Jane Eyre and her independence from men

[kiki1982]

That was just my point. His conflict is not resolved at the moment he falls in love with Jane. He wants it so badly to be resolved for himself, and might just consider it resolved for himself, but when everything comes crashing down after the cancelled wedding, suddenly realises that that is not the case, to his own detriment.

The Merchant-analogy with the leaden casket does not apply to Jane. At the moment he has chosen the leaden casket, he wants it to be a golden and silver one. 'Give and hazard all he hath' turns into 'what many men desire' (or at least what he desires) and 'what he deserves.' We could argue that he does 'give and hazard all he hath,' but he does not only that, unlike Bassanio in the play. It is only at the end that he does/has done that, having lost a lot of money and handing himself over to Jane to be led.

Of course, when he finally meets Jane, he has started to appreciate beauty within, and not only the outside. Otherwise he would not have fallen in love with Jane, plain as she is. But... There is still that major force: his reputation. And he struggles to keep that front up. Because he cannot bear the scorn of people like you say. He cannot bear it for himself. And so he cannot bear the scorn that would happen to Jane for her being an ex-governess. Not for her, but for himself. She cannot care less about it (symbolised in the discussion about the veil). But he does and so foces a trousseau, veil and wedding dress of elaborate taste upon her so that he will not be seen with an inferior bride.

It is only after the release of the fire that he can withdraw from all the scorn and tackle his self-contempt as you say. It is only then that he can be the man he really is: tender, caring, not at all loud; and start on a new society with Jane's two cousins. Ironically actually a society that is beneath him in status. In a certain sense, he starts his life again.

[sweetsunray]

then we agree A book would be shortened immensely if characters have already learned all from their mistakes at the start or halfthrough the story

[mona amon]

To me, Jane seems like a very high-principled girl who does think about her lot. In my opinion, se would never have yielded. ~ Kiki

To contemporary readers Jane's decicion not to became Rochester's mistress would have seemed the only moral choice. And it's quite possible that Charlotte Bronte intended it that way. But for the modern reader, conventional morality is hardly enough justification for inflicting so much pain on another person and oneself. It doesn't seem quite so high-principled to most of us to "drive a fellow creature to despair, rather than transgress a mere human law, no one being injured by the breach". Unless other interprettations are possible, the book would be dated, would lack universality, would simply not appeal to modern readers as much as it in fact does.

So what is the answer to Rochester's anguished question, "You don't love me then? It was only my station and the rank of my wife that you valued? Now that you think me disqualified to become your husband, you recoil from my touch as if I were some toad or ape." ?

I find it impossible to believe that Rochester would have left her. His promise to stay only with her for the rest of his life seems genuine. Nor do I feel that he would have become disgusted with her, or ashamed, as he became with his other mistresses. Jane is different from these other girls. That's the reason why he fell so madly in love with her in the first place.

Between themselves, I'm convinced that they would have no problem living with each other, married or unmarried. It's other people that are the problem. When Jane tells Rochester to make his intentions known to Mrs Fairfax because she had seen them kissing in the hall the previous night, he is amused, and asks her whether she (Mrs Fairfax) thought Jane had "given the world for love and considered it well lost". And it is precisely this that Jane cannot do. She wants Rochester, but she wants the world as well.

Rochester's plan for them is to retire to a white-washed villa on the shores of the Mediteranean, where Jane would live a "happy, guarded, most peaceful life". Almost forty, and having lived it up, Rochester is quite ready to retire from the world and live in seclusion with Jane and only Jane. But Jane, the neophyte, can hardly be expected to be happy with such an arrangement. She's a social being. She needs other people besides Rochester. Adele really nails it when she tells Rochester that Mademoiselle would get tired of living with only him on the moon. "If I were her I would never consent to go with you." Mademoiselle of course does not consent, and probably for that very reason.

So Jane flees. Not because she blindly accepts the dictates of conventional morality, but because, as she tells us, "I care for myself". She is simply not prepared to live with Rochester on the terms that he offers, secrecy and seclusion.

