Mad Wife in the Attic?

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.