in that it touches on the core of Jane's character.
As an orphan in Mrs. Reed's house she seeks maternal love and the affection of the siblings, Eliza, John, and Georgiana. In Lowood Helen Burn's affection and friendship is snatched away by death. As a young woman Jane finds not the least, respect but emotional fulfillment and the beginnings of physical passion. Beginnings again snatched away. In Moor House she finds the love of a family, but not that of a husband. To St. John's proposal Jane answers “"I scorn your idea of love," and after a moment continues “"Forgive me the words, St. John; but it is your own fault that I have been roused to speak so unguardedly. You have introduced a topic on which our natures are at variance--a topic we should never discuss: the very name of love is an apple of discord between us. If the reality were required, what should we do? How should we feel? My dear cousin, abandon your scheme of marriage--forget it." And having fled from Rochester's unlawful marriage, she hears his call and not knowing of Bertha's death, she returns to Rochester.
Jane seeks love in it's many forms, demands it against convention, that is what “she knows what she wants in life...” . Your words if not the meaning. Here we are discussing text, not adaptation.
Your - “Rochester should be wished for without any rational reason apart from money to be wanted: ugly, bad-tempered, dissipated (before), enigmatic sometimes, a liar, and in the end proven to be untrustworthy. Yet, he keeps his place of highest ambition and iconic man to be chosen above a priest who never hurt a fly and was never dissipated... Very curious. “, is enigmatic. What are you meaning by “place”? Is it of moral standing Rochester vs. St. John? If so then I disagree with your characterization of him in your note Mr. Rochester , 06-22-2008 (astonishing references, allusions and thoroughness. But in my opinion off the mark from the character that Charlotte defines.)
Returning to the adaptation - “In 2006 they indeed did a good job of making Jane's contradicting feelings apparent, but they also need to be present in Rochester.” You may be right, but that may be a visualization, script or direction limitation. But again Jane Eyre is about Jane, Rochester after all is only a male!!!!!

I agree with you that the primary concern for an adaptation is to evoke the emotions behind the text and not the text itself. For me you can change a character/story line/place/etc. if it doesn't harm the continuity or it doesn't raise extra questions which are answered in the book.
Concerning the bed scene: it is not only violating the standards of the time, but it is also confusing for viewers from the set-up only. For viewers with morals of 2006 it is from the start already not clear why Rochester can't just divorce Bertha. If they accept that, then why can't Jane stay with him because after all, she wouldn't have problems with Bertha (because she is locked up and raving mad)? So essentially, excuse the wording, Jane and Rochester only need to wait until she finally dies to get married. Nowadays, it is still shocking to cheat on your partner, but what if one is in such a situation as Rochester? To a certain extent it would be excusable for him to take a second 'wife' and no reproach woulde be in its place on Jane's part. That's where, for me, the bed scene comes too close to the mark as the bedroom in itself has a sexual connotation (what happened after the flash-back?) and even if it is seen from the yearning point of view it doesn't evoke the fact that Jane is forced to leave Rochester because of her moral standards: 'bigamy is a mortal sin and is not done'. It is not that Jane wants to leave him because she is angry/dissapointed/apalled/etc, but because she cannot marry him and that's where it stops. In the book it is clear why she goes: 'You won't kiss the husband of Bertha Mason,' Rochester says and that is indeed the reason. He is married!
If they wanted to evoke the yearning feeling in Jane they would better have done it somewhere else than in the bedroom. Why not among 'the Christmas frost', in the library, the drawing room, anywhere?
For me it must be probable in itself. Even if Jane and Rochester had kissed outside the bedroom, it could have been explained as 'a last kiss', like so many couples do.
I understand other points of view, but I'm afraid I'm a purist in that respect...
I find that the French do much more good work in that department. If they make an adaptation of a French work, they stay true to it remarkably, and if anything is changed it has an apparent reason and it contributes to the plot, doesn't raise any extra questions, but even may solve some inconsistencies that were in the book... Their adaptations are so good (mostly) that sometimes you get a totally different view on a character from the book... I think they work in great detail, whereas the Anglosaxon way is to work with the big picture. Yet, it is mostly the details that are the most important to a consistent and historically-culturally correct big picture...

About Jane's character:
I have been thinking about it and the fact that 'Jane' writes her autobiography after a ten-year marriage with Rochester, I believe tells a lot. A person who writes his/her autobiography reflects on his/her own life. That is exactly what Jane does here.
You are right that she seeks maternal affection and love from her siblings in the Reed family, yet why? Is it because she is consciously aware of her need or because she, like every child (also the ones that are badly treated by their parents) have an urge to show affection and get it. It is a fact that children long for affection from their parents, even when those beat them up. An adult person develops a dislike for people who are nasty to them... (people that get beaten up by their partners and are afraid of them and consequently kid themselves that they love them, excepted...) Children on the other hand instinctively give affection, even when they are abused, beaten, been horrible to... So I think Jane is not conscious of what she wants, but that she only knows what she doesn't want. Anything is better than Gateshead, yet she doesn't know what she misses... At Lowood, she develops a friendship with Helen and the latter dies, confronting Jane for the first time with real grief. When Miss Temple gets married, Jane wants to move on again, having lost the one person she feels affection for... At Thornfield she finds a loving environment, but I believe she is still in duty-mode so as to say... She still believes that occupation is everything, that she can lead her life trying to accomplish her greatest ambition: to get enough money together to start up a school of her own... Let's say this is the only positive feeling she has had up till then... Apart from the little friendship of Miss Temple and Helen. In a sense it is the only thing she knows she likes, for the rest she only knows what she doesn't like, and so determines by default what she must like... She has never seen a man in her life, except maybe from afar, and so she cannot say if she wants to get married or not some day, because she is not conscious of the value of love to her...
When she arrives at Thornfield she finds she likes it, and as months go by she grows happy for the first time in her life. And then she meets Rochester who awakens a feeling in her, she never had. It totally alters her view of life. A world opens up to her she never knew existed. When the wedding gets cancelled, however, she still believes she can make up for her sorrow by occupation. She keeps thinking about Rochester from time to time, but she never actually takes the decision to go and see him... Why? I don't think she has seen the importance of him to her as yet.
The real shock, to her as well, comes when St John asks to marry him. It is only then she starts to think about Rochester as the man of her life and the idea of marriage for practical purposes, a marriage without actual love or affection from the heart. By default, here again, she determines the value of love, but now is conscious of the fact that she can't live without it. She returns to Rochester without knowing what happened to Bertha.
I love to believe, although it is only speculation on my part, that she returns to him to be with him. At last she has realised what she left behind and what she actually wants in life: love. She even can wait for it several years until Bertha has died, if need be. She says to Rochester that she is not interested to get married... Indeed, if it is not to him, she will never consent. I believe she wants to be with him even if they can't have a relationship she still wants his company...
As a woman who has grown 10 years older at the time she writes her autobiography, has been married for 10 years to the man she loves, has now at least one child of her own and has family to love, she reflects on her life and what is needed for happiness. She then realises what was missing in the Reed household and patches it up with details she has retained from her childhood, what was missing even in the Leaven-household, what she was missing at Lowood, and finally what was going to be missing in the marriage with St John. Writing an autobiography is a mix of your own memory and the ideas about those things at the moment you write it. I believe that she mixed those two up and made it a Bildungsroman.

