Is St. Clare the real villian?

I think we can all that agree that Marie is an awful person. Compared to her, St. Clare seems like a nice guy. He treats Eva well. He is nice to the slaves. He gives Tom the responsibility of the house finances. In this section, however, I am beginning to despise St. Clare. Although he seems like a nice guy, St. Clare encourages racism. One example is: "cooking being an indigenous talent of the African race" (189). This is an ignorant comment. Of course, not all blacks are fabulous cooks.

St. Clare continues his racist attitude by assuming that all blacks have the same personality and character traits. St. Clare believes that blacks share many negative characteristics, such as dishonesty and deception. The conversation that particularly enraged me occurred between  St. Clare and Miss Ophelia about an honest slave. He says, "Honest!-why, of course, they arn't. (194). The word "they" in this quote is crucial. St. Clare does not judge each person individually, but instead, judges the whole race in a negative way.


St. Clare's thinking is dangerous. He makes sweeping generalizations about blacks. The sad thing is, his thoughts about slaves and blacks probably represent most Southern whites in this time period.

So, my question to the readers: Who is worse? Marie or St. Clare?

Understanding Uncle Tom *SPOILER*

There are two characters in Uncle Tom's Cabin that always seem to stand out, Uncle Tom and Eva. The parallels between Uncle Tom and Eva become apparent as the book progresses, as both characters exemplify love and compassion and practice good faith. I bring up Eva because I think she helps the reader understand Uncle Tom. In many ways, Uncle Tom still maintains a child-like innocence, because he is willing to forgive people who are ignorant to their ways. I do not mean to give away too much but Tom does eventually get taken away from Eva. The separation of Eva and Tom is important because the reader must try to also see Tom as an individual. In many ways, the separation enables Tom to mature and to look at problems through a thoughtful, meaningful theological perspective. Despite the insight Stowe provides about Tom's religious transformation, there still remains a somewhat mysterious, confusing side to his nature. Tom has the ability to put up with far more troubles in a few days than most people have to deal with in their life; thus, I often have a hard time understanding Tom, as his ability to always stay resolved, calm, and determined is far beyond my grasp.

Ophelia a Racist?

Maybe someone can help me figure out the feelings and attitudes of Ophelia. Is Ophelia more of a racist than Maria? Ophelia cannot tolerate that Eva is treating the slaves as individuals-worthy of love and affection. On the other hand, she feels like slavery is not right. So where do her sentiments lie? When she sees Eva hugging and kissing Mammy she is shocked. In fact she says it “turns her stomach” (150). What is the deal? She is supposed to be the one who is above all of that. After all, that is what they preach in the churches in New England. Augustine treats his slaves humanely and thinks of them as human beings (he allows Adolpho to share his clothes) and yet Ophelia doesn’t think of them as human beings.  This attitude might still be prevalent in society today. Which part of the country is more tolerant, North or South?

ponderings

So far Uncle Tom’s Cabin has not been my favorite read, and I am having a hard time getting through the assigned reading. I find it interesting that for a book that is anti-slavery that Stowe does not focus on southern plantations. I realize that she did grow up seeing slavery not in plantation settings, but rather in what would be considered a more “mild setting.” However, I feel that by staging this book in a more traditional and typical setting it would be easier for a reader to feel more indignant and moved to do something about slavery, than this “kinder and gentler” version of slavery does. I realize I am reading this book with a more modern perspective, but I feel that hearing the stories of slaves on the plantations would have been more moving and evoking of emotional response. I am hoping the more I read, the more I am able to get invested into this book.

Discrimination: Then and Now

When I read a book, I sometimes imagine myself standing right beside the characters watching everything happen. Usually when I'm that deep into the text, I just enjoy the adventure and go along with things. However, after imagining myself in this story, I started thinking, "Damn, if I were there, someone would have a broken jaw. (Insert expletives of your choice here)." 

You see, I became absolutely infuriated in the very beginning when the men made little Harry dance around, do tricks, and sing while constantly calling him "Jim Crow." They were treating him like an animal simply because of his skin color. Now, I understand that this is just "how it was" back then. I understand it was the cultural norm for whites have to superiority, but it still just makes my heart ache. It should never have been the norm.