(Quotations are from memory)

[Peripatetics]

mona amon - “To contemporary readers Jane's decicion not to became Rochester's mistress would have seemed the only moral choice. And it's quite possible that Charlotte Bronte intended it that way.”
The argument is not simple. If by contemporary we mean Victorian, then it's probable except that Charlotte is not simple. If we suppose that Jane's decision reflects Charlotte's morality, we have the contradiction of Charlotte's love of Hager, a married man. Of not condemning Branwell in the affair with Mrs. Robinson. It would appear that for Charlotte emotional imperatives triumph over public morality.

However making moral judgments is problematic since it is almost impossible to separate civil morality from religious morality. Are we talking about Charlotte reflecting Victorian codes, if so of what class since they were not universal, or are we unconsciously reflecting our own prejudices? A present example is - “To me, Jane seems like a very high-principled girl who does think about her lot. In my opinion, se would never have yielded. ~ Kiki”, in my opinion a doctrinaire Christian view, placing ideology over love.
The argument is not simple because Jane's decision exist only within the confines Charlotte's artistic imagination, ie fiction. That it is realistic, is a reflection of her genius, not an example of preaching of contemporary morality.

Proof is the theme: Jane the neophyte (thank you Amon), “So Jane flees. Not because she blindly accepts the dictates of conventional morality, but because, as she tells us, "I care for myself". “ and Jane understanding the power of love, returns to Rochester. Not to the white-washed villa but to the gloomy Ferdinan, not to the heroic, but the maimed Rochester. Not to the reformed Rochester but to “ever more absolutely bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh”

[kiki1982]

@Mona Amon:

I don't think either that Rochester would have left her, certainly not. But Jane believes so. In the end, after the wedding has crashed down around her, she does not trust him anymore. he could have promised anything at that moment, she would not have believed him.

What you say about wanting the world and Rochester together:

That could be true. But if she were to become Rochester's mistress, she'd give up the world. And why? Because no-one would want to know her.

That status of fallen woman is already clear when she flees Thornfield and lands on the moors. They turn her out everywhere. And why? In Victorian society it would have been your fault that you were destitute (workhouses). Surely she, nicely dressed (in comparison with others), would have done something severely wrong.

It is a nice thought, though, and it lifts that passage from a too Victorian view.

@Peripatetics:

I ask you again, not to confuse Victorian views with Christian. This is a free forum and I can write on the religious forum when I like not to be slagged off on other forums for it. Besides, I do not have any problem with people who cheat on their partners. It is a free society, they should not be chastised for it. If they are not satisfied, they should take ther own responsibility.


However, the principles that Jane follows are much more embedded in Victorian and early 19th century society than in Christian views anyway. Queen Victoria brought on one of the worst periods of restraint in history. The 18th century had been too decadent with its syphilis and other diseases from sexual contact so that it was necessary to contain people. Although the restraint of the Regency was still considerable, a virgin queen who loved her husband dearly, never looked at another man and after his death did not remarry (although did fall in love with other men like Brown and her Indian servant), was an ideal role model to do away with any form of decadency. Certainly for the middle classes. Charlotte was definitely middle class and the cult around Victoria cannot have escaped her.

What she wrote to Héger is true, yes. But the question is if she had gone so far as to become his mistress if he had wanted her to... I think she, like her Jane, had too much ambition to render herself the subordinate of a man, certainly in such a position that is essentially very vulnerable. Unlike Céline Varens in her book, Charlotte herself did not have a job that afforded her good society and the possibility to live/suvive between lovers and to make a profit (being paid off). Despite Victorian morals and the middle class woman who was supposed to be this asexual wrapped up to the neck puppet, Charlotte was ambitious, passionate and intelligent. I cannot think she would have started on a secret relationship. It would have been throwing all her ambitions out of the window. She was in love yes. But being in love creates all kinds of dreams (as in Rochester), does it mean that they will come true (I speak from experience)?

