Mad Wife in the Attic?

Not only was the locking up of bertha mason representitive of female subjugation, it is important to note that bertha was west-indian; many critics have argued that the characterisation of bertha, as well as the portrayal of rochester's treatment of her, is bronte's indictment of slavery and of colonialism. many post-colonial critics, therefore, read this as bronte's depiction of white, slave-master oppression (note the continuing slave allegories throughout the novel). some critics have also argued that when rochester claims she was insane without his knowing, she was too sexually adventurous for him (due to her foreign, west-indian background) and therefore he had to lock her up - this then drove her to the level of insanity that she eventually reaches (however, i do not wholly trust this argument as yet - but just thought i'd throw it out there)
xxx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ophelia2602

Not only was the locking up of bertha mason representitive of female subjugation, it is important to note that bertha was west-indian; many critics have argued that the characterisation of bertha, as well as the portrayal of rochester's treatment of her, is bronte's indictment of slavery and of colonialism. many post-colonial critics, therefore, read this as bronte's depiction of white, slave-master oppression (note the continuing slave allegories throughout the novel). some critics have also argued that when rochester claims she was insane without his knowing, she was too sexually adventurous for him (due to her foreign, west-indian background) and therefore he had to lock her up - this then drove her to the level of insanity that she eventually reaches (however, i do not wholly trust this argument as yet - but just thought i'd throw it out there)
xxx

---

If Charlotte Bronte was alive, under British law what you write could be construed as defamation of character. As it is, the harm that you do is only to young gullible minds who through repetition of such nonsense, will wonder if there is some validity in such claims.
Before opinionating what Charlotte Bronte's intentions were, as a start, read the novel and read it carefully without preconception. It is not an ideological tract. Second, read the background material of Charlotte's life, a good reference would be - Charlotte Bronte, The Evolution of Genius by Winifred Gerin, - to gleam an understanding of where such characterizations and incidents as used in Jane Eyre came from. Third, get familiar with 19th. century social histories of England and colonialism before making generalizations applicable to Bronte or contemporary women writers, as to 'female subjugation', 'sexual adventurousness'. Charlotte was very concerned with “The place in society of unmarried and unendowned woman was constantly and increasingly in Charlotte's mind”, but there is no suggestions of current feminism in Jane Eyre. Familiarize yourself with Harriet Martineau, a social reformer and champion of the under-privileged and not the polemics of Jean Reys. Fourth, when using phrases, “many critics”, “some critics”, please differentiate between literary critics and feminists idealogues, as per your example - “many critics have argued that the characterisation of bertha, as well as the portrayal of rochester's treatment of her, is bronte's indictment of slavery and of colonialism.”, such does not occur in any contemporary reviews of Jane Eyre. Neither Thackeray nor the literary critic H.R. Lewis, nor the magazines Fraser's or Spectator, raised the issues that you deemed important. The only unfavorable review was in the Quaterly by Miss Rigby (later Lady Eastlake), who wrote that if the book was written by a woman it was by one “who had forfeited the society of her sex....”. Feminism, especially as presently conceived, can not be extracted or justified by any phrase or idea in Jane Eyre. If you maintain the contrary, please provide examples, and from the text, not secondary sources.
What are “ the continuing slave allegories throughout the novel”? Do you understand allegory as a symbol representing an idea or an extended metaphor? If either, would you cite the phrases and places where such occur in the novel? Please diagram “the allegory”, as I doubt their presence, as I understand Charlotte's compositional style.
You state “ it is important to note that bertha was west-indian”, if it is important, you should have checked the text! The only phrase 'west indian' in the text occurs in chapter 23, -”west indian insect; one does not often see so large..”, or are you suggesting a praying mantis as an allegory for Bertha? Bertha Mason was descended from - “mason, merchant, and of antoinetta his wife, a creole”, chapter 26 . Rochester explaining his desires in a wife, in chapter 27 - “I could not find her. Sometimes,for a fleeting moment, I thought I caught a glance, heard a tone,beheld a form, which announced the realisation of my dream: but I was presently undeserved. You are not to suppose that I desired perfection, either of mind or person. I longed only for what suited me--for the antipodes of the Creole:”. Now this is important: the only usage of the term 'creole' is in these two instances and Charlotte usage does not impute any denigration. However the feminist tract of Jaen Rheys that presumes to 'explain' Bertha Mason, - “An unidentified black is a source of menace and a threat to Antoinette.. . .in much of Rhys's writing there exists only the Manichaean division of "good blacks"--those who serve--and "bad blacks"--those who are hostile, threatening, unknown. . .. the relationship [between Tia and Antoinette] is based on the production of difference through the racialist stereotypes of the hardy, physically superior, animallike, lazy negro. . .[lazy black--sleep after eating] and the sensitive whilet child, on the other hand, contemplates nature, seduced by the "reve exotique."- from a biographical site of Jaen Rheys, from http://www.eng.fju.edu.tw/worldlit/caribbean/rhys.htm. Thus it is quite apparent that it was Rheys and not Charlotte who harbored racial prejudices.
A similar analysis of “she was too sexually adventurous for him (due to her foreign, west-indian background)”, has no basis in the text of Jane Eyre. Such examples of muddled thinking, mixing of attributions to rationalize an ideological view point, is pervasive in Ophelia2602 note.
It is critical to keep in mind that Bertha Mason, Rochester, are fictional characters and the attributes that they posses are only those given by the author. You can not expand, analyze or attribute to them any other characteristics than what Charlotte gave them. Jaen Rheys' Bertha is not Charlotte's Bertha. Like it or not.

How is Rochester's locking Bertha up any better than Mrs. Reed's locking Jane up? Or his sending Adele (?) away to boarding school any better than Mrs. Reed's doing the same with Jane?

In my opinion, stowing Bertha away in the attic was one of the best things Rochester could have done for her (in that day and age). She was in his home, where he could ensure she stayed out of trouble and was taken care of well enough. As to someone's comments about the diet she was fed - I don't think she would have cared what she had to eat, were she truly mad. It was dangerous (and he found out the hard way) to keep his ward and governess there in the same home though. Honestly, my heart broke for him when his secret was discovered and the horrible story told. Remember, didn't Bertha's family never let him be alone with her (not for a moment) before they were married? That tells much on its own.

I am new to these forums, so if this question has already been addressed, please disregard or provide the title of the thread if possible. Why wasn't divorce an option for Rochester? It is legal in the Church of England, I believe (Henry VIII, etc.) Although I am sure it was looked upon with disfavor and scandal by the Victorians, wouldn't it have been understood by society in this instance? Does anyone know something of the mores of and attitudes toward divorce in England during this time period, especially in extreme cases of "madness"?

Divorce wasn't an option for Rochester because his wife was declared mad. Thus legal divorce, despite being socially unpopular, was impossible to attain because it would not be agreed upon by both parties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freshley

I am new to these forums, so if this question has already been addressed, please disregard or provide the title of the thread if possible. Why wasn't divorce an option for Rochester? It is legal in the Church of England, I believe (Henry VIII, etc.) Although I am sure it was looked upon with disfavor and scandal by the Victorians, wouldn't it have been understood by society in this instance? Does anyone know something of the mores of and attitudes toward divorce in England during this time period, especially in extreme cases of "madness"?

---

http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/pptopic2.html
There are also reasons why marriage was not a state to be entered into lightly. Marriage was almost always for life -- English divorce law during the pre-1857 period was a truly bizarre medieval holdover (readers of Charlotte Brontë's Jane Eyre will remember that Mr. Rochester couldn't divorce his insane wife). Simplifying a bit ("saving myself the trouble of writing what I do not perfectly recollect", as Jane Austen wrote in her History of England), almost the only grounds for divorce was the sexual infidelity of the wife; a husband who wished to divorce his wife for this reason had to get the permission of Parliament to sue for divorce; and the divorce trial was between the husband and the wife's alleged lover, with the wife herself more or less a bystander. All these finaglings cost quite a bit of money, so that only the rich could afford divorces. There was also the possibility of legal separations on grounds of cruelty, etc. (where neither spouse had the right to remarry), but the husband generally had absolute custody rights over any children, and could prevent the wife from seeing them at his whim.


http://www.umd.umich.edu/casl/hum/en...b/DIVORCEI.htm

That, and you can't sign divorce forms with either a candle or a knife.

From ROCHESTER'S point of view, he was being benevolent to Bertha/Antoinette, and he probably was - he could just as easily have pushed her from the battlements, and no one would have blinked an eye anywhere. However, I see little reason to take his account of his marriage at face value - he's a man who was force-fed a marriage to a woman who, for reasons he does not understand, goes insane. What Jean Rhys addresses in Wide Sargasso Sea is the possibility that Bertha's insanity, as well as the insanity of her family, is not genetic but is instead the perception of British colonials of what was brought on by British colonials. The cause-effect relationship of Bertha's insanity/bringing Bertha to England could go either way, but considering that Rochester transplanted Bertha from her home to an environment totally foreign to her and locks her away, I'm somewhat inclined to believe Rhys rather than Brontë on the point (though I may just be channeling my professor's bias).

