If we want to see how Bertha is treated and to know what she was used for we need to first see what the use of the character of Rochester was for the book. An examination into what Rochester and other characters have to say about the treatment of Bertha:
‘Bridewell’ is the word Rochester’s party acts out and Dent’s party has to guess in the charade-scene. What does it mean?
http://www.answers.com/topic/bridewell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridewell
It is a house of correction… Later a prison… Obviously this word was chosen by the writer and not by Rochester as he is not a living person. The word was put there for a purpose. What’s more: Jane doesn’t state the word Rochester’s party had to guess because she was more interested in what Mr Rochester and Miss Ingram were doing, in other words it is not important to the story. Miss Ingram even states that ‘of the three characters, she liked him in the last best.’ The last one was the acting out of the word ‘bridewell’ because Dent’s party couldn’t guess it. The scene resembled a dungeon.
The least we can say is that Bridewell was a correction house of the old times, set up in 1555. Later it became a prison. The prison was closed in 1855 and demolished in 1863. The name itself started to lead a life as a general denomination for detention centers throughout England, Canada and Ireland. Why would
This is the first allusion to a prison of some kind, involving Rochester himself and not Lynn, who was also available?
After Mason got bitten and stabbed and he's brought to the carriage by Rochester himself, Mason says:
‘Let her be taken care of; let her be treated as tenderly as may be: let her—‘ he stopped and burst into tears. (Brontë)
Then Rochester replies:
‘I do my best; and have done it, and will do it’, was the answer: he shut up the chaise door, and the vehicle drove away.
Mason, and then also Charlotte, obviously knows about the concept of tender care as he suggests it himself.
And after that Rochester says:
‘Come where there is some freshness, for a few moments,’ he said; ‘that house is a mere dungeon: don’t you feel it so?’
‘It seems to me a splendid mansion, sir.’
‘The glamour of inexperience is over your eyes,’ he answered; ‘and you see it through a charmed medium: you cannot discern that the gilding is slime and the silk draperies cobwebs; that the marble is sordid slate, and the polished woods mere refuse chips and scaly bark.’
On all words dictionary it says about the word ‘dungeon’:
A prison cell, especially underground
So says Collin’s English Dictionary
Now why would Charlotte have put this word into Rochester’s mouth if it were not applicable? He even insists on it being a dungeon. The only one who is locked up in the house, is Bertha as we will later learn, but if she was locked up humanely, the house does not merit the name of ‘dungeon’, does it. Taking into account that Mason asks to take care of her ‘tenderly’, the word ‘dungeon’ can only mean one thing and that can not be ‘humane’. I don’t think we can call tying someone’s hand behind her back and tying her to a bed, tenderness. Not in 1847 and not now.
Before the marriage Jane thinks this about her future life as Mrs Rochester:
‘For a little while you will perhaps be as you are now,—a very little while; and then you will turn cool; and then you will be capricious; and then you will be stern, and I shall have much ado to please you: but when you get well used to me, you will perhaps like me again,—like me, I say, not love me. I suppose your love will effervesce in six months, or less. I have observed in books written by men, that period assigned as the farthest to which a husband’s ardour extends. Yet, after all, as a friend and companion, I hope never to become quite distasteful to my dear master.’
He assures her this is not the case because he loves her. Later however, after the put-off wedding, when Rochester is telling his story to her in a last attempt to make her stay she tells him about how he should not talk hateful about his wife:
‘Sir,’ I interrupted him, ‘you are inexorable for that unfortunate lady: you speak of her with hate—with vindictive antipathy. It is cruel—she cannot help being mad.’
Then he says:
‘Jane, my little darling (so I will call you, for so you are), you don’t know what you are talking about; you misjudge me again: it is not because she is mad I hate her. If you were mad, do you think I should hate you?’
‘I do indeed, sir.’
So Jane thinks he would also treat her like Bertha if she were mad. He tells her not, and goes on that he would care for her with ‘untiring tenderness’.
What are we supposed to think after that? First you see a woman who is not really well kept (weather because of her condition or not, we do not judge), then we learn that he hates her and then he says that he doesn’t hate her because she’s mad but just because, and that he would take care of Jane differently than Bertha. So what makes that of Rochester and, in relation to that, of Bertha’s treatment? Is it normal that he cares for her in this way? There is a difference between Jane and Bertha then? Yes, he loves Jane and not Bertha. In addition to that we can also assume he knows about the concept of tender care as he suggests it to Jane, if she were mad.
