Kiki1982, 12-19-08, Thread:Are we reading the same text #12
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kiki1982
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.
Sorry for the late reply but my mind has been distracted and as I said before you bring up more interesting issues than I can digest at once.
We do approach the issue of veracity of a character from different view points. You insist on the bigger picture (how Anglo-Saxon), while I give the authoress poetic license (how French). Je suis le rire, mais doucement, parce que, bien que sur les côtés opposés, nous remettent en question l'orthodoxie.
I think that Charlotte wrote Jane Eyre because she had to, a way of exorcising a personal daemon. Also that it was an intellectual opus, more akin to a musical composition where the logical consistency was within a particular movement such as a coda following a sonata, than from a socio-economic view point. It exist but it is more of a background, décor where the action takes place, than the theme.
Your point: “when marriage is not available she flees ‘temptation’ “. Temptation can be interpreted in multiple ways. An interesting one is the argument presented by Avoiding Dangerous Sexuality in Jane Eyre by Debra Waller.
http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/...e/waller4.html
Your point:”She might have rejected the proposal of St John, but it doesn’t make her less of a 19th century woman. “ Not less of a !9th. Century woman, but certainly not a Victorian Evangelical one. Conversion of the heathen was a central tenet of the Evangelicals and when Jane places love over missionary vocation, she not only rejects St. John but at the same time the Evangelical doctrine. Tis is a specific example of the evolution of Jane's religiosity. In Lowood the young Jane questions: what is god, who is god, ( note the small case used by Charlotte) but in chapter 35 when Jane says “it was my time to assume ascendency. my powers were in play “, I think that we can safely read this as a Jane who no longer is in doubt and relaying on convention.
Your point:”Virginity and marriage are two of the principles prominent in Jane’s story.”. We disagree, love is, not marriage, certainly not virginity.( see ref.)
Yes Jane's dream of a bride in a white veil is shattered by the realization of a bigamous marriage, however that is too narrow, too conventional (Victorian), an interpretation of Jane's morality. That describes Jane in the second part of the structure of the novel. Jane evolves. In the third part, when she hears the voice “Jane, Jane”, she does not struggle with a moral quandary whether she should or can go back to Rochester. When she decides to go back to Rochester, she is not aware of Bertha's death, she no longer has to flee 'temptation'.
If 'marriage is the prominent principle' how do you account for chapter 34 when Rochester questions “and trusted that she would not leave me." and Jane replies, "Which I never will, sir, from this day." and when Jane says "I don't care about being married.".
A pretty dilemma for a logical explanation! Or shall you concede that Jane does not exist in a rational explanation, that she is what Charlotte imagined, an 'atypical' Jane.
Ref.- The Brontes: A Centennial Observance.
Charlotte in a letter to a friend wrote “If he were a clever man and loved me, the whole world weight in balance against his slightest wish should be light as air.”
Richard Chase in The Brontes: A Centennial Observance, drew the conclusion that “in their intellectual parsonage, the sisters came to admire and fear most: sexual and intellectual energy.”
Puisque vous avez dit que vous êtes belge et des références à la culture française, j'ai supposé que vous étiez Wallon. Si je suis confondu svp pardonnez-moi, il était une petite erreur puisque le Français est une si belle langue. Je ne crois pas que nous avons correspondu avant depuis que j'aurais noté votre modèle cultivé d'expression.
Les meilleurs voeux pendant la nouvelle année. J'espère que nous aurons beaucoup plus de désaccords heureux et je rirai.