Anyway, my thinking is that Rochester could have done worse, but he has not done as well by Bertha as he believes he has. That's just my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobinHood3000

.... What Jean Rhys addresses in Wide Sargasso Sea is the possibility that Bertha's insanity, as well as the insanity of her family, is not genetic but is instead the perception of British colonials of what was brought on by British colonials. The cause-effect relationship of Bertha's insanity/bringing Bertha to England could go either way, but considering that Rochester transplanted Bertha from her home to an environment totally foreign to her and locks her away, I'm somewhat inclined to believe Rhys rather than Brontë on the point (though I may just be channeling my professor's bias)

---

(RobinHood3000 speaks fluent Rubber Duckese.) Quackedy quack quack Quack-Quackedy.

QED.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freshley

I am new to these forums, so if this question has already been addressed, please disregard or provide the title of the thread if possible. Why wasn't divorce an option for Rochester? It is legal in the Church of England, I believe (Henry VIII, etc.) Although I am sure it was looked upon with disfavor and scandal by the Victorians, wouldn't it have been understood by society in this instance? Does anyone know something of the mores of and attitudes toward divorce in England during this time period, especially in extreme cases of "madness"?

---

There is a good little essay that makes an excellent point about why Bronte chose to not have Rochester divorce his wife.

http://www.umd.umich.edu/casl/hum/en...b/DIVORCEI.htm

How Divorce Would Affect the Novel

Melissa Ziemba

If Mr. Rochester had been able to divorce Bertha and marry Jane without any complications the novel itself would become less powerful. For the central thrust in Jane Eyre is the development of Jane's strong character. If Rochester obtained a divorce from Bertha, his actions would be viewed as even more adulterous than they were portrayed in the novel, for he would be ending a marriage on account of his love for Jane. ...


Click on the link to read the rest.

The argument of How Divorce Would Affect the Novel, as pointed out by Sciencefan, catches the central point, the only point. Jane Eyre is a novel, ie. a fiction, a creation of Charlotte Bronte. The ethical decisions of the characters are valid only within the pages of the novel. It would be quite a stretch of imagination that they reflect Charlotte's morality, ie. that of the pre-Victorian society and ludicrous to judge the characters by our contemporary morals. To do such is the height of subjectivity, the inability to see the novel but through our own myopic vision.

Actually, at the time Charlotte wrote the book, many people were disgusted by Rochester locking up Bertha, because lunatic assylums were good places where they tried to cure people the best they could (we don't have to look at it in a contemporary kind of way) and, if even they couldn't cure them, looked after them so that they would be happy (host balls, feasts etc).
I think, as Charlotte put a lot of the bible in her book, maybe she meant the locked up wife in the attic as a kind of Christ figure who is being blocked out of Rochester's life. He is 'incredulous', up to three times (as the folowers of Christ in the bible): the first when she sets his bed alight, the second time when she stabs and bites Mason (her brother, maybe this was meant for Rochester though) and a third time on the wedding day, when he still argues that she may be his wife on paper, but not in spirit. It is only when he 'believes' (tries to rescue her from the fire she caused herself a month after Jane has left) that she disapears (read: is taken up to heaven) and that there is place for Jane who is to be resurected in a kind of Pentcost-ish scene (shimmering hearth, 3 candles, thinking she is a ghost etc)...
Bertha is very useful in the book as she decides what is to happen although she is in the attic and nobody knows that she is there. She apears on all the crucial moments.
Maybe she was also brought in the book by Charlotte to complain about the materialism of the rich in those days: Rochester's father was too stingy to devide his fortune between his two sons and so Edward had to marry rich although probably the fortune was big enough for the 2 of them. He got 30000 pounds from his wife who turned out to be mad. His father and brother didn't even take to pains to actually check her out first... Later in the book he (or the gipsy) tells Miss Ingram about the fact that his fortune is not a third of what is supposed and she doesn't want him anymore. Disgusting, because if 5000 pounds was enough for Jane to build a house next to Rochester's and to live comfortably for the rest of her life, then Rochester's fortune was certainly more than sufficiant (it must have been 100000 pounds about, if I can make an educated guess)... He was as rich as the sea is deep (as they say in Dutch) and still he needs to marry rich... I suppose many of those rich gentlemen were saddled with a wife like the sisters Eshton and Ingram. Most of them were bored stiff, because that kind of woman you can't talk with, only make conversation, yet a smart and clever woman as Jane can't make a claim on any gentleman like Rochester because she is not rich.
Both Bertha's and Rochester's family are punished and sacrifice for this materialism: the Masons sacrifice their daughter for a name, but she becomes mad and she is not noticed as the wife of, and Edward is sacrificed by his brother and father but both die and Rochester inherits everything, but he also gets punished for materialism: although he wants Jane and not any of the rich ladies, he still cares about his wife's (Jane's) appearance and takes her shopping. So he gets punished by the fire that takes his house, his 2 eyes, his hand and his looks away. So nothing of everything he had stays, apart from his briliant mind, that is the most important.
That the 2 caracters come together in the end is maybe a sneer at the conventions of the rich and materialistic world: Rochester can't actually say that his appearance as any good anymore (it was not even good to start with, and it got worse as he lost one eye, is blind and also lost a hand, and his face is scarred) and his house is no more and on top of that he does not care about appearance any more ('The thrid day from this will be our wedding day, Jane. Never mind about nice clothes and fine juwels. All that is not worth a fillip.'), although, at the first proposal, he took her shopping and he sent for the family juwels.
Comments are welcome...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

Actually, at the time Charlotte wrote the book, many people were disgusted by Rochester locking up Bertha, because lunatic assylums were good places where they tried to cure people the best they could (we don't have to look at it in a contemporary kind of way) and, if even they couldn't cure them, looked after them so that they would be happy (host balls, feasts etc).
I think, as Charlotte put a lot of the bible in her book, maybe she meant the locked up wife in the attic as a kind of Christ figure who is being blocked out of Rochester's life. He is 'incredulous', up to three times (as the folowers of Christ in the bible): the first when she sets his bed alight, the second time when she stabs and bites Mason (her brother, maybe this was meant for Rochester though) and a third time on the wedding day, when he still argues that she may be his wife on paper, but not in spirit. It is only when he 'believes' (tries to rescue her from the fire she caused herself a month after Jane has left) that she disapears (read: is taken up to heaven) and that there is place for Jane who is to be resurected in a kind of Pentcost-ish scene (shimmering hearth, 3 candles, thinking she is a ghost etc)...
Bertha is very useful in the book as she decides what is to happen although she is in the attic and nobody knows that she is there. She apears on all the crucial moments.
Maybe she was also brought in the book by Charlotte to complain about the materialism of the rich in those days: Rochester's father was too stingy to devide his fortune between his two sons and so Edward had to marry rich although probably the fortune was big enough for the 2 of them. He got 30000 pounds from his wife who turned out to be mad. His father and brother didn't even take to pains to actually check her out first... Later in the book he (or the gipsy) tells Miss Ingram about the fact that his fortune is not a third of what is supposed and she doesn't want him anymore. Disgusting, because if 5000 pounds was enough for Jane to build a house next to Rochester's and to live comfortably for the rest of her life, then Rochester's fortune was certainly more than sufficiant (it must have been 100000 pounds about, if I can make an educated guess)... He was as rich as the sea is deep (as they say in Dutch) and still he needs to marry rich... I suppose many of those rich gentlemen were saddled with a wife like the sisters Eshton and Ingram. Most of them were bored stiff, because that kind of woman you can't talk with, only make conversation, yet a smart and clever woman as Jane can't make a claim on any gentleman like Rochester because she is not rich.
Both Bertha's and Rochester's family are punished and sacrifice for this materialism: the Masons sacrifice their daughter for a name, but she becomes mad and she is not noticed as the wife of, and Edward is sacrificed by his brother and father but both die and Rochester inherits everything, but he also gets punished for materialism: although he wants Jane and not any of the rich ladies, he still cares about his wife's (Jane's) appearance and takes her shopping. So he gets punished by the fire that takes his house, his 2 eyes, his hand and his looks away. So nothing of everything he had stays, apart from his briliant mind, that is the most important.
That the 2 caracters come together in the end is maybe a sneer at the conventions of the rich and materialistic world: Rochester can't actually say that his appearance as any good anymore (it was not even good to start with, and it got worse as he lost one eye, is blind and also lost a hand, and his face is scarred) and his house is no more and on top of that he does not care about appearance any more ('The thrid day from this will be our wedding day, Jane. Never mind about nice clothes and fine juwels. All that is not worth a fillip.'), although, at the first proposal, he took her shopping and he sent for the family juwels.
Comments are welcome...

---

What kind of authority do you have to make the claims that you do?
How many times have you read the book?
Have you read it recently?
Where did you get the idea of the "Christ figure"?