He assures her now that he will ‘keep to [her] as long as [he] shall live’, but can she believe that after what she has seen? After what he did with his three mistresses? He even told Jane at some point that he thought he loved Bertha.
Through all the situations Rochester’s character develops. Can’t we see the presentation of Bertha as the last ‘chapter’ in this development? What use would this scene have, apart from the unveiling of the gothic element and sensation, if it is not used as that last image of Rochester? At other times Charlotte seems to quickly pass over things that are not really important, like the second charade, the month of courtship, the fortnight between her return and the proposal, the three first months at Thornfield, yet the scene with Bertha must be told. After all, the impediment has already been unveiled so why should we see the figure through Jane’s eyes? The only one who substantially speaks in the scene is Rochester, Mason who says one sentence ‘We had better leave her,’ and of course Grace who needs to warn Rochester. Charlotte chose the other scenes so well, so why put in a piece if it would be of no importance? Charlotte could have added another sentence, talking about the violent attacks and it would have been clear for whoever hadn’t understood yet. Why would Charlotte make Rochester act this scene if it is not necessary for the development of his character?
What did journalists think of the Character of Rochester in the times the book was written? Here are a few examples, although they were not easy to find: http://faculty.plattsburgh.edu/peter...ult.asp?go=240
It includes reviews from both Engand and the US
Elizabeth Rigby of the Quarterly Review, however conservative, states in her review of Jane Eyre in 1848 about the character of Rochester:
'For Mr. Rochester's wife is a creature, half fiend, half maniac, whom he had married in a distant part of the world, and whom now, in his self-constituted code of morality, he had thought it his right, and even his duty, to supersede by a more agreeable companion.'
and further:
'Mr. Rochester is a man who deliberately and secretly seeks to violate the laws of both God and man, and yet we will be bound half our lady readers are enchanted with him for a model of generosity and honor.'
So she found him a very bad figure to say the least and she didn’t see where the generosity and honor lies. She also didn’t approve of his conduct towards young ladies.
Graham’s Magazine (Philadelphia) in 1848 about the character of Rochester:
‘The ruffian, with his fierce appetites and Satanic pride’
‘Every person who interprets her description by a knowledge of what profligacy is, cannot fail to see that she is absurdly connecting certain virtues, of which she knows a great deal, with certain vices, of which she knows nothing.’
.
This is what Edwin Percy Whipple in the North American Review in 1848 had to say about Rochester:
‘but when the admirable Mr. Rochester appears, and the profanity, brutality, and slang of the misanthropic profligate give their torpedo shocks to the nervous system’
The Spectator in 1847 wrote:
‘The reader cannot see anything loveable in Mr. Rochester, nor why he should be so deeply in love with Jane Eyre; so that we have intense emotion without cause.’
They didn’t at all see him as a noble character with faults like we see him now… Not only because his conduct was bad, arrogant and improper towards Jane (see various articles on the site), but also because he was ‘immoral, misanthropic’.
Of the 14 articles on the site, there were 7 that made a statement about the character Rochester and 6 of them classed him as negative. Only one talks about him in a positive way (The Westminster Review in 1848 states: ‘the eccentric Mr. Rochester, whom with all his faults and eccentricities one can't help getting to like’.) They all agree on the fact that his character ‘is from the life’, and some also say that they cannot help to like him, but they all see him as a bad figure.
This article is a letter from Amariah Brigham to the American Journal of Insanity:
http://www.disabilitymuseum.org/lib/docs/1303.htm
It does not talk at all about beating, restraining to a chair or anything of that kind. So we can conclude that this was not common practice or at least not approved practice. However it speaks about the use of opium, oils and warm/cold baths as a soothing tactic. Seen as the reform of mental asylums in the US only started in 1841 by Miss Dix, we can conclude that this treatment was also available in England as the revolution in treatment for the mentally ill started with the York Retreat end of the 18th century.
http://www.cbmh.ca/archive/00000304/...n2edginton.pdf
This is an article that focuses on the design of asylums in the 19th century. Although it states that ‘the placement of windows in the post-1845 period is different from their placement in the earlier period which resembles prisons’, there are still windows involved, which we can’t agreed upon in Bertha’s case. Besides why would Charlotte have stated especially that Bertha was locked in ‘a room without a window’ if this was not significant? Descriptions are only there when they are important.
