The Professor

[Sushi_dinner]

Charlotte Bronte’s “The Professor” is not an easy to read novel. It is at times slow and repetitive. The main character, William Crimsworth, is quite hateful and, overall, a loser. He is chauvinistic and describes Catholics and other continental citizens (i.e. people not from England) from a racist and self-righteous perspective.
All through the novel we have to endure his “morally superior” narrative. But here lies the beauty of it, what he is really doing is concealing himself, hiding behind imposed Anglican values when convenient or criticizing those values when rejected by his reduced English society. He doesn’t want to show the world that he has been hurt by this rejection and abandonment, including by his own brother, who is his sole living relative. Therefore he takes the stance that he is above everyone and above reproach, whereas the rest aren’t up-to-standard. He becomes rather boring and so closed into this self-protection that he turns artificially self-reliable, not even being able to thank the only person who helps him throughout his stay at X_____ and later on, M. Hundsen, whom he puts down as well.
Then he goes on to Brussels where, probably because of his hatefulness of character, he feels rejected once more by his friend and superior, M. Pelet, and the woman he makes the object of his love, if only briefly. Both of them betray him through lies and hypocrisy and Crimsworth extrapolates this as a common trait of all continental people and Catholics.
He then falls in love with his pupil, Frances Henri, a fellow teacher and strong woman who wants to rise above her condition by her hard work. He projects in her all his ideals of what a woman should be: her propriety, her humbleness and religiousness. At the beginning, she appears as a mousy creature, easily moved to tears, but, as her personality unfolds, she turns out to be a strong woman, quite feminist, probably a reflection of Charlotte Bronte herself.
I think that Crimsworth falls in love with her even more since she probably is all that he is not: where he runs away from adversity, as he did when he came to Brussels, she turns to face her fears; where he received help to improve in life (something he is incapable of admitting), she finds her improvement and escapes her poverty through her own means and strength; where he never confronts M. Hundsen’s questionable character, she does so, very strongly, in their first meeting. In all, the author uses the great contrast to highly criticize Crimsworth, representing men and all of the restraining morals of the time. Both he and Frances, coming from the same type of loneliness, deal with adversity in almost opposite ways. Bronte makes her main character, a man, very unlikeable, but introduces the female counterpart in a way that makes you like her, if not from the start, at least as her character comes to light.
I have read many reviews saying that this novel is racist and chauvinistic, but it is not. On the contrary, it seems more of an explanation of why people are xenophobic and self-righteous: because of acute loneliness that comes from rejection, isolation and misunderstanding. As Frances Henri herself says: “Patriotism […] spreads a man’s selfishness in wider circles”. This statement itself sheds light on the whole point of the book, which, by the way, I have also read is referred to as pointless and predictable. These reviews have probably been made by narrow-mined readers who pretended to read a straight-forward romance novel, only to find an uncomfortable story line that leads to an uncomfortable realization of their own predictable flaws.

[Newcomer]

... But here lies the beauty of it ...

The Professor Charlotte's first attempt at a commercial work, was rejected by the publisher and not in print till after her death. It has remained an obscure work, interesting but rough stylistically. Thus it is with some interest what Sushi_dinner writes; a sensitive reading of the novel. She notes the feelings of loneliness and rejection, the xenophobia and religious intolerance. Her analysis seems to suggest that these traits were fictional, artistic attributes, of the characters in the novel. However if one reads her published correspondence, the same traits are expressed and can be reasonably assumed that they represent Charlotte's own views: virulent dislike of Catholics, characterization of Belgian female students as shallow and immoral, and the English as morally superior. Her portrayal of the Belgian monarch is of inanity while that of Victoria, bordering on obsequious.
It would be difficult to find in the Professor the poetic passion that Charlotte created in Jane Eyre. Nor was she able to repeat the spark of genius in her latter novels. In the Professor she attempts to write from the male viewpoint, a very audacious and interesting experiment and the novel should be studied if only on this account. In a letter to James Taylor, Charlotte wrote, "In delineating male characters, I labour under disadvantages; intuition and theory will not adequately supply the place of observation and experience. When I write about women, I am sure of my ground--in the other case I am not so sure". Sushi_dinner tangentially notes this shift in narrative voice. A more thorough analysis can be found in an essay Other Case: Gender and Narration in Charlotte Bronte's The Professor by Annette R. Federico, @ http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3708/is_199410/ai_n8730436.
A long and scholarly article but well worth the trouble. Sushi_dinner's view is original and well phrased. It would be nice to hear from her again.

[Sushi_dinner]

Hello Newcomer,
Thank you for your feedback, it has been very helpful in my understanding of the book, which I recently finished reading. I normally do not write book reviews but I felt that this book hadn't received a just treatment in most of the reviews I have read online. That's why I attempted, if only a bit clumsily, to defend it. I am not an expert in literature, but I do like to analyze human thoughts and ideas. My "original" point of view probably comes from my brave ignorance on the matter...
As you pointed out, Charlotte herself was quite self-righteous and racist. I ask you if this could have come from a lack of adaptation to her life in Brussels, maybe by that feeling of rejection that I found in Crimsworth, that translates in the form of the author lashing out (almost irrationally) against the Belgians?
I will try to read the link you sent, as soon as I can wedge in a few hours between work and other books ;)
Thanks again.
Suhsi

[Newcomer]

....As you pointed out, Charlotte herself was quite self-righteous and racist. I ask you if this could have come from a lack of adaptation to her life in Brussels, maybe by that feeling of rejection that I found in Crimsworth, that translates in the form of the author lashing out (almost irrationally) against the Belgians?