I don't recall Rochester being incredulous that Bertha attacked Mason.
I remember Rochester scolding Mason for having been warned.

""She bit me," he murmured. "She worried me like a tigress, when
Rochester got the knife from her."

"You should not have yielded: you should have grappled with her at
once," said Mr. Rochester.

"But under such circumstances, what could one do?" returned Mason.
"Oh, it was frightful!" he added, shuddering. "And I did not expect
it: she looked so quiet at first."

"I warned you," was his friend's answer; "I said--be on your guard
when you go near her. Besides, you might have waited till to-
morrow, and had me with you: it was mere folly to attempt the
interview to-night, and alone.""

I have not read the book recently enough to disagree with you with any authority,
but I feel uncomfortable reading that much hidden meaning into any document.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sciencefan

What kind of authority do you have to make the claims that you do?
How many times have you read the book?
Have you read it recently?
Where did you get the idea of the "Christ figure"?

I don't recall Rochester being incredulous that Bertha attacked Mason.
I remember Rochester scolding Mason for having been warned.

""She bit me," he murmured. "She worried me like a tigress, when
Rochester got the knife from her."

"You should not have yielded: you should have grappled with her at
once," said Mr. Rochester.

"But under such circumstances, what could one do?" returned Mason.
"Oh, it was frightful!" he added, shuddering. "And I did not expect
it: she looked so quiet at first."

"I warned you," was his friend's answer; "I said--be on your guard
when you go near her. Besides, you might have waited till to-
morrow, and had me with you: it was mere folly to attempt the
interview to-night, and alone.""

I have not read the book recently enough to disagree with you with any authority,
but I feel uncomfortable reading that much hidden meaning into any document.

---

I don't have any authority over this, but I thought as this is a literature interpretation forum it would be in its place. It would be nice to discuss this without any nasty remarks. The only person who would be able to tell us what was really meant by this story, would be the writer, but that is a little difficult I guess. It is not how many times you have read the book, that matters (I read it 3 times, actually), but how you read it. At any rate, 19th century writers that are still printed now never wrote anything without a proper meaning in it. At university we went a lot deeper than this...
Rochester was not incredulous about Mason being bitten by Bertha, but he is about the fact that she is his wife. If you take into account that Bertha tried to burn Rochester in his bed before and tries to bite him on the wedding day and that she did NOT try to burn Jane as she appeared in her bedroom 2 nights before the wedding, it seems hardly plausible that she tried to stab and bite her own brother, Jane actually being her worst enemy. It seems more plausible to me that by the light of a candle (which is not that much), she didn't recognise her brother and so took him for Rochester and tried to kill him. Then those three appearances make up the three of Christ before being taken to heaven. The fire being the forth and ascension to heaven.
There are many literature critics who believe this to be true and as Charlotte was a clergyman's daughter, it is possible. There are many other writers who have done this, and still many who do. Jane also is believed to be a Christ figure who is resurected in the end, like I said in a Pentcost like scene.
The appearances of Bertha seem to foretell the end of each phase in the relationship between Jane and Rochester. 1. After the first few laughs, Jane meets Rochester (not knowing it's him) on the causeway. After that the interview takes place. 2. After the next two meetings with him, Bertha tries to burn Rochester in his bed. After that he disappears in thin air (leaving for the Leas, the Eshton's place). 3. When Rochester returns he starts on the seduction of Jane straight away. This phase comes to a close when Mason is (mistakenly?) bitten by Bertha. Jane will leave for her aunt soon after that. 4. When Jane returns the party have left and a fortnight after that Rochester asks Jane to marry him. This Phase comes to a close when all are introduced to Bertha. After that the conversation between Rochester and Jane will take place and Jane will leave.
(5.?) Then Jane wanders around and is taken in, 'just before dying' by St John Rivers, his 2 sisters and the servant Hannah (read: Joseph of Arimathea, Mary of Magdala, Mary and Salome who put Jesus in the grave). After three days she gets up. A month after this they get a letter telling them that their uncle has died, this making Jane the heiress (not getting her money until around a year after that, but the situation is there), coincidentally at the same time Thornfield burns down.
In the Bible it says that when Christ died the curtain of the temple tore in 2 pieces. Guess what Bertha did with Jane's vail when she appeared in the room... She tore it in 2...
The fact that Jane seems to know that she cannot marry Rochester, that the wedding will not take place, makes her write to her uncle, who is still living causing Mason to find out. It sounds like Jesus telling his diciples that one amongst them was going to betray him. She also asks several times to make the situation go away like Jesus asked his father on the mount of olives.
Rochester also seems to know that it will be Mason who will finally tell on him. He tells Jane and she tells him that he doesn't have to fear Mason. They marry on the 3rd day after the 2nd proposal. Rochester will see again in the third year he is married to Jane, when they will also get a son.
The fact that the place is called Thornfield of all names and that it is circled by thorn trees, would be a big coincidence if nothing was meant by it. Thorn trees are believed to be the tree of life and good and evil that stood in the garden of Eden. Eve ate from one of them and was banned with Adam from the garden. If you look carefully, the two most important conversations between Jane and Rochester take place in the orchard (the conversation after Mason got bitten and the first proposal). The second proposal will take place also under the trees, but at Ferndean, a fearn being in many cultures a symbol of eternal happiness. There are numerous allusions to Genesis in the book as well.
The colour purple, light/darkness and wind also appear numerously in the book. Not without a reason I guess.
The book even ends with these words: 'Amen; even so come, Lord Jesus!’. And according to critics not only because they come from a clergyman (St John), but also because they are the essence of the book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

I don't have any authority over this, but I thought as this is a literature interpretation forum it would be in its place. It would be nice to discuss this without any nasty remarks. The only person who would be able to tell us what was really meant by this story, would be the writer, but that is a little difficult I guess. It is not how many times you have read the book, that matters (I read it 3 times, actually), but how you read it. At any rate, 19th century writers that are still printed now never wrote anything without a proper meaning in it. At university we went a lot deeper than this...
Rochester was not incredulous about Mason being bitten by Bertha, but he is about the fact that she is his wife. If you take into account that Bertha tried to burn Rochester in his bed before and tries to bite him on the wedding day and that she did NOT try to burn Jane as she appeared in her bedroom 2 nights before the wedding, it seems hardly plausible that she tried to stab and bite her own brother, Jane actually being her worst enemy. It seems more plausible to me that by the light of a candle (which is not that much), she didn't recognise her brother and so took him for Rochester and tried to kill him. Then those three appearances make up the three of Christ before being taken to heaven. The fire being the forth and ascension to heaven.
There are many literature critics who believe this to be true and as Charlotte was a clergyman's daughter, it is possible. There are many other writers who have done this, and still many who do. Jane also is believed to be a Christ figure who is resurected in the end, like I said in a Pentcost like scene.
The appearances of Bertha seem to foretell the end of each phase in the relationship between Jane and Rochester. 1. After the first few laughs, Jane meets Rochester (not knowing it's him) on the causeway. After that the interview takes place. 2. After the next two meetings with him, Bertha tries to burn Rochester in his bed. After that he disappears in thin air (leaving for the Leas, the Eshton's place). 3. When Rochester returns he starts on the seduction of Jane straight away. This phase comes to a close when Mason is (mistakenly?) bitten by Bertha. Jane will leave for her aunt soon after that. 4. When Jane returns the party have left and a fortnight after that Rochester asks Jane to marry him. This Phase comes to a close when all are introduced to Bertha. After that the conversation between Rochester and Jane will take place and Jane will leave.
(5.?) Then Jane wanders around and is taken in, 'just before dying' by St John Rivers, his 2 sisters and the servant Hannah (read: Joseph of Arimathea, Mary of Magdala, Mary and Salome who put Jesus in the grave). After three days she gets up. A month after this they get a letter telling them that their uncle has died, this making Jane the heiress (not getting her money until around a year after that, but the situation is there), coincidentally at the same time Thornfield burns down.
In the Bible it says that when Christ died the curtain of the temple tore in 2 pieces. Guess what Bertha did with Jane's vail when she appeared in the room... She tore it in 2...
The fact that Jane seems to know that she cannot marry Rochester, that the wedding will not take place, makes her write to her uncle, who is still living causing Mason to find out. It sounds like Jesus telling his diciples that one amongst them was going to betray him. She also asks several times to make the situation go away like Jesus asked his father on the mount of olives.
Rochester also seems to know that it will be Mason who will finally tell on him. He tells Jane and she tells him that he doesn't have to fear Mason. They marry on the 3rd day after the 2nd proposal. Rochester will see again in the third year he is married to Jane, when they will also get a son.
The fact that the place is called Thornfield of all names and that it is circled by thorn trees, would be a big coincidence if nothing was meant by it. Thorn trees are believed to be the tree of life and good and evil that stood in the garden of Eden. Eve ate from one of them and was banned with Adam from the garden. If you look carefully, the two most important conversations between Jane and Rochester take place in the orchard (the conversation after Mason got bitten and the first proposal). The second proposal will take place also under the trees, but at Ferndean, a fearn being in many cultures a symbol of eternal happiness. There are numerous allusions to Genesis in the book as well.
The colour purple, light/darkness and wind also appear numerously in the book. Not without a reason I guess.
The book even ends with these words: 'Amen; even so come, Lord Jesus!’. And according to critics not only because they come from a clergyman (St John), but also because they are the essence of the book.