About Rochester's 'place':
Maybe you took it too literally... What I meant to say was that it is amazing, to rational standards, that Rochester is still wished for (from the reader's side and also of course from Jane's side). I am sure every reader wants Jane to go back, although he (let's face it) has been horrible to her. It is very curious to me that one can be ugly, rude, impolite, a liar, untrustworthy, a bigamist, and that he can still be sympathetic... Rationally St John is a better man to marry: he has had no mistresses (so you are less at risk as wife, to be usurped by one), he has no illegitimate child, he's got a steady job (the financial point is the only disadvantage for St John), he is beautiful to look at (certainly at the end of the book), he will never cheat on you because he is a man of God, he will never do anything wrong because he is a man of God. Yet, Rochester is a better man to be with because of the irrational approach that he is warm and St John is cold. Rochester shows affection and St John doesn't, which makes Rochester a better person on the whole, despite all of his defitiencies.

I think in the year that Jane has left him, there is a big transformation on Rochester's side. He turns back into the man he was before he married Bertha and starts is life again with Jane, having been disillusioned for the 10-15 years before. He is humbled and that is what makes the difference between 'Rochester I' and 'Rochester II'.
I think the references Charlotte gave us to look at were of use as to not be fooled by appearence.

Kiki,
as always you bring forth a plethora of ideas that would be fascinating to follow but I'm limited in what I can digest., Your analysis of Rochester fills my plate already. Let me be frank, I disagree with it. There seems to be a bias, a predisposition to follow the dark characterization that skews the final picture. However I don't have a clear enough placement of Rochester in the novel to produce a counter argument. I'll have to do a critical reading of Jane Eyre and hopefully present a coherent argument.

Short notes I

The bedroom scene: “Jane and Rochester only need to wait until she finally dies to get married.”
It's the conventional ending, ( to satisfy the morality of the day), however the scene is necessary to underline the anguish that Jane feels in the flashback (2006 adaptation) and to underline that Jane, rejecting St. John, heads the supernatural call and abandoning all seeks Rochester. Rochester not the Byronic but the Rochester needed to complete herself.

Your reading - “That's where, for me, the bed scene comes too close to the mark as the bedroom in itself has a sexual connotation (what happened after the flash-back?) and even if it is seen from the yearning point of view it doesn't evoke the fact that Jane is forced to leave Rochester because of her moral standards: 'bigamy is a mortal sin and is not done'. It is not that Jane wants to leave him because she is angry/dissapointed/apalled/etc, but because she cannot marry him and that's where it stops.”, too modern a dilemma, too subjective a reading. Let the text speak:

Chapter 27
“But the answer my mind gave--"Leave Thornfield at once"--was so prompt, so dread, that I stopped my ears. I said I could not bear such words now. "That I am not Edward Rochester's bride is the least part of my woe," I alleged: "that I have wakened out of most glorious dreams, and found them all void and vain, is a horror I could bear and master; but that I must leave him decidedly, instantly, entirely, is intolerable. I cannot do it."

and the resolution

“not a moon, but a white human form shone in the azure, inclining a glorious brow earthward. It gazed and gazed on me. It spoke to my spirit: immeasurably distant was the tone, yet so near, it whispered in my heart -
"My daughter, flee temptation."
"Mother, I will."

I read this not as a resolution of a “moral standards: 'bigamy is a mortal sin and is not done'.” but rather as a mythic insight into her soul.
And it follows chapter 35 when she hears the call – Jane, Jane.

“"Where are you?" I exclaimed.
The hills beyond Marsh Glen sent the answer faintly back--"Where are you?" I listened. The wind sighed low in the firs: all was moorland loneliness and midnight hush.
"Down superstition!" I commented, as that spectre rose up black by the black yew at the gate. "This is not thy deception, nor thy witchcraft: it is the work of nature. She was roused, and did—no miracle--but her best."

And it's this best :” It was MY time to assume ascendency. MY powers were in play and in
force.” that compels Jane to seek Rochester not knowing that Bertha is dead, that there's no impediment to marrying him.

Short Notes II

You have an unfair advantage in that I have not seen nor can comment on French adaptations of historical novels. “Their adaptations are so good (mostly) that sometimes you get a totally different view on a character from the book... I think they work in great detail, whereas the Anglosaxon way is to work with the big picture.”” A fascinating observation. Yet if I recall François Truffaut's Jules and Jim, it's the theme, the big picture that's memorable.

Nice talking with you.