So this got me thinking... There is still A LOT of negativity towards people who are different. How much has it really changed? True, we no longer have slavery, but we do still have plenty of hate groups. And I'm not only speaking of racial discrimination. Plenty of people discriminate based on gender, sexual orientation, social class, ability/disability, and pretty much any other classification that's not "straight white male." 

Sometimes I fear that these bigots want to rewind time and discriminate like they did back in the day. What if being different was all of a sudden something zoo-worthy, and people would force you to dance and sing just like little Harry? What if words and names like "Jim Crow," the "N" word, and "faggot" (ugh, I hate those words) were no longer uproar-inducing negative phrases, but became part of the normal conversation? These thoughts absolutely terrify me, but they definitely make me want to continue to fight hard for equality for all.

It's total Bull-Corn!!

Uncle Tom's Cabin has many roles, it expresses business, race, discrimination, how living was and the power of religion that was emerging. I think it's amazing on how one novel can cover so many important topics and can make it's readers think more in depth about how society was and not to mentioned how much it hasn't changed even today. We still have discrimination in so many aspects--if it's regarding color, size, orientation, how someone dresses, or anything along those lines we still seem to grasp to the attention of be little someone.
I wouldn't be surprised if many masters and their slaves had relationships together during this time, it that it was in secret. Personally I feel like it was wrong in general because it was probably common for the master to treat the slave with disrespect and to beat them when another wealthy person was around and to treat them as if they were nothing, but then to be all lovey-dovey with them when alone? Is total bull-corn!!! I feel that in most cases some owners wanted to have a love connection with a slave just to be liked by SOMEONE! But I think it's morally wrong to use someone just for a social standard or to just get what they want. I'm really excited to read this again and look forward to expressing my opinions because this book definitely has points where you can argue with.

Mother-Child Relationship

     One thing that has shocked me thoroughly while reading Uncle Tom's Cabin, is the insensitive and inaccurate beliefs of the slave masters and slave traders that pertain to the mother-child relationship among black people. They seem to believe that black mothers have no natural attachment to their children. Animals that are mammals even express motherly care and devotion for their young! These slave masters and traders are so baffled by the behavior of mothers that have had their children torn from them. They view the mothers' outbursts as dramatic and unnecessary and should basically just "get over it". Family ties are apparently meant to be broken among black people. 

     The passage that actually gave me shivers was when Tom Loker says on page 59, "This yer young un's mine, and not yourn, and you've no kind o' business with it." That is terrifying. Even white people who were dirt poor and in an economically similar boat to black people, could still comfort themselves with the fact that they'll always have family, nothing could take that away from them (I mean, besides death and all). Black women owned absolutely nothing, not even something that was biologically theirs. Its hard imagining how this must have felt. 

Controversial?

I'm going to put this right out there and confess that I hate Stowe's style of writing. She manipulates the feelings of her readers to pity the characters of her choosing. While some may consider that good writing, I hate having my heart strings tugged at. I think that this more than her controversial topic of setting slaves free may have been what critics of her time disliked about her story. Then again, if she drew back even slightly from her intended style, her book may not have been the success that it was and still is today. The fact that we're still reading it means someone must like it.

Let's get this started...So Uncle Tom's Cabin...

I must admit that I have read, Uncle Tom's Cabin before; however, it has been decades.The first thing that leaps from the pages is the continued reference to squadrons. From what I know of the south and early colonies most plantations and estates were populated by the help(African Americans) and the family(not African American) was the minority. Which usually implies that there is relations going on with the master and the help. This was very common and even our founding fathers partook in master-slave relations. I find the opening chapters very foreshadowing, from the clear class lines between slaves and even masters. The clues that show that selling their(Mr.Shelby) slaves is a must not a want. I look forward to re-reading Uncle Tom's Cabin and hope to be able to look deeper into it this go around.

A Missionary Point of View

The story of Jane and St. John relates somewhat to my own life. The man that I married is not going to India, but he is in a ministry called Young Life. St. John and my husband, Joel, however, have some differences. For example, St. John claims that Jane must go with him to India. On the other hand, Joel is perfectly capable of doing ministry without me; he does need me to go with him into the “mission field.”