---

Thank you for your explanation.
I apologize that you felt I was nasty toward you.
I was addressing the ideas which you shared.
I do not agree with all the hidden symbolism certain crtics feel is there.

When I read this:
"the place is called Thornfield of all names and that it is circled by thorn trees"
I thought for sure you were going to say it represented the crown of thorns.
Certainly the Crown of Thorns was a circle.
It is too subjective of a subject for me to feel comfortable discussing it.

As I said, I am more comfortable accepting things for the face value and not trying to read too much into it.
That is just a reflection of my preference.

No problem, sciencefan.
I am sure there is even more about the gospel in the book than I can see, as I don't know it by heart and in detail. And I am not prepared to go and read it especially for this :alien:
Still I find it an interesting concept.
I'll come and have a look regularly here.

About the divorce: if Rochester would have succeeded in divorcing his wife, then Jane would have married him after the first proposal and she wouldn't have had St John's proposal. St John Rivers is planning to marry on the conventional grounds: duty, support for his work etc. He does not want to marry her because he likes her or anything like that. She tells him that she wants to help him but doens't want to get married, but he says that he, a 25 year-old, cannot go to India with her, a 20 year-old, without being married. Jane doesn't see that as a good ground for marriage, nor do his sisters, but probably this was a very popular ground in those days, I can imagine. Jane is about to yield when she hears Rochester call out for her.
If she would have married Rochester from the first time there wouldn't have been a choice for her between a proper marriage (marriage in spirit, as it should be) and marriage for the outside world.

I've read Jane Eyre many times over the years, first time when I was about 10 or so. Someone up the thread spoke of the truthfulness of the narrator. I've read plenty of unreliable narrators, and do not consider Jane unreliable in the least. She presented the good and bad in an even handed manner as far as I am concerned.

It was also brought up that the term Creole was used in a [possibly]derogatory manner. There are many definitions of Creole but it only sometimes refers to someone of African descent. So to imply prejudice on Rochester's part on that account is not applicable IMO.

Regarding The Wide Sargasso Sea...I started it, and couldn't finish, didn't care for the writing style. It felt totally untrue to the original. Which I suppose was the point, but still put me off.

Regarding hiding Bertha in the attic. It was first of all loads better than Bedlam, which was the usual course at the time.
And as far as hiding her madness from the young Rochester.....in that time and place I imagine it was quite easy to hide something of that nature.

Wish I'd found this thread before! :)

Hello!

I just found this article on the internet...

http://caxton.stockton.edu/browning/stories/storyReader$3

frightning...

But what I found was this:

Men often found themselves honeymooning with a frightened, sometimes hysterical bride who was afraid of her husband. Young women were absolutely ignorant in matters of sexual intercourse. For them the wedding night experience was nothing more than a bodily assault. The typical Victorian man, highly skilled in matters of courtship, but unenlightened to the considerate lovemaking his wife craved, merely exercised his rights and she performed her duty (Battan 176).

James Russell Price, a physician, can attest to the fact that forced sex occurred with frequency. Having studied one hundred cases of wives seeking separations from their husbands, he found that sixty eight percent cited sexual abuse “on the first night of married life.” He related one account of an eighteen-year old bride. Filled with fear on her wedding night, she pleaded with her husband not to kill her. He proceeded to lock the door and “took her against her will.” The young bride assured Dr. Price that she was incapable of forgiving or forgetting her husband’s brutality (Battan 169).


Maybe Rochester was too brutal on the wedding night with Bertha :lol: . One would go mad for less...

It is a very interesting article...

This was just a morbid joke though... :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plainjane

I've read Jane Eyre many times over the years, first time when I was about 10 or so. Someone up the thread spoke of the truthfulness of the narrator. I've read plenty of unreliable narrators, and do not consider Jane unreliable in the least. She presented the good and bad in an even handed manner as far as I am concerned.

It was also brought up that the term Creole was used in a [possibly]derogatory manner. There are many definitions of Creole but it only sometimes refers to someone of African descent. So to imply prejudice on Rochester's part on that account is not applicable IMO.

Regarding The Wide Sargasso Sea...I started it, and couldn't finish, didn't care for the writing style. It felt totally untrue to the original. Which I suppose was the point, but still put me off.

Regarding hiding Bertha in the attic. It was first of all loads better than Bedlam, which was the usual course at the time.
And as far as hiding her madness from the young Rochester.....in that time and place I imagine it was quite easy to hide something of that nature.

Wish I'd found this thread before! :)

---

I have no doubt that Jane was true to the intent of Charlotte Brontë, but how balanced is Brontë's view?

Creole with reference to Bertha is not referring to African descent, but it nonetheless decries prejudice on Rochester's part. She's from the Caribbean islands, and even that alone (the lack of a traditional British upbringing) would be enough for a Victorian man to mistreat her on the basis of prejudice.

And trust me, you'll want to finish Wide Sargasso Sea. You'll have to if you want as much perspective on Jane Eyre as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobinHood3000

I have no doubt that Jane was true to the intent of Charlotte Brontë, but how balanced is Brontë's view?

Creole with reference to Bertha is not referring to African descent, but it nonetheless decries prejudice on Rochester's part. She's from the Caribbean islands, and even that alone (the lack of a traditional British upbringing) would be enough for a Victorian man to mistreat her on the basis of prejudice.

And trust me, you'll want to finish Wide Sargasso Sea. You'll have to if you want as much perspective on Jane Eyre as possible.

---

Good question, how balanced could it have been given the time and place?
I seriously doubt Bronte [within herself] was prejudiced, but could have of course been under the common misconceptions of the times.

The fact that she used the ambiguous term 'Creole' could be evidence she was implying African descent, which would have been looked down upon then. In the States in that time, especially in the South, there were many free people of African descent that were commonly referred to as 'Creole'.

With that recommendation, I suppose I'll have to throw WSS back into the stack. Although I hasten to add I don't think it adds to Jane at all, it seems to me that being written by a different author totally skews the equation.

But I didn't like the sequel to Gone With the Wind either. :crash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plainjane

Good question, how balanced could it have been given the time and place?
I seriously doubt Bronte [within herself] was prejudiced, but could have of course been under the common misconceptions of the times.

The fact that she used the ambiguous term 'Creole' could be evidence she was implying African descent, which would have been looked down upon then. In the States in that time, especially in the South, there were many free people of African descent that were commonly referred to as 'Creole'.

With that recommendation, I suppose I'll have to throw WSS back into the stack. Although I hasten to add I don't think it adds to Jane at all, it seems to me that being written by a different author totally skews the equation.

But I didn't like the sequel to Gone With the Wind either. :crash:

---

You'll notice in Jane Eyre that Rochester's French and German lovers are portrayed somewhat less-than-favorably. Heck, Brontë makes them out to be decadent tarts - and not the good kind, either.

"Creole" is also used to apply to whites raised in the Caribbean - Jean Rhys, who wrote Wide Sargasso Sea, patterned a great deal of her novel on her life there, and her use of the term "Creole" seems much more likely. (And incidentally, those Creoles were not looked upon much more favorably.) After all, in Brontë's novel, Bertha was supposed to come from Jamaica or thereabouts, and what do you anticipate a middle-class Victorian woman who's never been out of the United Kingdom would think of an exotic (in Victorian times, synonymous with "savage") locale like the Caribbean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobinHood3000

You'll notice in Jane Eyre that Rochester's French and German lovers are portrayed somewhat less-than-favorably. Heck, Brontë makes them out to be decadent tarts - and not the good kind, either.

"Creole" is also used to apply to whites raised in the Caribbean - Jean Rhys, who wrote Wide Sargasso Sea, patterned a great deal of her novel on her life there, and her use of the term "Creole" seems much more likely. (And incidentally, those Creoles were not looked upon much more favorably.) After all, in Brontë's novel, Bertha was supposed to come from Jamaica or thereabouts, and what do you anticipate a middle-class Victorian woman who's never been out of the United Kingdom would think of an exotic (in Victorian times, synonymous with "savage") locale like the Caribbean?

---

True she did tend to stereotype the former lovers.
I well know the various definitions of Creole, but I included a link to the wiki article in my post above because I know it is a term that has had many meanings over the years to different people.

But did she stereotype his former lovers because they had been mistresses, or because they were foreign? I know she does stereotype Adèle as well in the end, but maybe on his girlfriends their was more of a purity theme in it...