So, these morals come from a much deeper level than Christianity or anything else like that. They come from fear, primarily in the middle classes, of moral deprivation as they saw it in poor people. If one is raised with those morals, it is hard to get rid of them.

[Peripatetics]

QUOTE=, “So Jane flees. Not because she blindly accepts the dictates of conventional morality, but because, as she tells us, "I care for myself".

I was sorely disappointed when a computer search could not find “I care for myself” in the text. The phrase concisely encompassed Jane Eyre. Not only in the hour of the aborted wedding but in totality: the young Jane - “"Master! How is he my master? Am I a servant?", to the Jane who said: “I married him.”

The phrase had a ring of truth to it and a manual search found - Chp.27 - “Still indomitable was the reply--"I care for myself. The more solitary, the more friendless, the more unsustained I am, the more I will respect myself. I will keep the law given by God; sanctioned by man. I will hold to the principles received by me when I was sane, and not mad--as I am now. Laws and principles are not for the times when there is no temptation: they are for such moments as this, when body and soul rise in mutiny against their rigour; stringent are they; inviolate they shall be. If at my individual convenience I might break them, what would be their worth? They have a worth--so I have always believed; and if I cannot believe it now, it is because I am insane--quite insane: with my veins running fire, and my heart beating faster than I can count its throbs. Preconceived opinions, foregone determinations, are all I have at this hour to stand by: there I plant my foot."

The phrase “I care for myself”, has a resonance beyond the question of morality, to the question whether, when men and women make critical decisions, there is a gender component. Not whether the gender based conclusion is better but rather that in aggregate, women and men arrive at substantially different results in a personal crisis. A woman's “I care for myself” extends for those around her, is more complex than the simplistic question of morality - an ideological decision. Not surprising since morality has a strong religious basis and religious doctrine has historically been interpreted by men. Even in the present day, among the RC there is a prohibition of women as priests. As if only man can intercede with a god who is male.

Thus the question, is the decision making of the prefrontal cortex substantially different in women and men: the information flow of the left and right hemispheres? If so, then it would seem that in Jane Eyre, Charlotte explored a question way ahead of her times.

Reference:
A conversation with authors Katty Kay and Clare Shipman about their book “Womenomics”. Charlie Ross show, June 3, 2009

[kiki1982]

The passage of chapter 27 says exactly what it says:

I will hold to the principles received by me when I was sane, and not mad--as I am now. Laws and principles are not for the times when there is no temptation: they are for such moments as this, when body and soul rise in mutiny against their rigour; stringent are they; inviolate they shall be. If at my individual convenience I might break them, what would be their worth?

What principles are they? It is clear to me, I don't know what other people would read in those same words.

As I said before, we should not confuse historical morality with religious doctrine. Religious doctrine has stayed much the same, while morality has changed. Why? Because of the ruling classes or the middle-classes. Afraid of moral deprivation, from time to time the middle-classes revolt against the 'excesses' of the higher and lower classes. They desperately want to seperate themselves from both and use morality to do that. It was the case in the Victorian period (the middle-classes defining themselves), in the early 20th century, and it is the case now with the debate about swear-words. It has nothing or very little to do with men or women.

Patriarchal society, though, has always been, and still is in the world. As such, it is not surprising that a political institution as the papacy cannot change it, even if they liked. It is a lot more complicated than people think. Hence the dicsussion about homosexuals in the Anglican church. One would think it a clear case: priests are allowed to have a/any relationship. Not, as it seems. And the opposition comes mainly from America, and so the British wing of the Anglican church cannot allow for homosexuals to explicitly experience their sexuality if they have a function in the church. Because that would cause a schism. The papacy and the Queen need to keep the church together, so as it is famously said: 'Leading the flock, is looking in which direction they go and walk in front.' Both the Queen andthe Pope have to do so in order to keep it together. If the largest part of the Catholic world is opposed to women priests, the pope has no choice. Western Europe, on the other hand would like women priests also to solve their own problems of priest-flow...

The morality Wilde let through in his Dorian Gray is of a total different order, and the man came from a totally different class as Charlotte. Hence the free ideas about homosexuality.

