Mad Wife in the Attic?

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...

It was MY impression that putting Bertha in an insane asylum would have been much more cruel than the private care Rochester provided for her. The public institutions of those days were not known for their compassion and comfort. Bertha was better off where she was.

In my own experience, it is my opinion that those who have private care have their needs much more closely looked after, and more quickly attended to, than those who are in a hospital.

But her "private care" was not so great either. Why didn't Rochester give her the whole of Thornfield instead? Why did he just keep her on the third floor?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by malwethien

But her "private care" was not so great either. Why didn't Rochester give her the whole of Thornfield instead? Why did he just keep her on the third floor?

---

The WHOLE mansion.

I have 3 children.

When they were very young but old enough to be a danger to themselves, they spent much of their playtime in a play pen with carefully selected age-appropriate toys to play with.

As they got older, and needed room to amble around in, but still not so much as the whole house, I kept them confined to one special play room that was childproofed and safe for them.

This is in the best interest of the child. You only give them as much as they can handle. You don't allow them into situations where they can injure themselves.

Bertha Mason was a danger to herself and to others.
You don't just let people like that roam around free without boundaries.


I do not find fault with what Rochester did because the author did not lead me to find fault with him.
She goes out of her way to describe him as wholly "good" in his care of Bertha. Therefore, regardless of how we today might treat a person in Bertha's condition, apparently, according to the author, what Rochester did was "good". I am not going to harshly judge a time and place over 150 years removed from my own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sciencefan

The WHOLE mansion.
I do not find fault with what Rochester did because the author did not lead me to find fault with him.
She goes out of her way to describe him as wholly "good" in his care of Bertha. Therefore, regardless of how we today might treat a person in Bertha's condition, apparently, according to the author, what Rochester did was "good". I am not going to harshly judge a time and place over 150 years removed from my own.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by malwethien

But her "private care" was not so great either. Why didn't Rochester give her the whole of Thornfield instead? Why did he just keep her on the third floor?

---

The difference between sciecefan post and malwethience, is maturity. Experience and memory that allows discrimination, hence understanding and perspective.
Jane Eyre is Charlotte Bronte's work of art, her experience and best read very carefully. To second guess, to judge from our own view point, is to brush aside Charlotte Bronte's insights, even worse is to assume that ours are equal or better. Literature is not philosophy nor morality, it is fiction for grownups.

Quote:

---

I do not find fault with what Rochester did because the author did not lead me to find fault with him.
She goes out of her way to describe him as wholly "good" in his care of Bertha.

---

I agree with you that the author meant Rochester to be a good man and did not intend to have her readers find fault with him. Whether I, as a reader, agree with the author's point of view, is another issue--and one on which I believe we hold very differing opinions of.

I do not share the author's views that Rochester is a good man. Contrary, I think he is far from faultless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Newcomer

To second guess, to judge from our own view point, is to brush aside Charlotte Bronte's insights, even worse is to assume that ours are equal or better. Literature is not philosophy nor morality, it is fiction for grownups.

---

I don't think I agree with you. When you read something - anything, you don't just sit back and accept everything the author tells you. It's not a matter of whether we think our ideas are better than the authors' or even equal - readers should question the material they are reading, and writers, know this - I'm sure most even welcome it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drunkenKOALA

I agree with you that the author meant Rochester to be a good man and did not intend to have her readers find fault with him. Whether I, as a reader, agree with the author's point of view, is another issue--and one on which I believe we hold very differing opinions of.

I do not share the author's views that Rochester is a good man. Contrary, I think he is far from faultless.

---

BTW, when I said she portrayed him as faultless, I only meant in his care of Betha,
for she does bring forward the faults in the way he interacts with people.

Was there a huge outcry when this was published that it was unrealistic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by malwethien

I don't think I agree with you. When you read something - anything, you don't just sit back and accept everything the author tells you. It's not a matter of whether we think our ideas are better than the authors' or even equal - readers should question the material they are reading, and writers, know this - I'm sure most even welcome it.

---

I agree with this statement, generally speaking.
Certainly if I am reading the newspaper or a magazine, I will think critically for myself. I will not be led silently to the slaughter.

But when I am reading literature that is one or two hundred years old, a "fairy tale", and I come across thinking that is wholly foreign to anything I know today, I don't think, "Oh those horrible, wicked people!"
No. I think, "Isn't it strange how different it was back then?"

And then there is the very difference between fiction and non-fiction.
Certainly I would hope you always carefully discern right from wrong and truth from lies (even though I have heard there is no such thing any more- but that is another subject) when you are reading non-fiction.

But when we are reading fiction, we have entered the author's artificial world. The author gives us clues to lead us to conclusions. We discover what the author thinks. Once we do that we are certainly free to agree or disagree.
But to judge as right or wrong is impossible because it is an opinion. And nobody's opinion is wrong. It's an opinion.

Anyway, have a wonderful day.

Has anyone read Wide Sargasso Sea? There is a mad wife in the attic there too. I can understand her madness, but I still wonder about the symbolism. I think that in WSS the marriage is like a prison cell and the wife is in solitary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sciencefan

I agree with this statement, generally speaking.
Certainly if I am reading the newspaper or a magazine, I will think critically for myself. I will not be led silently to the slaughter.

But when I am reading literature that is one or two hundred years old, a "fairy tale", and I come across thinking that is wholly foreign to anything I know today, I don't think, "Oh those horrible, wicked people!"
No. I think, "Isn't it strange how different it was back then?"

But when we are reading fiction, we have entered the author's artificial world. The author gives us clues to lead us to conclusions. We discover what the author thinks. Once we do that we are certainly free to agree or disagree.
But to judge as right or wrong is impossible because it is an opinion. And nobody's opinion is wrong. It's an opinion.

Anyway, have a wonderful day.

---

Of course...I agree with what you said and when you read a work of fiction - it is as if you are argreeing to be led into the world of the writer...and though ideally we would like to say "isn't it strange how different it was back then?" instead of "Oh those horrible people..." the truth is, there will be people out there who will not think that way....and there will be people obsessed with the little thing in the novel of the hero locking up his mad wife on the third floor instead of being more interested in the whold novel as a work of art or whatever the writer inteded it to be....

But anyway....I think I have lost the point I was trying to make ;) It's a good discussion though...;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B-Mental

Has anyone read Wide Sargasso Sea? There is a mad wife in the attic there too. I can understand her madness, but I still wonder about the symbolism. I think that in WSS the marriage is like a prison cell and the wife is in solitary.

---

B-Mental...yes....the "mad wife in the attic" in WSS and the mad wife in the "attic" in Jane Eyre are one and the same....the infamous Bertha Antoinette Cosway Mason Rochester ;) the nameless English gentleman in WSS is none other than Mr. R. himself....

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"?