On Bertha: I don't so much think that the lack of British upbringing was good enough to actually cast her off... Besides the West-Indies and Jamaica were colonies, so there was enough British upbringing available. Otherwise Mason wouldn't come forward as a normal person, though also a little affected by his mother's 'madness', according to Rochester. Don't forget, Mason was half a Creole as well as his sister... And anyway, if Rochester's father and brother would have thought anything about a Creole in the family, they would have been able to find him another wife, who would get a dowry that was sufficiant. They would certainly not have dishonoured their own name by adding unpure blood to the family. I rather think that the term 'creole' was used in the manner of 'many people of black descent are weak, and this one too.' 'I need a mad wife in the attic, so let's make her a Creole'. I don't think Rochester locked her up just because she was a Creole, otherwise he wouldn't have married her.
I think none of them knew that there was something the matter with her and she went 'mad'.
But then the question here is rather: what did all three (Jan as the marrator, Charlotte as the writer and Rochester as the first source) mean by 'mad'? I remember Rochester telling Jane (in the conversation after the wedding where he tells his story) that he couldn't have a serious conversation with her, because she would answer in a rough, uninspired, perverse or imbecile way. She would also have a changeable temper and she would give contradictory and absurd orders and she would also be exacting, causing no servant to stay in the household.
Maybe she was just mentally retarded and was not treated in a good way like we can do now, causing her to develop violent tantrums and aggressive attacs. I am no a specialist, but people who are heavily autistic can show that kind of behaviour and also develop these things.
Only remember that in those days, everything that was not normal was considered as 'mad'. Even deaf people were considered as retarded because 'they could not express emotional feelings'. Of course not, as they couldn't take part in any conversation as they didn't hear what was being said. They also weren't allowed to go to school, so writing the conversation down was also not an option, and were not allowed to own any property, nor were they allowed marriage. If you consider this, Bertha wasn't maybe as mad as we think.
The fact that Charlotte calls Bertha the daughter of a Creole, who was mad and a drunkard, was, even in those days, considered as racist and people were shocked to hear it.

It has been quite a few years since I last read Jane Eyre, but I seem to remember Rochester had a reputation for being wild and he was the younger son. A sacrificial younger son. He only inherited Thornfield Hall on account of the elder brothers death. He was not meant to inherit.
The younger son fob off? Sounds like it to me....and if he could bring money into the family from far away all the better.

As far as what mental defect Bertha suffered from, she at least did turn violent. Horribly so, remember how she slashed her brother when he visited? Her "madness" whatever it was escalated, as it will if left untreated, and what was there to treat something like that then...nothing. From what I recall as well the brother was considered not quite right as well. But I can't remember exactly where I got that impression...book or film.

Someone mentioned earlier why keep a woman like Grace Poole as a keeper...well who else? Had to be someone physically strong, and willing to keep a secret, someone that probably was not above the law herself. And who wouldn't drink under those circumstances? Dreadful. But better than Bedlam.

As far as the prejudice shown the mistresses...now that I think of it, I don't really remember the German woman. What about the English Miss he was supposedly courting, and her mother? They certainly were stereotyped, as was the Gypsy troop, the stereotyping was even handed at least. ;)

Yes, there was something wrong with the brother as well, but... according to Rochester. Remember that he enters the room unexpectedly when Rochester has been called away from his party (just before the gypsy aka Rochester will arrive)? Charlotte portrays him as kind of normal. Nice looking but still revolting, similar to St John. It is only when Rochester tells Jane the story after the desastrous wedding, that he puts a judgement about Mason in it. 'Like the sister, like the brother, like the mother.'
To start with (at the party, the bloody scene and also at the wedding) he comes forward as a normal , though kind of pathetic figure, but so did the rest of the party: rich, nothing to do all day, not smart... The younger, the more stupid. Only the elder gentlemen came forward as somewhat normal. The ladies though, of any age were obnoxious (the dowagers and the Ingrams), or just plain stupid (the Eshton sisters, they can't even speak alone). Mason, as any elder gentleman comes in as a normal figure. At the wedding he turns a little bit pathetic, but who would not be afraid of a Rochester, when you try to prevent his marriage? Even the priest was getting a little apprehensive...
Rochester no doubt had to gather his own fortune to live on by marrying. So his father and brother got him a bride, far away in Jamaica, because Rochester's father knew Mason, the merchant. The two of them knew that Bertha's mother was 'mad' in an assylum and that she had a younger brother who was the same. But what they didn't know was that Bertha was the same off as her mother and younger brother. After the honeymoon Rochester wrote a letter home to tell of the 'madness' of Bertha and so they never made the marriage public, because they themselves did not want to be dishonoured by this problem. I don't know, maybe the 'madness' of Bertha was costing them too much, and they got rid of her so the unfortunate husband had to pay for her care?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plainjane

Good question, how balanced could it have been given the time and place?
I seriously doubt Bronte [within herself] was prejudiced, but could have of course been under the common misconceptions of the times.

The fact that she used the ambiguous term 'Creole' could be evidence she was implying African descent, which would have been looked down upon then. In the States in that time, especially in the South, there were many free people of African descent that were commonly referred to as 'Creole'.

With that recommendation, I suppose I'll have to throw WSS back into the stack. Although I hasten to add I don't think it adds to Jane at all, it seems to me that being written by a different author totally skews the equation.

But I didn't like the sequel to Gone With the Wind either. :crash:

---

I understand your reluctance to read WSS.
I agree with you about how it skews our understanding of the original author's intent.
I am thankful I never had to read it.

Here is an interesting article about madness in the Bertha-era:

http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/...te/iwama8.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

Here is an interesting article about madness in the Bertha-era:

http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/...te/iwama8.html

---

So, it looks like things were changing a bit by then, but I have to think about the WWI vet in Mrs. Dalloway and the treatment, or lack really. I do think that was represented truthfully by Woolf as it was a subject that was close to her.
So perhaps the changes that were signaled in your excellent link were not really implemented, but at least were in the wind.
Of course that was not insanity, but it was a mental condition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

Here is an interesting article about madness in the Bertha-era:

http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/...te/iwama8.html

---

I have a habit of thinking the best of people, instead of the worst.
So while the article comes down quite hard on Bronte, I don't agree with it's rush to condemn her.
From my own personal life experience, I have noticed that it takes a l-o-n-g- time for "proposed changes" to actually be put into effect AND be widespread enough for them to be felt as the general experience of average people.

This is what I am trying to say.
Bronte wrote from her own personal knowledge of what she thought insane asylums to be.
While she had probably never been in one herself, she had probably heard horror stories about them from the time she was a little girl.
Who knows, perhaps even one of parents threatened to have her sent to one when she was naughty!

I dare say that the 4 years between when Parliament wrote a paper- which possibly Bronte never heard of- and the time she wrote Jane Eyre is not enough time for the asylum reforms which were still in their infancy, to have reached the collective consciousness as a palpable change.

Was their some kind of outcry against Bronte at the time her book came out?
Were people shouting her down with charges of "cruelty"?
I don't think we would be talking about her today, if she were the cruel ignorant racist the article you cited accuses her of being.

I think Bronte's book reflected the fears of the people of her day, and the common superstitions and collective consciousness, and in that sense she is entirely innocent, in my opinion, of any wrongdoing.

Personally, I think people give Bronte more credit than she deserves.
She's not that great of a writer.
I think she was quite immature when she wrote it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sciencefan

I have a habit of thinking the best of people, instead of the worst.
So while the article comes down quite hard on Bronte, I don't agree with it's rush to condemn her.
From my own personal life experience, I have noticed that it takes a l-o-n-g- time for "proposed changes" to actually be put into effect AND be widespread enough for them to be felt as the general experience of average people.

This is what I am trying to say.
Bronte wrote from her own personal knowledge of what she thought insane asylums to be.
While she had probably never been in one herself, she had probably heard horror stories about them from the time she was a little girl.
Who knows, perhaps even one of parents threatened to have her sent to one when she was naughty!

I dare say that the 4 years between when Parliament wrote a paper- which possibly Bronte never heard of- and the time she wrote Jane Eyre is not enough time for the asylum reforms which were still in their infancy, to have reached the collective consciousness as a palpable change.

Was their some kind of outcry against Bronte at the time her book came out?
Were people shouting her down with charges of "cruelty"?
I don't think we would be talking about her today, if she were the cruel ignorant racist the article you cited accuses her of being.

I think Bronte's book reflected the fears of the people of her day, and the common superstitions and collective consciousness, and in that sense she is entirely innocent, in my opinion, of any wrongdoing.

Personally, I think people give Bronte more credit than she deserves.
She's not that great of a writer.
I think she was quite immature when she wrote it.

---

Maybe not so immature as sheltered in many aspects, that could come across as immaturity at times without actually being immature.

But I do not think she receives more credit than she deserves...her scope is quite breath taking IMO.