Morality is not religous doctrine and as such, it cannot be demanded. Morality is made by the masses who follow roughly the same idea. As such, Charlotte had certain morals, and a belief. The two should not be confused.

[sweetsunray]

- I care for myself -

To me that is the expression of someone who chooses to stand by what they believe will upkeep their own integrity in their self-judgement. Whether people call that being true to God or their higher selves is to me irrelevant. In both instances it indicates that there's some inner witness voice that will judge you to be untrue to ideals, beliefs and morals that you hold sacred, if you do not act according to them. You can deceive others, but you cannot deceive yourself. And Jane obviously believes that she would be deceiving herself, her own ideals if she were to be pretending to be Rochester's wife in a foreign country where people wouldn't know better. She would consider herself his mistress. More, she believes that as a mistress, especially in the attempt to deceive herself, that she would lose her self-respect. And once she loses her self-respect, Rochester will lose respect for her as well.

While Jane's ideals may be influenced by her religious beliefs and social doctrine of the time, the peek in her childhood has always suggested to me that some of her strongest felt ideals were born to her, rather than inbred. As a child she is especially sensitive to injustice, and she might have simply regarded it as an injustice to Bertha to become Rochester's mistress.

And I even thin it's very possible for a personality to be born with inner convictions and moral ideals without it being bred by religion and society, purely based on personal experience. My earliest memory is of my 2nd birthday. Whatever the events, it resulted in me feeling an injustice (that another child who didn't have her birthday got to pick a gadget before me), extreme envy (over the colour of the gadget), but more importantly I felt extremely guilty over my envy. So, I chose to shut up and settle with a gadget in a hated colour. I never told a soul about it until I was 12 (and then everyone, including my daycare mother during a visit for old times' sake, indicated they felt I would have had the right to speak out). I had no brother or sisters or any other circumstance where I could have been taught that envy was a "bad" feeling. That self-judgement was a complete inner judgement based on my own inner morals. And to this day, I avoid being envious as well as jealous, nor ever attempt to purposefully create the feeling with others. Anyway, imo, not everything is taught and a great many things can be an inner aspect that comes with birth, including morals. Jane's seems to be the moral of fair-play and doing justice.

[Peripatetics]

- I care for myself -
While Jane's ideals may be influenced by her religious beliefs and social doctrine of the time, the peek in her childhood has always suggested to me that some of her strongest felt ideals were born to her, rather than inbred. As a child she is especially sensitive to injustice, and she might have simply regarded it as an injustice to Bertha to become Rochester's mistress.

"It is a bright, sunny morning, sir," I said. "The rain is over and gone, and there is a tender shining after it:"* JE, and an afternoon to look forward to: Ramansky's 'On the Dnieper' . So even if the Amsterdamian damns my opinions as 'irrelevant', I'll try to explain my views on '- I care for myself -'.

First, 'I care for myself ', is poetically pregnant. Almost limitless of the Jane that Charlotte created. But only so, Jane does not reflect Charlotte's morality, not the Victorian morality, nor a Christian morality. She is self contained. Importantly she is not static. It's pedantic to note that the moral compass of the young girl at Gateshead Hall, at Lowood, Thornfield Hall and at the manor-house of Ferndean, is not the same. Jane's her moral compass not static. 'I care for myself ' reflects a Jane after the aborted wedding and her experiance of loss of love, the Jane that declares "Certainly--unless you object. I will be your neighbour, your nurse, your housekeeper. I find you lonely: I will be your companion--to read to you, to walk with you, to sit with you, to wait on you, to be eyes and hands to you. Cease to look so melancholy, my dear master; you shall not be left desolate, so long as I live."

When sweetsunray writes : “More, she believes that as a mistress, especially in the attempt to deceive herself, that she would lose her self-respect. “ I would answer in Jane's own words - 'you little know me'.
Perhaps initialy it would have been so but as Jane lived in Rochester's company, I think that the moral status of a mistress would have been 'irrelevant'. As Jane remarked - ' in his presence I thoroughly lived; and he lived in mine.' To put it into moral judgment is but speculation, that is an extrapolation of our own morality.