I am sorry, Peripatetics, but I don’t see why Jane’s leaving because she cannot marry Rochester would be a ‘modern dilemma’. Some people may see Jane leaving as a feminist action of independence, but we also have to take into account the bigger picture of the moral standards women and particularly Jane had in 1847/1836 (the time the book plays). What was there left to do for Jane after a marriage to her was obviously impossible? It is clear: becoming his mistress. Yet, this wasn’t a sure position and he could have left her when he wanted and bought her off, at best. She could have been saddled with a child, like Céline was, however she could have shipped it off to Rochester, but would one do that with a love-child? As a single mother she would have been on the bad side of society and would have carried a stigma with her all through her life. Although the dreams with the infants can be interpreted in a deeper way, they might also evoke the fear Jane has of becoming indeed a single mother and being left behind by Rochester with a child to care for and the stigma attached to that. The fact that Hannah, the maid at Moor House, doesn’t want to help her initially, is a clear sign of what might have happened if she had had a baby with her. One only needs to look at other works of the time like Les Misérables and Oliver Twist to see what happened to single mothers and illegitimate children because of society conventions regarding marriage.
At the same time, the fact that Jane doesn’t want to degrade herself to the likes of Céline and the fact that she calls it ‘forget[ting] herself’, might be connected with views of such women in general. While men who had mistresses were excused unless they committed adultery repeatedly and on a big scale, the women who were the mistresses were seen as prostitutes and had no credit. Of course this had to do with the views on virginity and marriage. A woman with such a reputation was never to become a governess again, unless she could conceal the fact that she had been a mistress, but then again it only takes one person in society who would have seen you in that role to come to the next party. Society was small, as illustrated when Rochester suddenly turns out to know a Mr Reed of Gateshead and knows about John’s escapades and Georgiana’s beauty.
On top of that, servants were hired largely by reference. In the worst case they advertised in a newspaper and were asked for references as to the truthfulness of the information they gave, which is also featured when Mrs Fairfax asks for it in Jane Eyre. It would have been very hard for Jane, indeed, to become a governess again after having been Rochester’s mistress for an amount of years. As the episode plays at the start of the Industrial Revolution, Jane could have obtained a position in an obscure factory (if there were any around), but then she would have had a much worse life than before. This under the presumption that they would have taken on an impure woman.
It is obvious that there were more practical disadvantages to agreeing to go to France with Rochester than advantages, from her point of view that is.
I don’t have to draw a picture of the world now to illustrate the dramatic difference in society concerning mistresses and the view people have of them. While nowadays, mistresses might still be blamed for wrecking a marriage (mostly by the cheated partner and her family) the mistress herself is not so much stigmatised anymore by society as a whole. As a mistress you are not forced out of work, forced out of your rented accommodation, shunned in general, and sometimes even evicted from the village or left to die of hunger and disease. Although, it should be mentioned that there were certain classes of women that were pardoned for such conduct in the 19th century and where men explicitly went to look for mistresses, like the dancer Céline. However it is clear that Jane is not a beautiful dancing or acting girl.
The fact then that Jane has ‘a dilemma’ (whether to leave Rochester or not), which is clearly already solved by her ‘brow’, as Rochester would say, clearly stems from the standards in the 19th century, rather than from a modern/feminist point of view. It would have been unwise for Jane to become his mistress, and it speaks for her that she did the right thing. ‘Flee Temptation,’ might be an insight into her soul, but we cannot forget that what is in the soul is partly due to society and that is also what Jane means if she says about becoming the successor of Céline, Clara and Giacinta: that it would be ‘forget[ting] [her]self and all the teaching that had ever been instilled into [her]’. (chapter XXVII)
If we now don’t see why she couldn’t stay with Rochester, it is because we do not have the same moral values as people had 150 years ago, nor the same social circumstances. The word ‘temptation’ says all: if Jane stays, Rochester will tempt her and she will be tempted to yield, and that is what she doesn’t want to do because of the consequences it may have. That is where the fight originates from, although it doesn’t mean that even in the hearts of the readers then there wasn’t a wish to see Jane and Rochester together, but they would certainly have realised that at that moment in time it wasn’t possible. The passage you quote is a clear sign of that:
‘But the answer my mind gave--"Leave Thornfield at once"--was so prompt, so dread, that I stopped my ears. I said I could not bear such words now. “That I am not Edward Rochester's bride is the least part of my woe," I alleged: "that I have wakened out of most glorious dreams, and found them all void and vain, is a horror I could bear and master; but that I must leave him decidedly, instantly, entirely, is intolerable. I cannot do it.”’
Indeed, Jane’s heart and mind say a different thing. While her heartstrings are still attached to Rochester’s heart, her mind orders her to leave Thornfield. Jane cannot bear to hear it because she doesn’t want to leave, yet she knows she must. The verb ‘must’ here is very important, as it evokes the idea that leaving Thornfield is an absolute necessity which cannot be avoided. Charlotte could have written ‘should’ or ‘have to’ or ‘need’, but those verbs would have made the sentence a lot less necessitous. It is indeed inevitable that Jane, although against her wish, will leave Thornfield like Christ knows that his deliverance is foretold and inevitable. Jane will not leave Rochester because it has been foretold in the Scriptures, but because ‘reason sits firm and holds the reins’ and will ‘still have the last word in every argument.’ Thus she herself (and even Rochester!) knows what will decide: Reason. If looked at rationally, the fact of becoming a mistress is at least to be called unwise and thus Jane knows it is inevitable that she will leave eventually, although it will cause her a lot of heartache which ‘[she] could bear and master’ .
If this story were taking place in these times, there would be no fight between heart and mind, because, certainly with Bertha mad and locked away, there would be no moral nor social impediment to staying with Rochester. There would be no negative consequences for Jane in case of an illegitimate child or relationship. She could have tried it, certainly because she couldn’t really have problems with Bertha, and if it didn’t work out, so be it. So your assertion that ‘bigamy is a mortal sin’ is too modern a dilemma is not quite right, I would rather say ‘too old a dilemma for a modern audience’.
Bigamy of course is a legal term, which has another connotation within it as being a crime that implies two (or more) registered marriages. However both Rochester and Jane seem to have a different opinion about bigamy altogether. Rochester clearly interprets it in its legal meaning as ‘the registration of two/more marriages’ with one partner that is the same, i.e. Rochester/Bertha and Rochester/Jane. He acknowledges it is a crime according to English Law, however he clearly thinks that he is allowed one more wife because the first one is clearly not good enough, because she doesn’t provide him solace in his leisure hours with endearments and she doesn’t embrace him the way a wife should. This all for the clear reason that she is mad. A divorce is not possible and it is clearly a problem of the law. He wished for another wife who is up to the mark, i.e. Jane, and makes a distinction between a wife and a mistress in his monologue in chapter XXVII. However Jane seems to interpret bigamy more in its religious meaning, as ‘the having of different wives’, which is not allowed by God and a practice of the heathens (i.e. Muslims). The only other option for her in her eyes is to become his mistress, but she wants to be respected by herself and by him foremost and thus not be seen as inferior, i.e. his mistress/slave. If we take Rochester’s view it is clearly possible to have two registered marriages, because one wife doesn’t perform her role well enough to be considered as one. In that sense, his reply to Briggs ‘and you thrust upon me a wife,’ is not so far-fetched, as indeed, Bertha in Rochester’s eyes cannot be seen as his wife because she doesn’t do what a wife should do. She might have that title according to law (because he cannot divorce her), but surely the law allows then another wife who does perform her role. Also notice that he always calls her Bertha Mason and not Bertha Rochester, which is now her name as a married woman and that he calls Jane already Rochester a moth before the wedding. This is a clear argument to see his conception of a wife: one who does perform her duty as one and not the one who is entitled to the role because of the law. Thus the fact that Rochester makes a distinction between the terms ‘wife’ and ‘mistress’ is also poignant. A wife performs the role of comforter when the husband is at home, runs the household, gives birth to heirs and such things. A mistress, on the other hand, provides you with company, beauty, certain favours of a sexual nature, in exchange for certain material things. A mistress is never supposed to run your household, to give birth to heirs, etc. A mistress also doesn’t live with you but is independent in a certain sense, although available when she should be needed. What role will Jane play in Rochester’s life, then? It is clear that he will not regard her as his mistress! ‘[She] will be Mrs Rochester, both virtually and nominally’. So she will perform the role of his wife, only not according to the law, but what is the value of that? If we take Jane’s view, it is clearly impossible to have two wives, because if one is married until death then the mere fact that Bertha is alive is enough to claim her role as Mrs Rochester. As a mistress is a slave in disguise as she is not equal to her partner like a wife, like Rochester intimates, it is clear that Jane can neither be Rochester’s wife (because that place has been filled) nor his mistress (as she is appalled by how he speaks about his former mistresses). As Rochester asks for Jane’s pledge, he attempts to ‘marry’ her outside the church and thus to make her his wife, so to say, and not his mistress. In a way, we could say that both characters talk beside one another: Rochester keeps saying he is unmarried and Jane keeps saying he is, all of which is due to different opinions on the matter. The practice of two characters not understanding each other, talking beside one another and a dialogue that consequently ends in disaster, calls echoes from theatrical plays, like Shakespeare’s.
The passage:
‘It was MY time to assume ascendency. MY powers were in play and in force,’ doesn’t necessarily refer to a feminist context… In the text it refers to the fact that Jane believes that St John will try to detain her and make her believe the opposite than what she wants to do and believes is right. Indeed, nature/God had done her/His best to bring Jane and Rochester’s souls together when Jane was about to consent to a marriage with St John, and thus condemn herself to become the wife of another because she is still ignorant of the fact that Rochester (the man who should be her husband because he ‘suits her to the finest fibre of [her] nature’) is now free to marry. In a certain sense we could call St John unequal to her, because he doesn’t suit her, but I disagree that he would be inferior because he is a man. That, according to me and the time the novel was written, is too modern an interpretation. The fact that St John and Jane can’t be married can better be seen in the light of the ‘wife-role’ stated above. Jane, at a certain time, says that St John is married to his profession, so in a sense he already has a wife he respects, who is a comfort and even gives him heirs if we want to see his work as a missionary as the ‘creation’ of new Christians. The role of wife is already claimed, and in that, both Rosamond and Jane are too much, and would become mere ornaments as mistresses are.
As for Rochester’s badness, I don’t think it is a bias but just an observation after a first impression and the careful study of literary allusions. Even if Charlotte put them in unconsciously (which is hardly possible), they are remarkably consistent in their badness towards Rochester. Even viewed as King Lear, Rochester from the start has a bad bunch of principles and has himself to blame for what happens to him. We don’t even need to go down the road of interpretation of allusions to be able to grasp the badness of him. What would you think if, at the altar, you found out that your nearly-spouse had been lying to you for the last 6 months and wanted to go on lying, at least for ‘one year and a day’? Jane showed a lot of courage to still love this man and Charlotte showed a lot of skill drawing him so lifelike and yet so likable, even after his escapades. If he is seen in a bad light before the curtains close for him in chapter XXVII, his transformation into amiable man turns out to be more meaningful, more fairy-tale-like, more mythical. This is, in my opinion, why he turns into this iconic man, like Mr Darcy in Pride and Prejudice. The contrast between the person before and after is so strong that the reader gets an ideal image where all positivity grows to a mythical scale, bigger than it should be rationally. The effect is similar to renaissance paintings that evoked big places for the first time painted in perspective (making a vast space out of a canvas no wider than a few millimetres), thus the adding of the mere principle of perspective creates a vast advantage like in Veronese’s Feast in the House of Levi, originally meant as The Last Supper. For a writer the use of positivity after negativity provides the same advantage as the use of perspective on a wall or canvas: it creates something that is not there rationally. The canvas gains depth and the illusion of space; the negative character gains a iconic image. If only a figure, without perspective, is painted on the wall, it will not create extra space in the room but will be a mere ornament; if a character is merely neutral and then gains positivity, it can’t grow to iconic proportions. The practice of painting the things in front bigger than the things at the back and the geometrical placement of the lines, create the illusion of depth, whereas there is nothing behind the pillars in reality. Thus the transformation of Rochester from demonic figure into lovely distraught man gains power through the fact that positivity is the last information you get and that his past is forced along a certain understandable line. Thus the negative things become smaller than they were originally and the positive things grow bigger than the negative things a few chapters ago in our minds; only in few words the writer creates the big front of the painting, leaving the former negativity in the shadow and in the far depth of the background . Mr Darcy only takes at most one chapter and the housekeeper Mrs Reynolds and Rochester not even takes one chapter and the old butler of the house (now owner of the Rochester Arms). If the contrast hadn’t been that big, both men would have been less iconic. Although it is more obvious in Pride &Prejudice I do think the mechanism is apparent in Jane Eyre and is consistent with the repentance-idea and the allusions connected with it.