Je ne sais pas quoi penser
It is clear that you fail to see everything in its context. As with Jane Eyre you take the Crusades out of its context of time, origin and society. They are not comparable to either the concentration camps or the gulags because they didn’t serve the same purpose. The concentration camps were designed to murder people mainly of a certain background in an industrial way (least cost, most result, win-win). (don’t think me a Nazi. I just present it to you as the Nazis thought it.) The gulags, to a lesser extent had the same goal, although I believe they were more concentrated on re-education with the ‘occasional’ death welcomed. (here again, I do not support this, I just present it as the Soviets probably considered it). The Crusades weren’t an industrial way to kill the Muslims, although it has been considered like that by some. The Crusades were a war against the Saracens/Turks/Muslims, a political war (to recover Asia Minor for Byzantium), which was made into a religious war by the church (in order to channel the violence bred into the medieval man, that paralysed society) because it was easier to play on the piety of the knights than it was to get them to help with a war halfway across Europe which didn’t even concern them. Given that Henry V of England couldn’t get nobility to come across the Channel for a war of succession, I don’t suppose that any man was ready to risk his life at the other end of the known world for someone else’s gain. Of course, if one presents it as a War of Faith and grants the ones that fight absolution for eternity, then it becomes all the more appealing. The church did a lot propaganda-wise for it as well, portraying Mohammed as a liar and magician, and drawing on the previous construction of ‘courtly love’, it made the ‘quest’ all the more appealing. This war certainly wasn’t intended to kill all Muslims, but rather to keep them out of Jerusalem. Admittedly, troops used to loot and kill in the cities, but that was done by the Muslims as well and was a common war-practice, fortunately long gone in the Western countries but still present in Africa (burning of villages in Sudan). You can consider crusades as a crime, but it still stands at the centre of knighthood, which is recognised by professors of medieval literature (a subject I studied in university). In a historical context those knights were fighting for the ‘weak Christians’ and for the ‘True Faith’. As I said in connection with Agincourt, nobility and chivalry can co-exist with conceit and material gain in practice, but that doesn’t imply that the situation in which it occurs is worse or better than a situation in which it doesn’t. Material gain was also at the centre of it all, but it doesn’t change chivalry and its code of honour. Richard the Lionhearted also went to the crusades and he was a ‘flower of knighthood’, as you put it. Frederick I Barbarossa as well. In a modern context the crusades are a manifestation of racism, but not in a medieval one. Medieval society was a strange one, as is its literature, and it needs a lot of background and (philosophical) study. Calling the crusades a crime against humanity is displaying an exceeding unawareness of the bases of medieval society as a whole.
Let me tell you something about the medieval (distorted) view of the world and powers of that world:
Peter was the first pope (or considered as). He was the favourite apostle of Jesus and therefore had jurisdiction (they believed). For them he was the representation of God on Earth, so to say. In the beginning the pope mainly served as someone who could solve conflicting messages amongst the different branches of Christianity. In other words he had no political power as the Empire was ruled by the Romans. Over time, however, the Roman Empire deteriorated and feudal wars broke out. The pope was threatened (personally) in Rome by the Lombards and decided to ask the Frankish king for help. For some or other reason, the pope then decided he wanted land (maybe to defend himself) and he got it through the falsification of a document. However, more than spiritual power he would not have in the rest of Europe. But by 800, when he (mistakenly) proclaimed Charlemagne emperor, he did make his image as the one to make or break an emperor. In the Middle Ages, the pope had become the institution of jurisdiction. To have the approval of the pope was to have the approval of God. The Scots asked their king to be anointed because the English then wouldn’t question the right of the Scots to have a king. As the pope had the ultimate jurisdiction, and naturally claimed he had the only True Faith (not anymore!), everything that went against the pope or his jurisdiction was considered as untrue, and even against God himself. As the Muslims challenged the True Faith by their own True Faith, (like the Cathars, although they went even further), they committed blasphemy, so to say. When the Byzantine empire and its capital was threatened politically by Muslims (we are talking armies), the pope plaid on his ultimate jurisdiction and the wish for warriors to fight. He made that political conflict a Holy War and shouted that ‘God Wills it!’ In medieval times there was no conception of the individual, the individual was irrelevant to the result, as was the detail to the larger picture, because everything came down on the afterlife, because life in itself was short. It does not mean that they wouldn’t start a war because of something stupid and unimportant, but because there was continuously that threat and the threat of disease and death, their place in heaven (so to say) was all-important. Everything was God, depended on God and was for God. Thus, the material gain and slaughter/war crimes beside the Crusades, was unimportant as it was the result (the conquering of Jerusalem) that was the only thing to be considered. Also in literature: the author was unimportant and copies of originals featured more things that happened, as did ‘translations’. A particularly funny thing is when in the genre of lives of saints, several saints seem to have done the same miracle, the one St Peter has done only 5 miracles in his life where a copy of the same work features 7. Miracles were swapped amongst saints and they all have the same kind of things happening to them in their childhoods. But copyright (the uniqueness of the individual and his work) was not considered as important because after all it was the result or the nature of the holy life of that person that was to be considered. And so, the additional miracles only contributed to the notion of that saint being definitely holy, disregarding whether actual miracles even happened. The same with the Arthurian novels or Troy novels: they were put into the library of nobles to prove a genealogical connection between the noble and king Arthur or the great heroes of the Trojan wars, only to strengthen the justified position of the noble in question. The conception of truth in medieval terms is not the same as the one we now have. The medieval way of thinking never existed before that and ceased to exist when the Renaissance kicked in with individualism and the Black Death. When the pope decided that he had had enough of nobles fighting and terrorising the peasant population, naturally, anything was good enough to have them stop and so used his moral power to ‘direct’ the violence towards the Turks and to attain peace in Western Europe. It was the end that had to be considered and not the means to it. Given that the pope was the representation of God on Earth, no hesitation was required.