The more interesting question is - “While Jane's ideals may be influenced by her religious beliefs and social doctrine of the time, the peek in her childhood has always suggested to me that some of her strongest felt ideals were born to her, rather than inbred.”, that is whether the child's mind is a blank where language and hence values are written on by society or as has been suggested by Pinker and Chomsky that some organizing principles, of justice for instance, are inborn. A view that sweetsunshine qoute suggests.
And in this, a narrow case, ‘I care for myself’, would suggest that the question only has a personal answer, since the context is literature, not cognitive philosophy.
What do you think?

[kiki1982]

@Peripatetics:


And what is the answer to that question? Or does one deny that one is shaped by the society in which one lives?

The moral status of a mistress is not irrelevant. At leastnot to the mistress herself. As it was put into a film adaptation of the novel in the nineties: 'How can I lie with you, knowing that I'm not your wife?' He answers: 'No-one will know...' (the thing about the villa) and then she yells: 'Me! I will know it, and it will eat away at my soul...' That is just to whom it matters: if she found it wrong, morally, to be his mistress, people might not know, but she will know and that is her problem. Where those ideas come from is not so important, the thing is that they are definitely there. Had she had no problem with that, she would have become his mistress and waited for Bertha to die. As it is, she did not. And why? I leave the guessing to you.

This thing about morality is not speculation, it is observation.

[sweetsunray]

So even if the Amsterdamian damns my opinions as 'irrelevant', I'll try to explain my views on '- I care for myself -'.

If the Amsterdamian is to be me (I'm Antwerpian, remember ) then no, I don't think your opinion is irrelevant.

Hmm, my own personal views on integrity are certainly involved in what I wrote, and in a nutshell it is this: integrity belongs to the individual and for themselves to be determined, noone else's.

I think this because "integrity" means "acting and judging your actions according to what you truly believe to be right." It's thus a self-reflective process that others can neither touch nor influence. Others can only either compare the actions of another against their own morals (or society's morals via laws), or they can compare and judge someone's morals against theirs. But the "integrity" belongs to the individual... only that person can truly know what they consider to be right. Others may guess what that person thinks would be right and be pretty close, but it is often hard to put into words for a particular situation with particular circumstances what this "right" is, excactly because these situations involve a lot of conflicting emotions, expectations, beliefs, etc.

In theory, someone who may be amoral (having morals severely deviant of mine) in my eyes can still have his or her integrity intact, as long as they "know" they acted in the way they believe to be right... Meanwhile, someone who may act according to professed morals that I may approve can have no integrity simply because deep down they believe something different, and hence they are lying to themselves.

So, integrity is about not deceiving yourself with regards to your actions versus your personal morals.

Jane seems to see integrity in a similar way. Rochester often notes how Jane does not judge him. And she does not. There is but one person she judges and that is Mrs Reed, when she's a child. And Mrs Reed is one of the clearest examples in the book of a person who is deceiving herself: Reed swears to everyone, including herself, that she tried her very best to do right by Jane, while nothing can be farther from the truth. As a child Jane feels the need to point this out to Mrs Reed, whereas she refrains from it at Mrs Reed's death bed. Jane has come to recognize and trust that people will admit their self-deception to themselves in the end and God. Curiously, that is exactly what Mrs Reed does. While she may still hate Jane, at least she's not deceiving either herself or Jane about it, but thoroughly admit she wronged Jane.

While the judgement process is personal, it is also equal/the same for everyone, no matter what their morals and religion they have.

When I wrote

To me that is the expression of someone who chooses to stand by what they believe will upkeep their own integrity in their self-judgement. Whether people call that being true to God or their higher selves is to me irrelevant. In both instances it indicates that there's some inner witness voice that will judge you to be untrue to ideals, beliefs and morals that you hold sacred, if you do not act according to them.