Otherwise you've put quite well what I was attempting [half asleep] to put across. :)

I didn't put the link on here for condemnation in the article, because that's actually not to the point (see the reply I put about Wide Sargasso see in the Bertha & criticism thread), but it just puts things into a victorian perspective... We think they didn't care, though they did. Of course not in the way we would care.
Also, through history sometimes there is a decline in principles... For example in the Edwardian era (just after the victorian period) I believe they shut 'mad' people up in asylums and they were forgotten for society and you were not supposed to come and visit. Or later when they used to perform electro shocks and lobotomy. That is a big contrast with the victorians who actually tried their best to cure them. And if that wasn't possible, at least try to make their lives as comfortable as possible.
Of course maybe Brontë didn't know this because of her sheltered life. Some people must have been appalled at the idea of the woman locked in the attic. Certainly people who had that kind of relatives they loved...

Anyway it is not as if she locked a real person up in an attic. And Bertha still had her merits as a character. What would have happened if Charlotte wouldn't have put her in the attic and so would not have burnt down the house??? Then the whole story would have been changed into a cheap melodrama and that would have been sad for literature on the whole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by malwethien

I think the main reason why Rochester kept Bertha "on the third floor" was because he saw her has his property - and nothing more. He had no love for her, no sympathy, no compassion - just a mere possession. And it is because of this that he felt responsible for her and could not leave her to die in an asylum or in Ferndean as he would like...he saw her as his problem, as his lunatic and therefore felt responsible for her. Kinda like how a person would feel about a family pet that he/she is not particularly fond of...he/she will probably not let the dog die because that would just be cruel, but since he/she is not particularly fond of it, and because it is a family pet he/she will keep it alive, but won't exert any great effort either. I know that sounds harsh, but that is what I think of the matter...

---

Indeed no love was certainly a problem, but don't forget: after 5 years he comes back and is saddled with a mad wife. He cannot divorce her. He cannot let her walk free at Ferndean for example because, as some also said, she is a danger to both herself and any servant that is not strong enough. So, conclusion, he has to shut her up. But the marriage can on no account be made public, because then Rochester's honour is destroyed and on top of that he has decided that he wants to look for another wife. If society knows that he already has a wife, he's not going to find a second one. So Bertha must remain a secret.
He could go to an asylum but they would have asked a name. The name Rochester would have rang a bell. He could have used her maden name, but who would she have been? His bastard daughter? Too old (5 years his senior). His sister? All of society knew that he didn't have a sister.
And anyway, someone had to pay for her care and that would have been associated with his name. So it would only have taken one suspicious person to actually make inquiries and he would have been exposed.
So actually he was bound by hands and feet to lock her up in his own attic, so that only Mr Carter (his surgeon) and Grace Poole would know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

Actually, at the time Charlotte wrote the book, many people were disgusted by Rochester locking up Bertha, because lunatic assylums were good places where they tried to cure people the best they could (we don't have to look at it in a contemporary kind of way) and, if even they couldn't cure them, looked after them so that they would be happy (host balls, feasts etc).....
Comments are welcome...

---

Of the several themes in the note I shall initially address only the asylum issue. At the time of publication the reviews that I had read, fail to mention any disgust of Rochester's locking up Bertha. I hope that you are referring to some unpublished material. If so please give the citation. However this is a minor point in your description of the pre-Victorian asylum. Your statement lacks documentary credibility.
I have included several web site references that refute your characterization of “looked after them so that they would be happy(host balls, feasts etc).” First the asylums treated patients for a maximum of one year and the treatment was bizarre if not cruel. Second and most importantly, confinement of a mentally ill household member at home or by hired help was quite common among the upper classes. Charlotte Bronte was aware of the above mentioned and based the character Bertha on contemporary experience. You are entitled to your opinion, but in my view you are not entitled to distort the work of Charlotte Bronte's.


Site http://www.gmcro.co.uk/ftpfiles/education/asylums.pdf
The treatment of patients in the pre_Victorian society was characterized as : “Where patients had violent tendencies, they were often beaten, chained up and starved in order to control them. In these cases patients were treated like beasts, and not seen as human. In fact insanity was considered as the loss of any human qualities. “ also “Mental illness was seen as a spiritual problem (so the church was responsible for them), and because of this people did not try to find medical cures for it.”
While the poor and women suffered the most “Even people of great importance were treated badly: For example, George III was restrained by chains, beaten and starved because he was considered insane, despite the fact that he was King of England.
Bethlem Hospital normally allowed non-private or non-criminal lunatics to stay for a maximum of twelve months.

Site http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1044494, Dept. of History, Birkbeck College, University of London,a scholarly study has the following characterization, “On July 20 1870, Catherine Tyrrell found herself transferred to another asylum. The 32-year old nurse suffering from melancholia had previously been a patient in Bethlem Hospital; but having had her twelve months expire at that institution, she was conveyed across the metropolis and into the beucolic countryside and country asylum of Buchinghamshire. ... On admission, the medical superintendent described, with transparent disapproval, the precautionary clothing that held her suicidal impulse in check: She was brought in a canvas garment which fitted her person even down to her ankles, the arms however not going through the sleeves, but folded across her chest close to her skin, the hands being locked in leather gloves. ... There was no clothing of ordinary kind under it.”

The following is an ideological citation and to be read with caution.
http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~ulrich/f....shtml#Pre1850

Before the mid-eighteen hundreds, common belief was that those who suffered from mental illness suffered because they had a "disease of the soul" (Goldberg, 24). Their madness supposedly stemmed from an evil within, and they thus were treated as animals. Patients in these early asylums were kept in cages, given small amounts of often unclean food, had little or no clothing, wore no shoes, and slept in dirt. Because the patients could often live many years in such conditions, the caretakers became more confident that these human beings were in actuality closer to animals and thus deserving of such abuse (Ussher, 65).

Women during this time were deemed to be highly susceptible to becoming mentally ill as they did not have the mental capacity of men, and this risk grew greatly if the woman attempted to better herself through education or too many activities. In fact, women were seen as most likely having a mental breakdown sometime during their life as "the maintenance of [female] sanity was seen as the preservation of brain stability in the face of overwhelming physical odds" (Ussher 74). Thus, women often suppressed their feelings, as to not appear mad and reassumed the passive, housewife role.

Spinsters and lesbians were considered a threat to society during the nineteenth century as these women chose an alternative lifestyle. They went outside the social norms of women as passive housewives, and instead made their own decisions. They were thought to be mentally ill, as doctors claimed being without continued male interaction would cause irritability, anaemia, tiredness, and fussing. These women were also controlled by the term "frigid" which was used to describe them. Women did not want to be "frigid" and thus married to avoid becoming labeled this manner (Ussher 81). Those who were admitted to the asylum for being a spinster or a lesbian were submitted to forced marriages by family members or even encouraged sexual encounters where patients were sexually abused or raped under the care of their doctors (Ussher 81). It was assumed these women could be cured by repeated sexual interaction with men.

Consequently Bronte's description of Bertha's treatment has to be viewed from the perspective of the times, not from the subjective bias of the reader. Rochester's treatment of Bertha was humane by the examples of Victorian standards. His attempt to rescue her from the inferno should be proof enough. Suicide and suicide attempts, it would seem, were reality of the Victorian mental hospital.

Newcomer,
You have confirmed my thoughts on the situation of insane asylums in that time period. That is what I thought it still was like, but had not done any research to corroborate my ideas. I only had impressions of reading in the past.

Thanks for posting those links.

http://content.cdlib.org/xtf/view?do...&brand=ucpress
This article gives a history about the ideas of mental illness in the victorian era in England. As it seems from the middle of the 18th century until the middle of the 19th century there was a reform taking place, started by the Quaker William Tuke in 1796. He was the first to disapprove of mechanical restraint and to untie patients in his hospital in York.
In the beginning of the 19th century the philanthropic (Tuke) approach made its entry. From 1815 and for the next 30 years these progressive people wanted legislation. They would campaign in the press by making horror stories public. Finally in 1845 the Asylum Act would be approved. All asylums now had to be run by a qualified practitioner.
However this soft approach was abandoned by the 1860s as it cost too much.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pic...4&blobtype=pdf
Although it is only about suicidal patients this article also states that Victorians were concerned with their patients and even the amounts of suicides had to be notified to the Coroner and Asylum Committee. Fines were issued and bad carers could even be made redundant.


http://www.mcmaster.ca/ua/opr/courie.../research.html

Quote:

---

For the benefit of those who view these institutions with Dickensian-tinted glasses, Wright would like to dispel some myths. The facilities were progressive for their time, he says -- in the asylums, the patients were fed, clothed, sheltered and given medical treatment on a level better than most would have experienced in their communities.
Despite the horror stories of popular literature in which helpless victims are wrongfully incarcerated by their enemies, in actual fact there were strict admission procedures and the signatures of at least one physician and one magistrate were required for commitment. It was thus rare for a person who was not truly suffering from some mental disorder to be committed. Moreover, in rural communities it was typical for the family to take care of and assume full responsibility for a relative suffering from a mental problem before, after, and in lieu of confinement in an asylum.