Some friendly quibbles. It is my opinion it's good to be 'brave' in interpretation and circumspect when making a character accusations, such as racist, that you would not make face to face.
When you write “ Charlotte herself was quite self-righteous and racist”, that requires a degree of proof, such as passages in private letters or other direct statements, to back it up. Attitudes of characters in a novel or assumptions by other novelists in fiction are not sufficient. It's well to consider the actual life of the author whether such a damaging accusation is probable. In my view the two accusations against Charlotte have very different origins.
Charlotte's anti-Catholicism has to be understood in context of England's history. It was more political than religious in Elizabethan time and was the result of the Pope not granting a divorce to Henry VIII to marry Anne Boleyn. The Pope reacted by moving to excommunicate Henry in July 1533, followed by Treasons Act 1534 that made it high treason punishable by death to refuse to acknowledge the King the only Supreme Head in Earth of the Church of England. In 1603, James I, succeeded the last Tudor monarch of England and Ireland, Elizabeth I. James was obsessed with the threat posed by witches and witchcraft, which he considered a branch of theology. In 1605, the discovery of the Catholic Gunpowder Plot, inflamed the general populace against the Catholics. While Charlotte Bronte was not conventionally religious, the English tradition of Protestantism had a cultural affect on her views.
The accusation of racism has a completely different history. It has no basis in Charlotte's writings and seems to be connected with feminist colonialism perspective and the novelist Jean Rhys of The Wide Sargasso Sea. Specifically the criticism of the depiction of the Creole origins of Bertha in Jane Eyre.
Jean Rhys has been described as “West Indies-born writer - self-destructive and alcoholic, whose rootlessness and familiarity with the seedy side of life featured in her work. Jean Rhys's called herself as "a doormat in a world of boots." “. Three disastrous marriages and an affair with Ford Madox Ford that produced a illegitimate daughter. She lived for many years in the West Country, often in great poverty, avoiding literary circles. In 1949 Rhys was arrested for assaulting her neighbors and the police. In contrast Charlotte Bronte's character is often cited for obsession for Truth and Realism. Two terms that she uses idiosyncratically. However the contrast with Rhys is quite profound, thus the feminist interpretation of Bertha's as depicted by Rhys as racist is highly questionable.
Your observation of Charlotte's “lashing out against the Belgians (almost irrationally)”, is confirmed in her letters home. The understanding of this bias has to be psychological and very probable of a sexual nature. But that is a difficult and contentious subject, not for a short note.
If you wish to pursue the subject of Charlotte Bronte, I would recommend Winifred Gerin's, Charlotte Bronte: the Evolution of Genius. A very long book.

[Sushi_dinner]

I am aware of the history of England. I was also aware, somewhat, of Charlotte's background. I do try to learn a bit about the authors I read. Maybe the term "racist" was a bit crude on my part to use, and horribly simplistic. As I said, I wanted to understand the book and its author, especially since half my family is Belgian, which is why "The Professor" has touched me deeply, often in a hurtful way, others I found his comments and views amusing since they seemed to be so generalist and old fashioned way of thinking. Therefore it is only natural that I tried to grasp this hate, just as Rhys tried to interpret her counterpart in Jane Eyre. But, on my part, I don't like to put blame on people for their xenophobias, but understand the true feeling of it, which I have found usually comes more from deeply within oneself more than from the actual object of hate (i.e. the Belgians and Catholics in this case). Of course, the age and culture from which one is born can also be very influential, but that leaves a generalized feeling of hate, and I have found this book to be quite specific in its target, leading me to believe that it stemmed from a personal point of view.
Again, sorry for my clumsy interpretations and choice of words (English is not my first language, I'm afraid). I will try and further my knowledge with more readings.

[Newcomer]

....Again, sorry for my clumsy interpretations and choice of words (English is not my first language, I'm afraid). I will try and further my knowledge with more readings.

You do not have to apologize for your interpretation, which is first rate, or for your English. It is better than most of the native posters.
It is good to understand the background of an author, if not to excuse misogynistic views. It is well to keep in mind that the Brontes were provincials, in the fullest meaning of the word. While Charlotte was precocious in use of language and of interest of the world, her education was severely limited. Women were not sent to Oxford or Cambridge.
Charlotte in her letters home from Brussels, certainly disparaged the Belgians. Or the minuscule number that she was exposed to, however she did admire the women's dresses, the city and certainly her teacher (to put it mildly). It is my opinion that to say that she hated the Belgians is too simplistic. What is apparent that her emotions were conflicted. Your insight - “ I have found usually comes more from deeply within oneself more than from the actual object of hate.”, is to the point.
I hope that you shall continue with your reading and share your thoughts with us.

[Newcomer]

Since Charlotte has offended with some bile about the Belgians in the Professor, perhaps Jane Austen would be more congenial. In Sense And Sensibility, Elenor asked where the Nile originates, hesitantly replies- Belgium, then corrects herself by – No she was thinking of the Volga.
Quite an honor, locating such mighty rivers in tiny Belgium. A bit of irony if not emphasizing the lack of knowledge in the young ladies of the 18th. century.