‘Treatment throughout the 19th century made relatively little progress, although much was done to improve the general lot of the patients. Attention was given to diet, hygiene, accommodation, pastimes and amusements.’ (Ashworth, Stanley Royd Hospital, p. 33)
Hence the balls I was talking about. Apparently there was even possibility for tennis, bowls and other such things in other asylums. Also tranquil grounds seemed to be very important and in the most modern asylums they didn’t even have walls, only ditches so the patients couldn’t escape. They were allowed to walk freely in the grounds as a way of soothing. Hence the importance of windows for the views. So, as Rochester was a rich man, he could have put Bertha in such an asylum, but he did not.
Add this: when Jane has wondered for 2 days on the moorland and is about to collapse at the door of the Rivers’ house, she sees the two sisters, Diana and Mary, quoting two sentences from a poem. It seems to be a play from Friedrich Schiller from 1782, called ‘Die Räuber’ (The Robbers), from the Sturm und Drang period (early romantic period in Germany). The sentences are taken out of the first and one before last scene of the fifth and last act. The play is about two brothers, Karl and Franz, who fight against the wrongs society rules have as a consequence. Franz’s older brother Karl will inherit everything. Franz doesn’t agree with that and he is jealous. Because of a list his brother Karl ends up as the chief of a gang of thieves. Franz dies in the end, by killing himself because there is no way back: either he will die by the hand of his brother or he will burn in hell, as he intends to kill both his brother and father. Karl also ends up bad, killing his love because he cannot live with her (because of his oath to his gang) and she cannot live without him, but saves himself by doing a noble deed: handing himself in to a common worker who will then be able to claim the money on Karl’s head and feed his 11 children with it. Thus showing that fundamentally he is a good creature.
Sturm und Drang characters are ‘driven to action not by pursuit of noble means nor by true motives, but by revenge and greed. Further, this action to which the primary character is drawn is often one of violence.’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturm_und_Drang).
You can see more on the characters and backround of the play on http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_R%C3%A4uber
Charlotte states two sentences of a dream about the Last Judgment of Franz, just before he kills himself. Taking into account what characters of Sturm und Drang usually are like, this seems to be parallel with the character of Rochester: he commits wrongs because he was tricked into marriage by his father and brother, and even with an insane wife. He hates her and he will even ‘try violence‘ against Jane ‘if she doesn’t listen’ to his story. After Jane has left he indeed becomes violent: ‘he never was a wild man, but he got dangerous after he lost her.’
True, he is a Byronic Hero in a sense, but not really: in chapter 18, when Rochester and Blanche Ingram are talking about the charade they have just performed, Rochester asks her, ‘You would like a hero of the road then?’ To this Blanche replies, ‘An English hero of the road would be the next best thing to an Italian bandit; and that could only be surpasses by a Levantine pirate’ By ‘English hero of the road’ Blanche clearly means a Byronic hero, as it was the most notable hero in English literary history (Thorslev 189), and here Blanche states that she views Rochester as such a character. The response that Brontë puts in Rochester’s mouth, however, provides evidence that he is not so convincingly defined. He responds, ‘Well, whatever I am, remember you are my wife; we were married an hour since, in the presence of all these witnesses’ When Rochester says, ‘Well, whatever I am . . .,’ he discretely rejects what she has implied. Rochester is a Byronic Hero in the sense that he is a rebel, a wanderer, he’s not impressed by rank/privilege, he’s proud, he has a hidden curse, he is passionate, but when it comes to self-destructiveness, he doesn’t really live up to that. He is more than self-destructive: when Jane has left him, he sends all the servants away and ‘turns violent’. He even trashes Jane (‘My rest might have been blissful enough, only a sad heart broke it. It plained of its gaping wounds, its inward bleeding, its riven chords. It trembled for Mr. Rochester and his doom; it bemoaned him with bitter pity; it demanded him with ceaseless longing; and, impotent as a bird with both wings broken, it still quivered its shattered pinions in vain attempts to seek him.’) and also, to a certain extent Blanche Ingram by playing with her feelings (courting her while he doesn’t intend marriage). At the end of his story, he ends up alone on the stage, as in a Shakespearean tragedy with the servants gone, Jane ‘dead’ (so he believes after having sought her), isolated from the gentry and living ‘as a hermit’ in the shut up Hall. This is more like the Sturm und Drang behavior: not only destructive for the life of the character itself, but also to the world round him, as the fate of Franz in ‘Die Räuber’ demonstrates.
http://www.umd.umich.edu/casl/hum/en...b/ROCH_835.htm
Charlotte Brontë herself didn’t even want to create a true Byronic hero: she specifically says he is ‘ill-educated,’ ‘has a good nature’ and a ‘feeling heart,’ and is ‘not selfish’ or ‘self-indulgent’ -- all of these characteristics seem to be at odds with that of a Byronic hero. Yet she also describes him as ‘radically better than most men,’ and through this description, that Rochester learns from his experience, she implies that he possesses self-awareness -- a characteristic that is consistent with those of a Byronic hero.