I only mean that to me the integrity preservation process within an individual is not just similar but absolutely the same, no matter what religious beliefs they may have had. One person may call it "an issue between their maker and themselves", another may call it "an issue between my id and higher self", and there may be 100 different versions. However, in both instances the one who's going through this integrity process will at least always know deep down they would be lying to themselves if they do not follow what they already know deep down.

And for a religious person, God becomes involved, because God is supposed to be able to see into a person's heart, and thus know how self-deceptive a person has been or not. Aside from yourself, He is the sole one who can judge your integrity. If you can stand before God without being found wanting of self-honesty, then you can stand before yourself knowing 100% you did what you think the right thing. They mean and are the same thing (to me anyway).

Jane makes several allusions to this, both by mentioning how to relate to God and to herself, but also when she reflects on and advizes both Rochester and Reed.

"I care for myself" is just one of those allusions. It could in theory mean taking physical care of oneself. But certainly that is not Jane's point. If it is not physical, it could reflect on emotional or mental well being. And yet we know she suffers emotionally, so it's not meant to indicate "emotional well being". That only leaves the mental well being. Since, she's not going mad, nor does she believe she's losing her mental faculties, the mental well being would indicate taking care her mental self is not in conflict... and that is where "integrity" comes in.

Compare, Rochester's utterances to Jane's. He does not just want to defy society, but God himself and become a bigamist. His admittance that he wants to defy God, shows to us how he's trying to act against his own morals. It means that while Rochester exclaims as often as he would that he's not married and does not have a wife, that he in fact considers himself very much married to Bertha. He is trying to convince himself that he's not, but he's trying to deceive himself. If he would truly not consider himself married he would not consider himself at odds with God. Hence, why Jane reminds him to communicate with and look for God.

It is curious to how he uses Jane as his moral compass. He asks Jane whether he acted right in taking on the responsibility of Adèle. In contrast, he never even asks her opinion regarding his relationship and dealings with Adèle's mother: during and how he ended it. Obviously, Rochester is not in conflict with himself over any of his dealings with Celine Varons. But he seems to be with regards to Adèle. By asking Jane he's not asking for society's approval. He does not feel he needs to explain it to Mrs Fairfax or Blanche Ingram. But he does seek it with Jane.

And I think it has to do with how he regards Jane to be a mirror of himself, his good alter ego. He is seeking for self-approval of his actions, but he is unable to face his own inner self, and projects it outside of himself into Jane. He first seeks it over Adèle, but eventually over Bertha and inhowfar he's married to her. The parting conversation between them, as well as Jane's later defense against StJohn reveals that Jane refused to judge him on this. Her leaving is not a rejection of Rochester nor a rejection of his love for her and vice versa. What she does is leave him to himself and God to judge himself. And only after he has come to terms with himself and God is he allowed to reach out to her again.

But only so, Jane does not reflect Charlotte's morality, not the Victorian morality, nor a Christian morality. She is self contained.

exactly

Importantly she is not static. It's pedantic to note that the moral compass of the young girl at Gateshead Hall, at Lowood, Thornfield Hall and at the manor-house of Ferndean, is not the same.

Agreed. The integrity process can occur while the moral compass may alter.

When sweetsunray writes : “More, she believes that as a mistress, especially in the attempt to deceive herself, that she would lose her self-respect. “ I would answer in Jane's own words - 'you little know me'.
Perhaps initialy it would have been so but as Jane lived in Rochester's company, I think that the moral status of a mistress would have been 'irrelevant'. As Jane remarked - ' in his presence I thoroughly lived; and he lived in mine.' To put it into moral judgment is but speculation, that is an extrapolation of our own morality.