The crusade against the Cathars was based (by the pope) on political grounds. He saw his power questioned by a set of beliefs that started to doubt prime Catholic dogmas. Yet, the church has always been very clever at turning the minds of people and thus proclaimed that nobles could claim the grounds in the Languedoc. They went in herds… Of course, this place was closer by than Jerusalem, so they only needed a little persuasion… Although it might seem like material gain that doesn’t belong to a great result, it was still ground that would go down the generations, and thus they were contributing to their own kingdom.
The Crusades are not a mere slaughter. They were inspired by politics, power and riches. They were fought by people, and no man or woman is above material gain and power (not even the pope as it happens). Thus, the chivalric code, is to be considered, but with moderation as it can never be as perfect as in literature. To dismiss it as something mere fictional, however, is not sceptical enough. In literature, it should rather be seen as a good model according to which a good knight should act, part o the propaganda of the church.
In opposition to what you think, I do not see it from a Christian point of view. You rather seem to view it from a preconceived negativity that fails to embrace the historical context and fails to be prepared to banish any vaguely modern beliefs relative to racism/Muslims/religion/war. Contrary to in America, religion on the continent is not a determining factor. Religious people do not colour their interpretations of anything with religious beliefs. Although there are Catholic universities, they do not forbid nor discourage the study of texts of other religions, nor do they distance themselves from Darwinism or genetic research. You will never hear a European president or king say ‘God bless you’. It is something that does not fit in a political, social or scientific context. Thus, accusing me of seeing history and this work with a Christian preconception is against my European nature and I do not accept it as an argument.
If you want a further discussion on anything in connection with this, I refer you to the religion-forum.
Now something to the point.
I still do not think that you provide me with a consistent argument to refute Rochester’s demonic nature. If, however, you find the word too much religiously inspired (which is a misconception), then we can still agree that Rochester is a fundamentally bad character in his first appearance. If that is not the case, how do you interpret the Pilgrim’s Progress- and Paradise Lost-allusions? Not to mention King Lear… You still haven’t supplied me with a consistent argument against it. The context of Bertha’s treatment should be a good indicator for Rochester’s character and the perception we should have of him, initially.
If there is no transformation in Rochester, how do you see his speech:
‘I began to experience remorse, repentance; the wish for reconcilement to my Maker. I began sometimes to pray: very brief prayers they were, but very sincere.
“Some days since: nay, I can number them—four; it was last Monday night, a singular mood came over me: one in which grief replaced frenzy—sorrow, sullenness. I had long had the impression that since I could nowhere find you, you must be dead. Late that night—perhaps it might be between eleven and twelve o’clock—ere I retired to my dreary rest, I supplicated God, that, if it seemed good to Him, I might soon be taken from this life, and admitted to that world to come, where there was still hope of rejoining Jane.
“I was in my own room, and sitting by the window, which was open: it soothed me to feel the balmy night-air; though I could see no stars and only by a vague, luminous haze, knew the presence of a moon. I longed for thee, Janet! Oh, I longed for thee both with soul and flesh! I asked of God, at once in anguish and humility, if I had not been long enough desolate, afflicted, tormented; and might not soon taste bliss and peace once more. That I merited all I endured, I acknowledged—that I could scarcely endure more, I pleaded; and the alpha and omega of my heart’s wishes broke involuntarily from my lips in the words—‘Jane! Jane! Jane!’”