            One similarity between St. John and Joel is that missionary work is hard. We have already discussed that missionary work in India was dangerous in the 19^th century. Ministry in the United States is a lot less dangerous, but Joel's job can be challenging. He works weird hours, meaning he may get home at three o’ clock in the morning. His job doesn’t pay tons, so we are on a tight budget. Therefore, I can understand some of the reasons why Jane doesn’t want to be married to St. John. Life would be tough!

            There are some major differences between my position and Jane Eyre’s position. The thing about my husband’s ministry is that Young Life is our ministry. I have a desire to be working in the “mission” field. Jane, however, has no desire or passion for the people in India. Yes, she offers to go with St. John, but does she really want to? St. John even tells Jane that she does not need to be passionate: “God and nature intended you for a missionary's wife. It is not personal, but mental endowments they have given you: you are formed for labour, not for love.” I hate this quote! There must be love and a desire, whether it is love for your spouse or for the ministry.

            It is clear that Jane is passionate about one thing-Mr. Rochester. Although I am not a huge fan of the man, I am glad that she ditches St. John and goes after her desires.

If you listen closely you can hear His clock ticking...

Mr.Rochester sees many things in Jane, beauty, an equal and even a fresh start. 
I believe Rochester is also listening to his biological clock ticking.Woman are not the only ones watching the clock. The male biological clock affects more than fertility, of course it affects sexual performance, overall physical health, mental function and intimate relationships. One study found that the odds of fatherhood for those under the age of 30 was 32.1 percent compared with 20 percent over the age of 50, signifying a 38 percent drop in male fertility across that age gap.
Jane may be Rochester's chosen, however I believe that the rapid development of affection is biological not divine intervention. Jane's puppy love; however, I believe is due to inexperience with men.






http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/health/27sper.html?pagewanted=all




http://www.doctoroz.com/blog/harry-fisch-md/male-biological-clock


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fact-or-fiction-men-have-biological-clocks

If I were a critic of Jane Eyre . . .

If I were a critic of Jane Eyre, I would want to talk about the many women in the novel whose voices are rarely heard. Yes, Jane, Mrs. Reed, and Adele get attention but what about the others, such as Miss Fairfax, Georgiana Reed, and Grace Poole? In many ways, Miss Poole is one of the most important characters in terms of plot, as Jane spends a good portion of the book thinking that Miss Poole is secretly a sinister, evil woman. Ironically, however, little is known about Miss Poole other than that she has an alcohol problem and has worked for Mr. Rochester for a long time. I think it would be interesting to hear Miss Poole's side of the story. I would want to know things like is Bertha really mad? If so, how did she steal your keys all the time? What really happened between Bertha and Rochester? Unfortunately, the world will never hear Miss Poole's side of the story, which is exactly how Bronte wants it. If Miss Poole were to speak about the situation and were to reveal a more human, realistic side of Bertha, the reader would most likely think of Mr. Rochester as a cruel, detestable man. Presenting the reader with concrete evidence that Mr. Rochester is a villain would be detrimental to the story, as Jane would have to admit Mr. Rochester was corrupt; thus, a union between the two would be wrong and would portray Jane in a negative light.

Never say die! The Helen Burns Story.

I firmly believe that Helen Burns and St. John Rivers are soulmates. The need to suffer and please God was the drive of Helen's life and St. John believes that the pain of the body will please the eternal soul. The Christian beliefs that these two character hold so dearly is the sole thing that will be there undoing.

Martydom must be  Helen/ St. John foundation belief, Jane does NOT share their sentiment. "God did not give me my life to throw away; and to do as you wish me would, I begin to think, be almost equivalent to committing suicide." pg352. Which begs the question, "Does St. John see Jane's rational thought? If so, isn't suicide a sin with in the Christian religion. 

Even after the second refusal from Jane to marry and join St.John in India, St. John is confused that Jane would still accompany him as his wife but would join the party to India as an associate. St. John just does not get it, then again Helen never really got Jane either.