How nice to hear from you,
Je vous souhaite un joyeux Noël.

Even when you jolt me out of my preconceived notions, even when I would rather wallow in certainties. We are reading the same text but drawing different emphasis from Charlotte's words.
Let me try to clarify, more likely expand. It seems to me that you are basing your arguments on a contemporary societal, moral and ethical interpretation (and this does not exclude your reading of what are the beliefs of a Jane of the 19th. century England), while I tend to look on Charlotte's creation of Jane who evolves but is a law onto herself. Perhaps the analogy would be to Tess d'Urbervilles, if the analogy is not stretched, since Bronte is not Hardy. Chronology has to be respected.

On Modern Dilemma

“we also have to take into account the bigger picture of the moral standards women and particularly Jane had in 1847/1836”. Aren't we being a bit Anglo-Saxon on insisting on the big picture? Like the French, I would rather focus on details: isn't it rash to assume the moral standards of Victorian women as equivalent to those of Jane? What do we know of Jane? Only what Charlotte tells us. All else is extrapolation.
It would even be rash to assume that Jane reflects the moral code of Charlotte herself much less so that of Victorian society. She is a creation of imagination, thus atypical.
Mrs. Reed on her deathbed describes the child Jane, “"I have had more trouble with that child than any one would believe. Such a burden to be left on my hands--and so much annoyance as she caused me, daily and hourly, with her incomprehensible disposition, and her sudden starts of temper, and her continual, unnatural watchings of one's movements! I declare she talked to me once like something mad, or like a fiend--no child ever spoke or looked as she did;” And in Sandy White's Jane Eyre the above is condensed into – You were an unnatural child – giving emphasis on the atypical. Mr. Brocklehurst defines Jane “"You see she is yet young; you observe she possesses the ordinary form of childhood;...my duty to warn you, that this girl, who might be one of God's own lambs, is a little castaway; not a member of the true flock, but evidently an interloper and an alien....this girl, this child, the native of a Christian land, worse than many a little heathen who says its prayers to Brahma and kneels before Juggernaut--this girl is--a liar!", bared from the Christian community, “avoid her company, exclude her from your sports, and shut her out from your converse”. Again the atypical.
Rochester questions her “Who are your parents?"
"I have none."
"Nor ever had, I suppose: do you remember them?"
"No."
"I thought not. And so you were waiting for your people when you sat on that stile?"
"For whom, sir?"
"For the men in green: it was a proper moonlight evening for them. Did I break through one of your rings, that you spread that damned ice on the causeway?"
In jest Rochester typifies Jane apart from the norm.