---

From David Wright, researcher in the field of the history of mental institutions in 19th century England

The hosting of balls as I mentioned it, I saw in a BBC documentary called "How we built Britain" with David Dimbleby. It was the 19th century/industrial revolution episode. There was a small contribution about a mental asylum in it. As well as a silk warehouse that was also very interesting in connection with this book... When I saw it I was pretty amazed about the principle of entertainment of mental patients.

I do not consider Brontë a bad person for locking Bertha up in the attic, if anything she was usefully locked up (see reply in that other thread) and so I do not wish to distort her work because it is brilliant.
But as for the locking up of Bertha and this discussion I do not believe that Charlotte locked her up because it was more humane in those days. At least it was not very modern. She must surely have heard of these progressives who believed that mentally ill shouldn't be locked up. If anything she must have heard horror stories about it, as they were made public and discussed to win over public opinion for the philanthropic approach. She must have heard something of the debate. Certainly in her life, as her father was a clergyman and certainly was involved in the question what had to happen to people of that kind.
Rochester was supposed to be a person who lost the way: he was arrogant, he had mistresses, a bastard daughter he does not recognise, so he also locks up his wife despite all his money and despite public opinion about restraining and locking up mentally ill patients. He also disowns her as he always blames Grace Poole for Bertha's actions. And he wants to commit bigamy. He lies to her. He has a brilliant mind and is progressive enough to take her as a wife, but not progressive if it comes to caring for his wife?? He makes out that this is the good way to go and not the bad one, like he does not think it is wrong to have mistresses, and to actually suggest to Jane to be his mistress.
If not knowingly cruel, he was certainly meant to be conservative about it.

If anyone thinks the treatment of Bertha was brutal and thinks that things have improved across the board, take a look at this... :flare: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2448074.shtml

At least she was fed and clothed as well as was possible.

On 07-15-2007 kiki1982 posts “lunatic assylums were good places where they tried to cure people the best they could (we don't have to look at it in a contemporary kind of way) and, if even they couldn't cure them, looked after them so that they would be happy (host balls, feasts etc).” And on 07-22-2007 post the justification is given as “The hosting of balls as I mentioned it, I saw in a BBC documentary called "How we built Britain" with David Dimbleby.” I would think that an educated woman, a teacher could distinguish a TV dramatization from a historic data and not state that lunatic asylums were good places where they cured people by hosting balls.
With the 07-15-2007 kiki1982 posts “...Characters in books are not real people and consequently don't have a life as such. Their lives stop when they stop appearing in the book. .... She was as important as the weather was in the story. Nothing more. Discussing Bertha is good, as far as it concerns the book Jane Eyre, but as soon as the discussion is about anything else than something in connection with the book, it is not to the point. “
I supposed that we were on firmer grounds to hold a reasonable discussion on Jane Eyre, the novel. However on 07-22-2007 she writes “Rochester was supposed to be a person who lost the way: he was arrogant, he had mistresses, a bastard daughter he does not recognise, so he also locks up his wife despite all his money and despite public opinion about restraining and locking up mentally ill patients.”
The historic data about the Victorian asylums seems not to have made any impression and she repeats the unsubstantiated opinion that “ despite public opinion about restraining and locking up mentally ill patients”.
Making a moral argument on a fictitious character. Before making such an argument she should have been have been cognizant that such a prominent social critic as Thackery had 'locked up' his mentally ill wife rather that give her free reign in his home or sent her to an asylum. Perhaps she should have studied Charlotte's juvenilia writings to understand the genesis of the Rochester in the figure of Zamorna of the Angrian stories. (A synopsis can be read in “Slave of a Fixed and Dominant Idea : Charlottes Brote's Early Writings – Preliminaries or Precursors. Paragraph 3 @
http://books.google.com/books?id=0Tw...N05bSiljHluzJg)
Rochester is conceived as a counterpoint to Jane. Drawn from Zamorna, his character is Byronic and has been suggested as Satanic. Mark Kinhead-Weekes essay, The Place of Love in Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights, states that “the house itself is a metaphor of Rochester's heart, a physical embodiment of the tropical hell he has tried to escape, enclosed within the half-life which is all he has found. The hell of mindless and uncontrolled passion is barred into the attic, hidden away in the form of his lunatic wife.” Note that no moral judgment is made, only commentary on the novel. Note the difference in analysis from On 07-11-2007, kiki posts “... maybe she meant the locked up wife in the attic as a kind of Christ figure who is being blocked out of Rochester's life.”
??? What is the textual association to the fictitious character???
Certain well-off ladies that had supported Charlotte broke of relationships because they deemed Jane Eyre as anti religious due to the characterizations of Blockenhurst and St. James but the interpretation that Bertha was a Christ like figure is surely too bizarre for a literature based comment.
On 07-12-2007 kiki posts “Maybe Rochester was too brutal on the wedding night with Bertha . One would go mad for less...”

What are we to make of these contradictions? Apparently for kiki 'maybe' qualifies as a studied opinion. Given the above postings, kiki's opinions seem to be schizoid.

The recent criticism of the characters Rochester and Bertha, are an underlaying gender and morality based attempt at a subjective reading of Jane Eyre. It seems that the reader does not or is uncomfortable with the poetic structure of the novel and wishes to reinterpret Charlotte Bronte in a 'objective' way. The 'objective' being a singular and ideological interpretation.
Andre D. Hook in Charlotte Bronte, the Imagination and Villette, writes, “The pivotal conflict in Jane Eyre is newer clearly defined as that between the appeal of imagination and the world of moral choices and decisions. Rather, more conventionally, it is portrayed as a clash between Reason and Passion. Passion comes to include all the possibilities of excitement, change, experience, even love, which the romantic imagination so intensely celebrates. As the conflict develops within Jane herself it is often given a strict moral, or even religious, significance. It is as thought, in allowing the world of imaginative indulgence and hope its human vitality and warmth, Charlotte felt compelled to circumscribe the debate within the categories of orthodox morality. So successful is she that on occasion the true meaning of the novel is in danger of being obscured or betrayed. In the matter of the key issue of Rochester's previous marriage, for example, we may choose to see Jane's dilemma as no more than that of the conventional Victorian heroine choosing between passionate but illicit love on the one hand, and duty and moral integrity on the other. While it is true that the text sometimes invites us to see the matter in this light, it is nonetheless not the true light. The real danger that threatens Jane is not that of becoming a fallen woman, but of allowing herself to be swept out of the world of moral responsibilities altogether into that other seductive world of high passion and romance that Charlotte herself had for so long imaginatively indulged.”
Charlotte does a balancing act in Jane Eyre and at least in part it is the appreciation of this balance that makes the novel a work of art. To reduce, to read it as one or the other, is to bleach, to emasculate the novel.

I would think that an educated woman, a teacher could distinguish a TV dramatization from a historic data and not state that lunatic asylums were good places where they cured people by hosting balls.

I am an educated woman and for your information BBC documentaries do not tend to spread untrue information. If the British Broadcast Corporation makes documentaries they make them interesting and above all crammed with information. They do not dramatise nor tell stories that are out of time, like the article on suicide in the 1860s, rather than in the 1840s. Already for 100 years there was a revolution in care for the poor, the mad and the criminals going on by the time Charlotte wrote her book. William Tuke openend his hospital in York in 1796. Mad people were not seen anymore as punished by the devil (17th - 18th century), but rather as sick in the mind. This was the consequence of the Enlightment that partly caused the French Revolution to take place. Tuke's hospital attracted a lot of attention, so I cannot believe that Brontë would not have known about it as it was even in the same county. Charlotte was born in the middle of the industrial revolution and in the middle of all these changes. She cannot have totally escapecd the discussion, certainly not because her father stood at the centre of society as a priest. He must have had connections with asylums, workhouses etc.
By the 1860s the whole philosophy of actually untying patients had passed, because it cost too much money a now the state had the task to care for the poor, mad and small criminals. Also giving them good food was too expensive, so they increased the amount of patients in the asylums and started to tie them up again.

The historic data about the Victorian asylums seems not to have made any impression and she repeats the unsubstantiated opinion that “ despite public opinion about restraining and locking up mentally ill patients”.
Making a moral argument on a fictitious character. Before making such an argument she should have been have been cognizant that such a prominent social critic as Thackery had 'locked up' his mentally ill wife rather than give her free reign in his home or sent her to an asylum.

For your information I actually posted historical data and/or also data that came from historians and specialists. As the interview with Mr David Wright. He also made a statement about Thackery. That he locked up his wife was revealed just after Jane Eyre was released. And the public was shocked. The article does not want to be displayed so I can't quote. In the meant time I can quote again:

"People today need to balance the descriptions of the early asylums with a greater understanding of the medical and social attitudes and conditions of the times, says Wright. "These facilities may appear horrific by our standards today. But that would also be true of our view of the typical living conditions for the ordinary labourer of the day," he says."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_t...atric_hospital

I think we are seeing it from our point of view now and not from the point of view in 1847. This is an article of Mc Master University in Canada. Mr Wright spent 10 years in England researching in this field.
I don't think we can call this very modern:
"whether beast or human being, one could not, at first sight, tell: it grovelled, seemingly, on all fours; it snatched and growled like some strange wild animal: but it was covered with clothing, and a quantity of dark, grizzled hair, wild as a mane, hid its head and face." (Brontë)

As it says in the wikipedia article:

"In 1700 it is recorded that the "lunatics" were called "patients" for the first time, and within twenty years separate wards for the "curable" and "incurable" patients had been established. Mental illness was now no longer an affliction, but a disease, to be diagnosed and potentially cured."