Reading for Wednesday, 1/25

Here are the "TBA" supplemental readings listed on the syllabus:

Everyone reads:
pages 432-36 (Charlotte Bronte as governess)
pages 445-457 (letters and reviews regarding Jane Eyre)

Read one of the following:
Rich, "Jane Eyre: The Temptations of a Motherless Woman"
Gilbert, "A Dialogue of Self and Soul: Plain Jane's Progress"
Beaty, "St. John's Way and the Wayward Reader"

All of these readings are in the back of Norton edition. If you don't have a copy of this edition, see if you can borrow a classmate's copy. Or you can borrow mine, take it to a copy machine, and bring it back. (I'll be available between 3:00 and 4:00 on Monday.)

Psychological Puzzle

Okay, this is for the Sociology major! Is St. John passive aggressive or what?! He wants Jane to be his wife because he needs a companion to accompany him on his trip to India, and it seems like that is his only motive for getting her to become his wife.  What he needs is Dr. Phil to show him how to woo the fairer sex. I just don’t understand how he expects to gain the affections of Jane when he uses pick-up lines like telling Jane she is “formed for labour—not  for love,” and that she is a “useful tool” (354). Nice St. John, Nice. When St. John does not get his way he uses the silent treatment to make Jane feel bad (the passive aggressive behavior). He finally talks to Jane again and has this idea that she only needs to pray for a resolution to the question of whether or not to marry him. Jane does decide that she needs to listen carefully for the answer to her prayer. Unfortunately for St. John, Jane does hear a voice, but the “voice” is Mr. Rochester telling her to return to Thornfield! Did anyone else feel vindicated?!

Help!!

Once again, I have a different copy of the book. I feel like this might be a trend for me. Could someone please let me know to which chapter of Uncle Tom's Cabin should I read? Thanks! :)

The Importance of Self-Worth

I would have to admit that this novel has made me angry, has brought some personal events in my life back into the picture and it's honestly come down to it, that I just really want to throw the book at Rochester, St. John or even Jane for that matter. While reading this it made me feel as if my own opinion, and even voice was being limited. I feel as if the way Rochester would speak to Jane before she left was like he didn't want to hear what she had to say. Meaning, he would listen but he probably only heard certain parts that he wanted to hear. With St. John (SinJin) how he was compelled and basically forced Jane to marry him, even though she said no, he still insisted which made her and even the audience uncomfortable--it just screamed red flag, come on Jane you be see it! It's like in society, most people see us as a number or just a name. With no moral structure or even importantance in the world, which I feel/should be the exact opposite. Every person, female or male is unique and I think your self-worth and respecting who are is more important than allowing someone else try to change you and make you live up to their standards. I'm someone who respects herself, and who has accepted who she is; regardless of who has tried to change and even bring her down. I'm finally comfortable in my own skin, and though it's taken awhile; I would never allow someone especially a man to degrade me nor change me. Jane, seems to be confused and with the respect of not knowing who she really is. She seems to find out her independence once she leaves Thornfield but is quickly "shut down" by St. John by him putting so much pressure onto her and saying that if you "live with me, marry me you can have anything" which I feel also leads to him treating her as if she will be given everything, but in the end won't have value too it; it seems that she also settles to make other people happy. She may do this because she feels comfortable in going back to something/someone who she confides in or knows her pretty well; and that she might feel that she won't find someone else. One thing I've learned through out the past couple years is to not settle for anything less than you deserve and to know what you truly want, and sometimes when you don't it leads you to so many new opportunities that you will grow from.

Manipulation of Self-Worth

A reoccurring theme in Jane Eyre is insane women and the manipulation of them by greedy, masochistic, “pious,” or lustful men. To be manipulated, though, one must first be degraded and dehumanized; one must become lesser by one’s own standards. Surely we can all agree that this degradation is seemingly the origin of female hysteria. It is an interesting look, though, into the psyche of the male manipulator… why he manipulates. He manipulates, perhaps, because he feels threatened. To feel threatened, he must not hold himself in high esteem. Rochester has issues with his mommy, John Reed has issues with his struggling masculinity, and St. John is strangely masochistic within the realm of God and yet sadistically engrossed within the realm of imperialism/colonialism. They all have a struggling sense of self-worth that they push onto their women.