Rochester seems to believe that he is doing the right thing, first concerning his mistresses, but also his bigamous marriage. He even gets the Bible involved: ‘and remember with what judgment ye judge ye shall be judged’. Clearly he’s in such a state of illusion, that he doesn’t see that he is committing adultery and that he is breaking the law both of God and Man. This state of illusion always occurs in characters with Sturm und Drang behavior, usually they wake up at the end of the story, as happens during the fire that destroys Thornfield.
When Jane forgives him but not in words (chapter XXVII) , she maybe forgives him his conduct: his lying, his deceit, but she cannot live with him because he cannot love like he should. He suggests to go to France with him, as his mistress, like Franz does in the play with Amalia (Karl’s love). She rejects him also. If both Rochester and Franz would truly and deeply love, they would not suggest this.
Later Jane tells Rochester: ‘I pity you—I do earnestly pity you’ (chapter XXVII), but is this pity because he is in that situation, or pity because he’s glad that he has all the money and the house and that, with those, he can do now with Bertha what he wants, because he speaks like that about her? Pity because he has fallen so low as to show contempt for another human being and also for God, showing contempt at his first marriage?
If we look at what happened two months after Jane left Rochester, we see that the house burns down and that, while the house is burning, Rochester saves everyone in the house. Yet, seeing that his wife is not among them, he goes back into the house, to the third storey, to take her out of her cell. The others shout to him that she is on the roof and so he decides to go there and get her. When he shouts ‘Bertha!’, she jumps from the battlements and falls to her death. Rochester descends but crashes down, together with the staircase, loosing one hand and one eye. Thus paying for adultery as it says in Matthew 5, 27-30. But why does he need to loose everything else if he pays for adultery/bigamy by loosing his hand and eye? There must have been something else that he had to pay for.
If we look at the Schiller quotation in chapter XXVIII, it is not the time for the end yet. Jane doesn’t speak German yet and the noble deed at the end is still to come. If we then look at the Sturm und Drang behavior Rochester has showed, then it is not at all necessary for him to have done a noble deed yet. If he would have done, the story would have been allowed to end already, yet this is not the case. So where does the treatment of Bertha stand in this story. Surely it can’t be the noble deed of Rochester, because the end hasn’t come yet. The noble deed, by which he proves to be worthy to get another chance, is the one of risking his life for Bertha’s well-being. After that he is rescued from the fire and acknowledges God in his sufferings. So therefore we can’t see Bertha’s treatment as a humane solution. It doesn’t fit the story, nor the circumstancial evidence. So we need to see Rochester not in a noble light before the end at all, but rather as negative, like most journalists agreed.
If we see the character of Rochester in the light of Schiller’s Sturm und Drang play, for which there is an indication in the book itself, then we can see the treatment of Bertha as very bad. We can add to that the ‘room without a window’, the letter if Amariah Brigham, the ‘tender care’ remarks of Mason and Rochester himself and the choice of the words ‘bridewell’ and ‘dungeon’ to back it up. If Rochester is a Sturm und Drang character, he can be totally bad without being unnatural, but he will also be a character to be pitied and so to be liked. And that fits with what readers feel. At the end he can even turn noble and be forgiven. The treatment of Bertha then is bad and inhumane, as the articles show, to show the character’s bad nature. Rochester ultimately shows his fundamentally good nature by trying to rescue her from the fire. We don’t have to blame Charlotte for Bertha’s bad treatment, as she probably used Bertha to serve the character of Rochester. She didn’t mean to be racist or (anti-)feminist. She merely followed a classical, though foreign and dated, path of writing.
I strongly believe that Charlotte meant Bertha's treatment to be inhumane, rather than humane. There is more proof on the internet about the treatment of the mentally ill in that age in Enlgand and it almost all puts Bertha's treatment in a bad light. This is the last I will say about my view of Bertha/Rochester as it seems futile to convince anyone that in those days they were more modern than we think.