It is inconceivable that you keep insisting in it not being true. Unless inspired by a profound and misplaced dislike of all things and faint notions pious, I cannot comprehend why you keep denying something that is so obvious.
I am waiting eagerly for your consistent argument.
The lady doth protest too much.
Dear kiki,
Thank you very much for the discourse on Medieval history. A bit too brief and a little controversial but I enjoyed it, hope that the other Forum readers did as much. But some parts, such as “As I said in connection with Agincourt, nobility and chivalry can co-exist with conceit and material gain in practice, but that doesn’t imply that the situation in which it occurs is worse or better than a situation in which it doesn’t.”, simply goes over my head. Perhaps you could parse and diagram it?
Now your gloss on the medieval Christianity: “ Everything was God, depended on God and was for God. Thus, the material gain and slaughter/war crimes beside the Crusades, was unimportant as it was the result (the conquering of Jerusalem) that was the only thing to be considered.” is very good. However when you said: ”It is clear that you fail to see everything in its context. As with Jane Eyre you take the Crusades out of its context of time, origin and society. “, does it imply that you read Jane Eyre in this context?
Narcissistically I'll protest that I try to read Jane Eyre in the context of Victorian society but I'll leave it to others whether I succeed.
Now your statement:”The crusade against the Cathars was based (by the pope) on political grounds.” sounds very much like something president Bush would have made. I mistakingly viewed it in a moral context, and I'm truly grateful that :”You will never hear a European president or king say ‘God bless you’. “But a small aside, do you consider the English as European?
In the context of the Bosnian war, your statement: ”Contrary to in America, religion on the continent is not a determining factor. Religious people do not colour their interpretations of anything with religious beliefs.”, leaves me a bit puzzled. And thank you for your advise to take my arguments to the religious forum. I'll have to admit that it crossed my mind when you wrote in analysis of Jane Eyre: “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). “, yet I resisted the impulse out of 'chivalric' concern not to offend a lady.
- Now something to the point. - as you said.
“ then we can still agree that Rochester is a fundamentally bad character in his first appearance. If that is not the case, how do you interpret the Pilgrim’s Progress- and Paradise Lost-allusions? Not to mention King Lear...”
Simply put that these short phrases are an illustration that Rochester is an educated man. Nothing more. As a cormorant is just a cormorant, in Jane's watercolors and not an alias for Satan, as you interpreted the subtext. Perhaps I'm just not well read and sophisticated and as Bitterfly put it “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, until you find something that contradicts it and you have to start anew... I must admit I love it!”, don't have enough of an imagination.
Et elle continue de rire et pleurer
Et elle continue à rire et pleurer
The piece about Medieval history controversial? That was at least what I learnt in my university course. I don’t know what they teach you over there, but my professor was well-known in his field.
If you talk about chivalry, you need to know what you talk about. You clearly didn’t. If you want to make your own version of it, you are welcome to it, but it doesn’t make it more realistic than one taught at university. Only the point from which you started (1830) was seriously disregarding the entire literary history of Arthurian legend, Troy novels, courtly love and ‘the quest’ which started in the 11th century and which still carries on today.
When you narcissistically protest that you read Jane Eyre in the Victorian context, I’ll just refer you to one of your first posts where you totally contradicted Victorian morality. That is context to me, I do not know what you make of that. Moreover you reject the context in which Bertha finds herself. Also context… I do not try to see anything in whatever forced context you might suppose, only the context in which it is clearly set. It is that which you refuse to understand.
About the continent: I meant the sphere in which Napoleon spread the idea of a secular state, secular science and secular society. This does not imply Bosnia (the war by the way was a political one again, put into religious context, first source Bosnian). In the meantime there are a lot of Eastern-European countries, or the New Europe that also embrace those ideals.
We will not go into political discussion about the (un)Europeanness of the English.
The Christ-allusion was an answer to your first post. You supported the idea of Christ-figure Jane. I just elaborated on the point you made. I am at a loss how you can adhere to the Christ-idea and not want to see a religious context…
I am waiting for your consistent argument.