On the other side of the spectrum, however, which I find more interesting (probably because I am a woman… most of the time) is how women allow themselves to be manipulated. It is seen in society on a daily basis, through means of the patriarchal media. Now, I know that Jane is supposed to be our heroine. And I will agree that her thoughts and innovations are bold given the time period in which she fictionally lived. However, she does allow, in certain instances, for the men in her life to control her, diminish her thoughts, feelings, and intuitions, and ultimately dehumanize her.

If she ends up with Rochester, which I have a horrible feeling she does, I suspect that her self-worth will inevitably be a complete lack of worth, which will eventually drive her mad. She will be Rochester’s next Bertha.

Relationship Problems: A Poem

I would like to complain

About the woman known as Jane.

She may be rather plain,

But does she not have a brain?

This old Rochester man

Who claims to want her hand

Does nothing but demand. 

Does Jane not understand?

I doubt it is contentious

That we came to the consensus

That Rochester is pretentious

And far from conscientious. 

If only Jane had viewed

Rochester's true attitude,

She'd be able to conclude

That he's a rude, crude dude.

It is easy to deduce

That Jane is quite obtuse

And uses any excuse

Throughout Rochester's abuse.

Jane thought she'd find her niche,

But she dug herself a ditch.

Rochester may be rich,

But he's a whiny little bitch.

When he doesn't get his way,

Or when people don't obey,

He "flips his shit," so to say,

And that's just not okay.

Although Jane may be strong,

It took her far too long

To realize that all along,

This relationship was wrong.

Now with a relieved inhale,

My opinion will prevail:

On the relationship scale,

This one's an epic fail.

The ever elusive Jane

Okay, I have to admit that Jane Eyre is one of my favorite novels of all time. This is the third time I've read this book and every time I read it, I learn something new. This time around, I cannot help but wonder what is truly driving Jane's behavior throughout the novel. Yes, I know that she loves Mr. Rochester but I have to wonder if there is something else going on. For starters, St. John is by all means a good match for Jane. He has plenty of money, a notable reputation, and a thriving career. St. Jane  appears to actually be Jane's equal, as they both thrive to do good and to educate themselves further. In many ways, Jane's refusal of St. John is contradictory. Earlier in the novel, Jane ranted about how she wanted to be an equal yet once the opportunity arises, she runs the other way. Jane also spent a long time elaborating on how she would like to see the world and go beyond the bourne. Once again, however, Jane runs away at the opportunity and worries that the Indian sun may not be good for her. I hate to say this--as I love the novel-- but perhaps Jane also aspires to climb up the social ladder? Anyways, that is just food for thought.

Rochester Schmochester

I have to get it out.  I do not like Rochester.  I feel like he is a bully with low self esteem.  He manipulates Jane and plays with her emotions.  At the end of their relationship, he is sobbing, throwing himself on the couch; I can almost see him kicking his feet in a tantrum.  He says he can't live without her, that he needs her to survive.  While this could seem very romantic on the surface, I find it to be him telling her that he can't live without his puppet.  That if he has no one to control, to toy with, he shall wither away.  Well, so be it, Rochester.  So be it. 

And this being a woman's study course, I have to say that I find his mind-games with Jane to be very disturbing and borderline emotional abuse.   I find Jane to be very introspective and quite perceptive character.  Which is why I am almost maddened by Jane's willingness to overlook the fact that he is playing with her heart.  It is almost as if Bronte is grandizing the fairy tale notion that all a girl needs is a man, regardless of how he treats you.  Thus far in the book, Jane is a strong character physically; when it comes to love, Jane is not by any means, a heroine.

Yes, I get that she loves him.  Yes, I get that she deserves happiness and love.  But I do feel she can do better.  Way, way better.  I want to tell Jane to "ditch that zero and get with a hero".  In this day and age, she and Rochester would be featured in a Jerry Springer episode.

Smashing Daisies

In chapter 31 on page 310, St. John Rivers crumples daisies growing in the ground with his foot during a conversation with Jane.  Later, in chapter 34, we find Jane submitting herself to Mr. Rivers every whim: trying very hard to please him, surrendering her study of German to aid him in his study of Hindostanee, etc.  Jane does say that even though she is normally willing to serve, in this case it feels like suffocation; like she is compromising most of herself to meet his approval and is extremely unhappy and uncomfortable trying to achieve this impossible feat.  This chapter ends with Mr. Rivers trying to force Jane into marrying him, even though they are cousins and Jane refuses multiple times because she considers them "adopted bretheren".