On the Whitcross moor, Jane is at the end of her resources, both physical and emotional: “Not a tie holds me to human society at this moment--not a charm or hope calls me where my fellow-creatures are--none that saw me would have a kind thought or a good wish for me. I have no relative but the universal mother, Nature: I will seek her breast and ask repose.” This passage is important for several reasons: first, it is Jane's own speech, coming at a moment of crisis from the core of her being, and second Charlotte explicitly introduces Rousseau like Nature that is in juxtaposition to the Christian values of Evangelicism and Calvinism that defined Jane's world. A very atypical concept for a Victorian young woman.
The quality – atypical – is fundamental in my interpretation of Jane Eyre. In Jane as well as in Rochester, for it is the force that attracts each to the other. The strongest example of the atypical in Jane is one, that at the moment I can not cite, for it has to be understood in context of a reading of the novel, it's uniqueness among Charlotte's works, the subtexts, and your definition of Rochester's character as demonic. I'm not being evasive but you'll have to give me time to organize my thoughts.

From Her Brow

You wrote “The fact then that Jane has ‘a dilemma’ (whether to leave Rochester or not), which is clearly already solved by her ‘brow’, as Rochester would say, clearly stems from the standards in the 19th century, rather than from a modern/feminist point of view.”
The rational interpretation is a safe one, however it blinds us to the allusions contained in the text. Jane's decision to distance herself from Thornfield, using all her money, to the maximum extent is not a rational one. Nor is the rejection of St. John's proposal: “"I scorn your idea of love,", rational.
In chapter 35 Jane speaks, “My heart beat fast and thick: I heard its throb. Suddenly it stood still to an inexpressible feeling that thrilled it through, and passed at once to my head and extremities. The feeling was not like an electric shock, but it was quite as sharp, as strange, as startling: it acted on my senses as if their utmost activity hitherto had been but torpor, from which they were now summoned and forced to wake. They rose expectant: eye and ear waited while the flesh quivered on my bones.
"What have you heard? What do you see?" asked St. John. I saw nothing, but I heard a voice somewhere cry - "Jane! Jane! Jane!"--nothing more.”

“I might have said, "Where is it?" for it did not seem in the room-- nor in the house--nor in the garden; it did not come out of the air- -nor from under the earth--nor from overhead. I had heard it-- where, or whence, for ever impossible to know! And it was the voice of a human being--a known, loved, well-remembered voice--that of Edward Fairfax Rochester; and it spoke in pain and woe, wildly, eerily, urgently. "I am coming!" I cried. "Wait for me! Oh, I will come!"
And refuting the rational explanation, Jane says: "Down superstition!" I commented, as that spectre rose up black by the black yew at the gate. "This is not thy deception, nor thy witchcraft: it is the work of nature. She was roused, and did—no miracle--but her best."

In chapter 21 Charlotte using Jane's voice gives a partial explanation: “Presentiments are strange things! and so are sympathies; and so are signs; and the three combined make one mystery to which humanity has not yet found the key. I never laughed at presentiments in my life, because I have had strange ones of my own. Sympathies, I believe, exist (for instance, between far-distant, long-absent, wholly estranged relatives asserting, notwithstanding their alienation, the unity of the source to which each traces his origin) whose workings baffle mortal comprehension. And signs, for aught we know, may be but the sympathies of Nature with man.

The quotes above should be sufficient to indicate that in Jane Eyre Charlotte didn't write a linear theme whose content could be interpreted in a rational framework. It is unique among The Professor, Shirley, Villette. It is a work that Charlotte wrote for herself as well as for the general audience.

deleted

Je vous souhaite un joyeux Noël et une bonne Année également. Bien que je distingue une petite sense de reproche dans votre poste.