And this is about Bethlam hospital, notorious for its bad treatment of patients. Even there they called the 'lunatics' 'patients' 150 years before Brontë wrote her book... Rochester doesn't even speak to his wife. She doesn't speak back. She only yells...
It says about moral treatment on wikipedia:

An English Quaker named William Tuke (1732-1819) independently brought similar reforms to northern England, following the death of a fellow Quaker in a local asylum in 1790. In 1796 he founded the York Retreat, where about 30 patients lived as part of a small community in quiet country houses and engaged in a combination of rest, talk, manual work. The efforts of the York Retreat centered around minimizing restraints and cultivating rationality and moral strength.
The entire Tuke family became known as some of the founders of moral treatment. They created a family-style ethos and patients performed chores to give them a sense of contribution. There was a daily routine of both work and leisure time. If patients behaved well, they were rewarded; if they behaved poorly, they were punished. The patients were told that treatment depended on their conduct. In this sense, the patient's moral autonomy was recognized.

This Tuke died in 1819, as you can see. So 28 years before Jane Eyre. I don't see much talk, rest or manuel work in Bertha's treatment... I do not say that this type of treatment was available everywhere but surely in general doctors had another perception of mental illness than before...

A typical day at the Pennsylvanian Hospital, opened in 1841:
http://www.phillyhistory.org/PhotoAr...#37;20Services

This was certainly better than what Bertha got...

Certain well-off ladies that had supported Charlotte broke of relationships because they deemed Jane Eyre as anti religious due to the characterizations of Blockenhurst and St. James but the interpretation that Bertha was a Christ like figure is surely too bizarre for a literature based comment.

Jane Eyre anti religious????
Here is my answer: the book is packed with allusions to the Bible and the Common Book of Prayer as it states in this article:
http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/...nte/bolt3.html
That people clamed it to be anti religious... Well, people also clamed it was a bad book. And the painter Van Gogh was told he couldn't paint...
This link comes from an essay written by Peter Bolt (department of English, North East Worcestershire College): Rochester vs. St. John Rivers: or why Jane Eyre preferred a cynical sinner to a religious zealot. On victorian web it says 'last modified in 1999'. The essay was divided in 6 parts. I don't think there was any numerology involved.

What are we to make of these contradictions? Apparently for kiki 'maybe' qualifies as a studied opinion. Given the above postings, kiki's opinions seem to be schizoid.

With 'maybe' I want to say that we are not sure, as even studies are not sure that what they say is right and according to the author's opnion. This is a discussion forum so I am not writing a paper so I do not state articles to actually back up my statements. I make a statement and whoever wants to discuss it is welcome and then we can maybe result in stating other studies that approve of that opinion.
And anyway: books have layers and can be interpreted in several ways as with this one. You can interpret it in a feminist way, religion can be analysed, the story as such is interesting, we can look what it says about society as a whole, even the Enlightment can be discussed in it. Am I supposed to only have one statement about this book or am I also allowed to express different ones about different layers in the book?
If you want I can write you a paper (even a book) about it and post it here, if that ensures you about the scientificness of my opinions.
We were discussing lunatic assylums in the victorian era... Sadly the first half of the victorian era was quite different to the last half... But that seems to be forgotten.
If I have to talk about the articles you stated:

The first one was acceptable but was meant for children so it can hardly be called 'scientific'. It was very short and didn't say much about the conditions and principles...
The second one was about suicides from the 1860s on. As I stated before, the second half of the victorian era was quite different from the first half. They started of with determination to better the conditions of people in general. But as this turned out to be quite expensive, they stopped with it. Furthermore the article is about suicides which will of course focus on bad places and conditions to cause suicide. It will not say that patients committed suicide in spite of good conditions, will it? So it is not a good article to state in this case, because the timing is not right, as it is with statistics of 20 years too late, and the subject is not really the one of Bertha.
The third one was a feminist site that stated that mad people were thought to be possessed by the devil. This was the case about 100 years before 1845. Even at the end of the 18th century it was believed that mad people had a mental disease, or disease of the brain. It was a feminist site so it was very stereotypical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Newcomer

The recent criticism of the characters Rochester and Bertha, are an underlaying gender and morality based attempt at a subjective reading of Jane Eyre. It seems that the reader does not or is uncomfortable with the poetic structure of the novel and wishes to reinterpret Charlotte Bronte in a 'objective' way. The 'objective' being a singular and ideological interpretation.
Andre D. Hook in Charlotte Bronte, the Imagination and Villette, writes, “The pivotal conflict in Jane Eyre is newer clearly defined as that between the appeal of imagination and the world of moral choices and decisions. Rather, more conventionally, it is portrayed as a clash between Reason and Passion. Passion comes to include all the possibilities of excitement, change, experience, even love, which the romantic imagination so intensely celebrates. As the conflict develops within Jane herself it is often given a strict moral, or even religious, significance. It is as thought, in allowing the world of imaginative indulgence and hope its human vitality and warmth, Charlotte felt compelled to circumscribe the debate within the categories of orthodox morality. So successful is she that on occasion the true meaning of the novel is in danger of being obscured or betrayed. In the matter of the key issue of Rochester's previous marriage, for example, we may choose to see Jane's dilemma as no more than that of the conventional Victorian heroine choosing between passionate but illicit love on the one hand, and duty and moral integrity on the other. While it is true that the text sometimes invites us to see the matter in this light, it is nonetheless not the true light. The real danger that threatens Jane is not that of becoming a fallen woman, but of allowing herself to be swept out of the world of moral responsibilities altogether into that other seductive world of high passion and romance that Charlotte herself had for so long imaginatively indulged.”
Charlotte does a balancing act in Jane Eyre and at least in part it is the appreciation of this balance that makes the novel a work of art. To reduce, to read it as one or the other, is to bleach, to emasculate the novel.

---

I agree with Hook's insight.
I had thought those things myself, but had not really put the ideas so consisely as he did.
Thank you for sharing that quote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

Jane Eyre anti religious????
Here is my answer: the book is packed with allusions to the Bible and the Common Book of Prayer as it states in this article:
http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/...nte/bolt3.html
That people clamed it to be anti religious... Well, people also clamed it was a bad book.

---

In the posting of 07-23-2007, kiki1982, cites the following article by Peter Bolt:”The Prayer Book lists every day of the year, starting in January, as does Jane's journeying. Each day has four Lessons to be read, two at the Morning Service and two at the Evensong. Two readings are taken from the Old Testament, two from the New Testament, one each per service. In addition, particular Psalms are listed each day of the month, to be used in rotation. Also laid down are various "saints days", set against the days of the year put aside for their special commemoration. It is this calendar, with the list of Lessons and Saints, that has been used in a extraordinary way throughout the novel Jane Eyre.” .... And “ Thus January 15th gives the following: Morning Service first Lesson, Genesis Ch.XXI v33 to Ch.XXII v20; Evensong first Lesson, Genesis Ch.XXII. The former Lesson ends, "And Abraham sojourned in the Philistine's land for many days". The later describes the testing of Abraham's faith in God to the very limit. Both Lessons portray an accurate description and forewarning of Jane's predicament in her early days at Lowood.”
However the date cited in the novel is as follows: “It was the fifteenth of January, about nine o'clock in the morning: Bessie was gone down to breakfast; my cousins had not yet been summoned to their mama; Eliza was putting on her bonnet and warm garden-coat to go and feed the poultry, an occupation of which she was fond; and not less so of selling the eggs to the housekeeper and hoarding the money she thus obtained.”
Only a description of the winter and avarice of Eliza. Nothing of January 15 in the Prayer Book or Morning Service or the Evensong. This should be sufficient as proof that Peter Bolt's reading of Jane Eyre is very peculiar. A reading of a religious zealot, of a numerologist and in my opinion of no literary significance. The remaining dates used by Peter Bolt are similar unique misinterpretations in Jane Eyre.

Quote - “Am I supposed to only have one statement about this book or am I also allowed to express different ones about different layers in the book?”

No question that you can express yourself but when it comes down to substantiating your claims, then a critical reading is required and a reference in the Victorian Web by itself is not sufficient proof of the validity of a religious interpretation of Jane Eyre. What is required is a logical argument that is referenced to the text. In this Peter Bolt fails.
Please do not interpret this as a personal attack. I value your opinion more than the usual 'fact' expressed and followed by silence when challenged. But on this issue we have an irreconcilable disagreement.