Jane's urging for Rochester to consult and rely on God shows the involvement of the integrity process and thus measuring against one's own morals. And Jane's beliefs regarding marriage seem to follow the idea that a marriage is a union and bond sanctioned by God. The fact that Rochester cannot divorce his wife, and is still married would mean to Jane that God still sanctions the union of Rochester and Bertha. Meanwhile Rochester tries to convince himself (and Jane) that it's only a social law bond and that Jane's and Rochester's love union intead would be the true marriage, even if they are not before society. Jane can choose to allow herself to be convinced of that, or not. Yet, she doesn't. (And CB seems to indicate it would be unsanctioned with the destruction of the tree after Jane accepts Rochester's marriage proposal). Had Jane in any way believed what Rochester tried to convince her of to be true, she would have become his mistress. But she didn't, at that time, in that situation, with Jane being Jane as she is right after finding out about Bertha. So, to admit to it, while knowing it to be unsanctioned, would be self-deception. And that is what Jane cannot and will not do to herself.

And I cannot perceive how what would start as a self-deception to Jane (living with Rochester in the mediterranean villa as his mistress, but considering themselves as married) would become a truth to Jane. That does not mean I think Jane's morals can change in time, just not while first entering into self-deception. One Truth can become another Truth in time, but self-deception will always remain a self-deception...

The past is unchangeable, unalterable. Once a person acts, it already has become the past. If the person acted in all honesty to their morals at that time, then they cannot regret it, even if after time their morals alter and they would act differently the next time in a similar situation. The self-honesty opens the door to growth and change. However, if a person acts dishonest to their own morals at that given time, they can only come to regret it and end up being stuck in it, because they can never undo the past.

Two characters in this book act dishonest to their own values: Mrs Reed and Rochester. And we witness how stuck they are in their regret. Instead of growth, they feel they have no other resource than to continue on the path of self-deception via the outer world. They both try to convince the outer world (including Jane) of another reality, in the hope that if will eventually convince themselves to be true and right. And they both fail. Jane continues without regret, even if she suffers. And it enables her to seek out Rochester even while not knowing yet he's a widower, not being sure yet even herself what she will or can be to him (friend, or lover, or wife).

So, it is quite possible imo that the Jane who returns might have chosen to be Rochester's mistress after her experiences with StJohn, if Bertha had survived the fire, and be at peace with it. StJohn and time create a new Truth for Jane, and thus alternative choices in a similar situation as before. But it is quite impossible to me that Jane would have eventually been at peace with choosing to be his mistress right after she learns about Bertha's existence.

The more interesting question is - “While Jane's ideals may be influenced by her religious beliefs and social doctrine of the time, the peek in her childhood has always suggested to me that some of her strongest felt ideals were born to her, rather than inbred.”, that is whether the child's mind is a blank where language and hence values are written on by society or as has been suggested by Pinker and Chomsky that some organizing principles, of justice for instance, are inborn. A view that sweetsunshine qoute suggests.

Yes. I do think that some essential values are inborn, especially those that involve the tit-for-that behaviour of our species.

[kiki1982]

Waw, that is exactly what I found via another road (Sleeping Beauty -and the moon-motif)!

[DawnsAtHeights]

But if so, why did Jane go back to Rochester? When she went looking for him, she didn't know he was a widower. The only circunstance that had changed was that she was now a independent woman thanks to her inheritance. She was free to love him without depending on him.

Actually, when Jane arrived at Ferndean Manor, she already knows that Rochester is widowed. She knows this from a shepherd, when she arrived at Thornfield, but Thornfield was just a ruin!

[kiki1982]

I think the poster was on about when she left Morton... Then she indeed does not know.

Jane learns what has happened in the past year not from a shepherd (that is the 2006 adaptation I think), but from the innkeeper of the Rochester Arms where Jane gets off the coach and who is ex-butler of 'the late Mr Rochester', say the current Mr Rochester's father.

[L.M. The Third]

Right. And the novel is quite ambiguous about what Jane expects to be the culmination of her trip to find Rochester. The 'voice' she hears is a means of escape from the pressure St. John is putting on her, and, of course, she does want to know what has become of Rochester, but it's a rather desperate decision. There's no saying what she would have done if Thornfield was still standing when she arrived. At least judging from her reticent behavior as she approaches Thornfield, I don't think she has any well-formed plan of her next steps.