We indeed draw different conclusions from this text, but that doesn’t have to be bad, though. Jane Eyre has different layers and while the rational approach is one, the supernatural one is another we all acknowledge. True, Jane is a product of the imagination, but she is still a human form made by a real human and thus she needs logic, like a human, to function. Any character which doesn’t use logic is not a good, deep character, because the reader fails to understand the logic behind the actions of that character. Even aunt Reed has her logic and John Reed has his!
My comparison between the social statuses of mistresses now and at the time Jane Eyre was written does not so much mean that I approach the question from a contemporary/21st century point of view. I merely engaged in it to illustrate the possible negative consequences for Jane, if she had engaged in a relationship with Rochester, although he probably wouldn’t have left her (because of his approach to bigamy/wifehood as stated above), and connected with that, the problems contemporary readers might have to assess her situation.
While I understand and acknowledge the ‘unnatural’-approach, it is essential, when reading a historical work, to see the bigger context: morally, ethically and socially. Jane was no doubt a modern woman for her time, yet it is impossible that she wasn’t part of society with its values as a whole. Where you find it rash to assume that Jane had 19th century principles, it is equally rash to assume that she had totally different ones to her time… Jane is undoubtedly independent with a strong will of her own and passionate (contrary to Victorian ideals), but she is still a 19th century woman: when marriage is not available she flees ‘temptation’ (which a very heavily laden word!), she acknowledges the class difference between her and Rochester/his party, she lets Rochester ask her to marry him (where she came with the idea of becoming his wife, she doesn’t ask him herself). No writer writes on an island. They can maybe criticise society, religion, etc. but they are all part of their time. Charlotte Brontë herself was part of a Victorian society with its values and moral code. While Jane can be called modern and atypical for her time she is not totally free from the Victorian morals… It is not because Jane was/’is’ controversial that she is not part of her time. She might have rejected the proposal of St John, but it doesn’t make her less of a 19th century woman. Virginity and marriage are two of the principles prominent in Jane’s story. Nowadays they do not have the same extended meaning as in the 19th century. Equally important is the debate about the slavery metaphor in Jane Eyre. If it were not for her 19th century principles Charlotte wouldn’t have paired up ‘Creole’ with madness and alcoholism. Neither would the madness of Bertha have been portrayed in a raving manner, which was even at the time the book was first published kind of old-fashioned. Even the feminist reading of Bertha as ‘the other locked up side’ of Jane, is something that fits in the 19th century views of wifehood. Even though she might not have agreed with it, she takes it as the initial point of view which she criticises. Last but not least physiognomy takes a prominent place in judging someone, also from Jane’s point of view (for example during the first proposal of Rochester). Nowadays it passes for a ‘pseudo-science’, whereas then it was taken very seriously: the class-system was justified by it, different kinds of criminals were identified, and even the discrimination of certain tribes/people like the Laps in the Scandinavian countries was justified by it. Extensive scientific papers were written to state the superiority of the Caucasian (white) race. As a result of this there are still conflicts going on in the world because of the classification in the 19th century, Congo is a good example of that. From there comes the utterance of one of the party about Jane: ‘I see all the faults of her class’. Jane Eyre clearly stands among 19th century society as a whole, with its morals, rules, conventions and values. The ‘unnatural’-approach fits in that picture because it evokes the idea that God has a hand in everything. The fact that Jane needs to end up with Rochester can be called the reason for the conflicts in the Reed family. If it were not for those conflicts she would never have gone to school, never have become a governess, and consequently never have ended up in Rochester’s house. Rochester needs to find ‘Christ’ (to make him a better person), in the shape of his plain and poor servant, like the shepherds find the Messiah in the form of ‘a baby lying wrapped in his swaddling clothes, in a manger’ (Luke 2: 12-13). It is striking in itself that Jane at Lowood suddenly gets the urge to change scenery, decides to advertise and that only one response came: the one of Mrs Fairfax. The latter even says: ‘Yes, and I am daily thankful for the choice Providence led me to make. Miss Eyre has been an invaluable companion to me, and a kind and careful teacher to Adèle.’ Rochester eventually recognises that God sent disasters to punish him, with the fire that destroyed Thornfield as the last one. While now people would dismiss that fire as an unfortunate event that was caused by Bertha because of her madness, Rochester eventually regards it as the final punishment of God for his conduct. Equally is it important to acknowledge that the souls of Jane and Rochester come together after a prayer from Rochester’s side, in other words, when Rochester finally recognises God in itself as the force that gives and takes away. Rousseau’s ‘natural religion’ which you take as an argument is not so much different from Christianity as it is part of it, with the remark that according to Rousseau Christianity was not the only true religion, as in his days it was defined and had been defined for centuries. ‘Natural religion’ was the concept of the natural unexplainable order of things and the acceptance of one’s place in it. Rousseau argued that, taking that into account, any religion that evoked that idea would be a ‘true religion’. Thus Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and other branches of them, are ‘true religions’. So in stead of juxtaposition we should rather talk about a kind of ‘dome’ over all ‘true religions’. Thus all religions have roughly the same God, but evoke Him differently. God/Nature is indeed a driving force in Jane Eyre, but it doesn’t rule out a rational approach. Both combined give a more complete picture. When Jane gives all her money away to go as far as she can from Thornfield, it can be called irrational, but it is not really. The question is, as man got a free will when he left Eden, why did she take that decision? She didn’t want to be sought by Rochester, because she would be tempted, so she fled as far away as possible. Thus she ended up, accidentally, at Moor House, notably at her cousin’s place. One could say she was sent there by God and so had to make the ‘rational’ decision to give all her money away. The giving away of all the money can be seen as the ‘divine steering’ of the thoughts of Jane, where God can of course not take her money away physically, because it is there he can make her make the decision to give all away. The same with the bread she forgets in the coach. She refuses St John’s proposal, but why? She suddenly thinks about the time with Rochester, and decides that she doesn’t want to be married to a man who doesn’t love her. While that can be called a controversial decision, it cannot be called an irrational decision. She clearly ways the pros and cons and concludes with a no, in that it is a rational decision per definition. The divine approach to life is not one we nowadays prefer, because it has its place in a society that is superstitious, unscientific, even uneducated. I mean by that, that the people belonging to that society did not have a scientific/rational approach to events. A bad harvest, disease, poverty etc. were down to divine intervention, not at all because of a rational reason. While now a bad harvest might be explained by bad weather (where it stops), they would have sought something in the bad weather itself. Nowadays we just accept that the weather was bad, and scientists even start looking for a scientific reason if the bad weather persists. As with global warming, disasters are not explained in a divine way, but rather in a scientific way (down to CO2 emissions, caused partly by industry). Jane Eyre clearly has a very divine approach to life and in that it is, again, prominently embedded in the historical point of view of events. It is clearly a historical work that uses a historical approach to things.
My comparison between the 21st century and the 19th is not so much a way of judging Jane Eyre from a contemporary point of view, like you think, but rather a way of trying to uncover the principles behind the book and where one might go wrong if having 21st century ones. If Charlotte writes that ‘the Creole’ was a drunkard and mad, she is not so much racist, as Victorian. With 21st century principles she is racist, but not with 19th century. Her view was normal, for a person who read scientific papers/books about madness. It was a general truth that black people and people who descended from blacks were prone to madness and alcoholism, more than Caucasians… A totally distorted and wrong view of things, of course, but it was generally believed under scientists.

On modern dilemma:
It is important to accept the details always make up the consistent, full, big picture. A person who lives in a society is influenced by it, safe if he is a hermit or excludes himself from the world, which cannot be said about Charlotte. One can disagree, one can criticise, but one will always be influenced by the views one was taught. Even Rousseau distinguished between women and men. Although he argued that both sexes depend on one another because they desire one another, it wouldn’t be normal nowadays to make a division between educations of men and women ‘to suit each other’ and to prepare the woman for her wife-role (do women have nothing else to prepare for?). A writer is a person who can write his views down, but it doesn’t exclude him from the general feeling and views of his time. Whatever the result, the novel is a creation of a big consistent idea that concludes in a lot of details. If it were written from the detailed point of view only, it could never become consistent. A coat can never become a nicely tailored coat unless, from an initial design, it is made into paper parts for cutting and then sewn together and fitted on the person. At the same time, a book cannot become a good book, without initial idea and ripening in the mind. A book doesn’t create itself and thus it is prone to influence from the writer, and through the writer, influence from society/religion/ethics/etc.
The passages you cite are an example of both the atypical and rational approach, because all of them get a rational explanation/clearance afterwards:
Aunt Reed cannot understand why Jane was so passionate, yet she says before she dies herself: ‘How for nine years you could be patient and quiescent under any treatment, and in the tenth break out all fire and violence, I can never comprehend.’ Then Jane answers: ‘Many a time, as a little child, I should have been glad to love you if you would have let me; and I long earnestly to be reconciled to you now: kiss me, aunt.’ In a way, here and before in the book, aunt Reed acknowledges to herself that she treated Jane badly. Jane tells her that her aunt didn’t allow to love her and so she didn’t show affection. In stead, the child submitted to bad treatment, and then the bomb burst after nine years. Even for readers it is understandable why Jane grows ‘aggressive’. Who wouldn’t you (even a child in the 19th century) if your cousin throws a book at you and you are in pain because you hit your head? Yet no-one is prepared to punish John for it. It is unjust. So atypical as a rule?
Brocklehurst identifies Jane as a kind of possessed child (which is still seen in Africa now). Yet Miss Temple refuses to believe that and puts it down to believing everything the aunt said (something that is true). She consults Mr Lloyd, the apothecary who attended to Jane when she was still at Gateshead, and ‘[she], having assembled the whole school, announced that inquiry had been made into the charges alleged against Jane Eyre, and that she was most happy to be able to pronounce her completely cleared from every imputation. The teachers then shook hands with [Jane] and kissed [her], and a murmur of pleasure ran through the ranks of [her] companions.’ It is clear, certainly here, that the ‘atypicalness’ is a fantasy from Mrs Reed’s side, it is not believed by Mr Lloyd, nor by Miss Temple. Miss Temple, hearing the story of the Red-room, also finds it unjust, and so the view Mrs Reed has and which you cited is dismissed.
Indeed, Rochester seems to prefer a supernatural Jane (maybe because of his narcissistic Manfred-like tendencies), but Jane dismisses that: ‘The men in green all forsook England a hundred years ago, and not even in Hay Lane, or the fields about it, could you find a trace of them. I don’t think either summer or harvest, or winter moon, will ever shine on their revels more.’ The men in green have all gone, so she can’t be part of them. Rochester keeps insisting on her being a fairy, but even when Jane returns to Fearndean she says that she is not a ghost.
The passage you cite indeed seems what you claim it is, yet a little later Jane says:

‘Nature seemed to me benign and good; I thought she loved me, outcast as I was; and I, who from man could anticipate only mistrust, rejection, insult, clung to her with filial fondness.’

And:

‘Worn out with this torture of thought, I rose to my knees. Night was come, and her planets were risen: a safe, still night: too serene for the companionship of fear. We know that God is everywhere; but certainly we feel His presence most when His works are on the grandest scale spread before us; and it is in the unclouded night-sky, where His worlds wheel their silent course, that we read clearest His infinitude, His omnipotence, His omnipresence. I had risen to my knees to pray for Mr. Rochester. Looking up, I, with tear-dimmed eyes, saw the mighty Milky-way. Remembering what it was—what countless systems there swept space like a soft trace of light—I felt the might and strength of God. Sure was I of His efficiency to save what He had made: convinced I grew that neither earth should perish, nor one of the souls it treasured. I turned my prayer to thanksgiving: the Source of Life was also the Saviour of spirits. Mr. Rochester was safe; he was God’s, and by God would he be guarded. I again nestled to the breast of the hill; and ere long in sleep forgot sorrow.’

Here we can see clearly see that Jane (if not Charlotte…) pairs up Rousseau’s view of ‘natural religion’ and the Christian God, as embedded in ‘natural religion’. Jane says clearly that people will mistrust her, and in that ‘not a tie holds [her] to human society’. Juxtaposition is clearly not in its place as in the same chapter Jane talks about both Nature and God. The combination of both She and He can better be seen like the Holy Trinity. God equals Father, Son and Holy Spirit; yet He is the Son, He is the Father and He is the Holy Spirit. It is a very difficult concept and nearly no-one understands it truly, but in that Nature is God and God is Nature. Like that it is also explainable how it is possible that when Jane asks herself whether it is the will of God to marry St John, that she hears the call of Rochester, although he prayed to God and not to Nature. Jane says: ‘She was roused…’. As Nature is God, God gives her the sign she asked for: it is not God’s will that she marry St John. When she then prays to the Mighty Spirit, and rushes out her soul at His feet, Charlotte makes the picture of God complete.

It is clear that God is prominent in Jane Eyre, however it is very narrow-minded to see the novel as totally apart from everything in society or psychology as a whole. The approach is unique, but every person is unique and therefore every writer. Charlotte indeed wrote the work for herself as well as for the general audience and in that she needed to put it in the 19th century standards, in 19th century society and human psychology then available. Otherwise it is impossible as reader to understand it, and therefore impossible for a publisher to publish it, because no-one would read it as they wouldn't be able understand it.

Come on people join the fray!
Surely you have an opinion or do you find it boring?
Flederhuss, Biterfly - “He he, but that's the beauty of literary analysis, isn't it? One word or phrase sets you off on a whole new exciting train of ideas”

Reply to 19-12

“Bien que je distingue une petite sense de reproche dans votre poste.”
Au contraire, l'admiration de la complexité serait plus approprié. Nous en désaccord, mais j'espère que des lectures analytiques.

“We indeed draw different conclusions from this text, but that doesn’t have to be bad, though. Jane Eyre has different layers and while the rational approach is one, the supernatural one is another “ Yes Charlotte incorporated different layers”, here we agree but if you identify them as rational vs. supernatural, we diverge. I would characterize them as Evangelical reliance on the Old Testament to interpret the New and the Natural religion based on non-revelatory evidence. It doesn't rely on testimony or doctrine. “With Rousseau natural religion takes on a new meaning; "nature" is no longer universality or rationality in the cosmic order, in contrast to special supernatural and positive phenomena, but primitive simplicity and sincerity, in contrast to artificiality and studied reflection.”1
In Victorian beliefs the “Here we can see clearly see that Jane (if not Charlotte…) pairs up Rousseau’s view of ‘natural religion’ and the Christian God, as embedded in ‘natural religion’. “, in reading the text simply is not possible. If Charlotte makes a point of it, it is important in the theme.
In the segment ‘Worn out with this torture of thought, I rose to my knees. Night was come, and her planets were risen: a safe, still night: too serene for the companionship of fear. We know that God is everywhere; but certainly we feel His presence most when His works are on the grandest scale spread before us; and it is in the unclouded night-sky, where His worlds wheel their silent course, that we read clearest His infinitude, His omnipotence, His omnipresence. I had risen to my knees to pray for Mr. Rochester. Looking up, I, with tear-dimmed eyes, saw the mighty Milky-way. Remembering what it was—what countless systems there swept space like a soft trace of light—I felt the might and strength of God. Sure was I of His efficiency to save what He had made: convinced I grew that neither earth should perish, nor one of the souls it treasured. I turned my prayer to thanksgiving: the Source of Life was also the Saviour of spirits. Mr. Rochester was safe; he was God’s, and by God would he be guarded. I again nestled to the breast of the hill; and ere long in sleep forgot sorrow.’2
I would note several contrasting themes: the phrase “ I felt the might and strength of God. Sure was I of His efficiency to save what He had made” as background belief, ie. of the Victorian social mores, while “ convinced I grew that neither earth should perish, nor one of the souls it treasured.”, expresses the Natural religion as defined by Rousseau and “Mr. Rochester was safe; he was God’s, and by God would he be guarded. “, expresses Jane's loneliness separated from Rochester. If we are to adopt a critical reading of the text, such differences should be respected.
Preceding the quoted passage is “My rest might have been blissful enough, only a sad heart broke it. It plained of its gaping wounds, its inward bleeding, its riven chords.**It trembled for Mr. Rochester and his doom; it bemoaned him with bitter pity; it demanded him with ceaseless longing; and, impotent as a bird with both wings broken, it still quivered its
shattered pinions in vain attempts to seek him. “2
In light of the complete passage kiki's note: “ Here we can see clearly see that Jane (if not Charlotte…) pairs up Rousseau’s view of ‘natural religion’ and the Christian God, as embedded in ‘natural religion’.” is a very subjective, a theistic reading. It is also at odds with a contemporary criticism: “It is true Jane does right, and exerts great moral strength, but it is the strength of a mere heathen mind which is a law unto itself. No Christian grace is perceptible upon her.
Altogether the autobiography of Jane Eyre is preeminently an anti-Christian composition.”3
Your note “ Last but not least physiognomy takes a prominent place in judging someone, also from Jane’s point of view (for example during the first proposal of Rochester). Nowadays it passes for a ‘pseudo-science’, whereas then it was taken very seriously: the class-system was justified by it, different kinds of criminals were identified, and even the discrimination of certain”, is very interesting. Especially in your view that Bertha's treatment was inhumane and that she would have received better treatment in an asylum. Physiognomy illustrates the limits of the Victorian understanding of the mind and consequently of mental disease treatment.
In my note, On Modern Dilemma I tried to give an indication that criticism based on the Evangelical analysis of the novel results in incomplete and contradictory views. Jane Eyre is a love story in full complexity of the word. If you can not answer the question why Jane loved Rochester in view of his betrayal of her trust, the bigamous marriage, then you have not grappled with the fundamental subtext of that Charlotte wove into the text. I do not think that can be done from a theistic Christian reading. It requires a different perspective.
I hope that I can present a coherent argument for this view in a future note.


PS.S'il vous plaît jeter un coup d'oeil à Messages Privés lorsque vous vous connectez. Une citation que mai aider dans votre recherche. Bonne chance.

Notes

1.http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/deismfre.htm
2.Jane Eyre, chapter 28.
3.http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/en...s6/bronte.html - 20k

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peripatetics

Reply to 19-12

It is also at odds with a contemporary criticism: “It is true Jane does right, and exerts great moral strength, but it is the strength of a mere heathen mind which is a law unto itself. No Christian grace is perceptible upon her.
Altogether the autobiography of Jane Eyre is preeminently an anti-Christian composition.”

Your note “ Last but not least physiognomy takes a prominent place in judging someone, also from Jane’s point of view (for example during the first proposal of Rochester). Nowadays it passes for a ‘pseudo-science’, whereas then it was taken very seriously: the class-system was justified by it, different kinds of criminals were identified, and even the discrimination of certain”, is very interesting. Especially in your view that Bertha's treatment was inhumane and that she would have received better treatment in an asylum. Physiognomy illustrates the limits of the Victorian understanding of the mind and consequently of mental disease treatment.

---

As to the first comment I quoted. I am sorry but I find that the most biassed, most ignorant assertion I have ever heard. If I offend with the language I used, I am very very sorry, but I cannot find other words to express my feelings of shock and disbelief.
If Jane prays to God, can we then say that she is a heathen?? Can we ever say that a person who was raised by a parson and knew no other religion, went to church at least once a weak (which is known by fact!), had several Bibles in her house, all heavily marked; can we ever suppose that she would only be seen with a heathen?
The book, for me (and I am certain like for many others), has a profound force in the background, as the world has it for religious people. Someone who doesn't want to acknowledge that clearly displays great ignorance.
It is also at odds with texts as Paradise Lost, the Pilgrim's Progress (thank you Bitterfly!) and Greek mythology (when it comes to the mere divine influence in society). I think there are enough references which make it clear that Jane has a great Christian touch.
Only the assertion that Jane is a Christ-figure doesn't suit her heathendom.

Physiognomy illustrates not so much the limits of Victorian society to understand the mind, but it illustrates the biasses people had towards people of a lower class, criminals, primitive tribes (as 'tribes that are not so far advanced as the Victorians'), classification... Physiognomy was a fundamental outer symptom of the Victorian mania to organise/classify/define. It was a way of dealing with the growing problem of criminality in cities, the growing amount of mad people (only because there was an advance in diagnosing people and providing care for them), the colonisation and superiority. Only putting it down to the mind is narrow-minded. Before people came to the cities in big crowds, they didn't see those problems so dramatically, because they were spread over the country. In the cities the problems started to stick together and became bigger. The rich and leading classes couldn't shut their eyes for it. They tried to justify it by classifying people as 'hopeless cases', because they had a combination of facial marks and were destined to become a murderer. Therefore, one couldn't do anything about him muderering people, because he was born that way. Like that also with the poor and the colonised nations. Victorians were naturally superior to the blacks, because they had better features... So it was natural, and even better for the blacks, that they dominated them, because they were hopeless...
About the mad:
Already in 1798 reform started by the Quakers as to the care for the mad. Where they were before merely seen as the receivers of a punishment of God, now they were regarded as sick people. Charlotte must have been aware of that, because at the time she was writing her book, there was a commission visiting asylums in order to make an Act of Parliament to organise (the Victorian ideal!) the care for the mad/mentally ill. Things were published in newspapers as a reslt of it. She knew about psychology, so I can't see why she could have been so wrong as to intending the treatment of Bertha good. What's more it is totally at odds with the notion that Rochester has demonic tendencies.
Although we might look now at Victorian methods and find them cruel they were a lot better than just locking someone away and forget about them as was done in the 18th century.
The original method of moral management, though, is still operational in the Friends Retreat at York. They have a website, if you are interested.
Victorians didn't lock people up anymore, and if they did, it was found cruel and bad treatment. There are a few sites of universities that are dedicated to this.
The myth about bad treatment for lunatics probably results from Dickensian scenes, which took place in places like Bedlam pauper lunatic hospital, which was even at the time notorious for its bad care. The fact that it was a pauper hospital might also be a clue as to the treatment of the rich. William Makepeace Thackeray also locked up his wife... after having sought half of the world for treatment for her, having seen everything fail, he locked her up... let's say he confined her to a house... which is of course a lot better than Bertha in her permanently dark room. One can get mad because of that.

I keep my opinion that it is essential to see a book in its time. I have seen enough information to state that Jane is a religious person (how could she not be, being educated for 8 years at a religious boarding school) and to see the true nature of Bertha's treatment as at least old-fashioned and an act of denial from Rochester's side (Kind Lear).


In order to get a better view, google on things like this.

I seem to think we have met somewhere before, but I can't remember. Maybe you could clarify... (je crois distinguer le style du nouveau venu. Sinon comment savez-vous que je parle le français?)