It is my opinion that Mr. Rivers' smashing the daisies with his foot is indicative of the way the patriarchy viewed women during Emily Bronte's time.  I also find it to be foreshadowing of the relationship between St. John's and Jane's relationship. 

Considering flowers to be symbollic of vaginas, St. John's stomping the flowers represents the patriarchal tendency to diminish women as a whole during this time period.  Moreover, the flowers he is crushing are daisies.  Daisies, by nature, are not considered the prettiest or most extravagent flower; they are generally viewed as plain and common, yet daisies are more robust than most, and are perennial.  This leads me to believe these daisies to be symbollic of Jane herself, thereby foreshadowing Jane's relationship with St. John and his desire to make her submit to his every fancy, crushing her independant spirit and killing her autonomy.

Post-Thornfield

I thought things took an unexpected turn in the book when Jane left Thornfield. I thumbed to the end of the book and saw that there was over a hundred pages of text left! What could possibly fill the last of the book? And then I realized that this book is not about Rochester and romance, but it is about Jane. Rochester and Thornfield are a moment in Jane's history. I found myself getting so caught up in all the drama revolving around Thornfield, that I forgot this wasn't solely a romance novel but a memoir of sorts. Jane's life will continue with or without Rochester. And she makes that very clear to herself and to her readers. Upon leaving Thornfield she says, "I care for myself". Bronte reminds us that Jane is more than just a woman in love: she is a resilient, independent individual that will make the best and most out of any situation.

Jane :/

This book continues to be extremely frustrating to me.  Jane Eyre is a girl who almost creates problems for herself, in my opinion.  From the beginning of the book, we see that she is over analytical, yet somehow is completely irreverent to the fact that she places herself in situations.  She knew that he quirks were maddening to Mrs. Reed, however she still chose to conduct herself however she wanted, regardless of the consequence it lead to with Mrs. Reed.  I’m not siding with Mrs.Reed, I’ve made it clear I don’t like her character, but Jane could make things easier on herself and chooses not to.  By leaving the pearl necklace she knowingly leaves Thornfield without a dime in her pocket, and sets herself up to beg.  Again, this was her decision.  I understand how hardships make her a stronger character, but does it count as a hardship if it was a conscious decision on her part?  She’s throwing herself down a flight of stairs and asking people to feel sorry for her.   

Proudly Poor

Throughout the time that Jane wanders through the "wilderness" of England as it were, I became so irritated with her character that I wanted to stop reading. While I understand her apparent need to leave Thornfield, I don't understand why she couldn't take something of worth with her. She could have at least sold the pearl necklace instead of leaving it behind as part of her former life. She's too proud to take anything from Rochester, leaving her absolutely destitute. I do give her some credit; in begging she slightly redeems herself. I don't think Jane ever finds a happy medium between her stubborn strength and her weak nature. She's never so strong as she was when she was a child.

What to do about Bertha

I would like to voice an opinion which likely runs counter to the whole framework of the book. It's related to Brandi's post about why Mr. Rochester didn't or couldn't divorce Bertha Mason, aside from problems of proving infidelity or adultury and the additional issue of public ridicule.

Why didn't Mr. Rochester simply kill Bertha, particularly when she started to become physically violent? Obvious responses would take into account the necessity of Rochester's utility in the novel as a flawed, but redeemable companion for Jane Eyre-- Victorian opinions about murder or even assisted suicide likely dictated Bronte's construction of his character.

As a philanderer, he took extra responsibility to care for a child likely not even his own, which counts for a lot, I'll grant you. But his impulsivity and his malevolence and willingness to deceive-- particularly those who he feels are inferior in either station or intelligence to him-- won't let me be satisfied with that line of argument. What do other people think? Could or should Rochester have put something in Bertha's porridge and had it all over and done? Or would that have been the ultimate "moral insanity" and the death of the novel?

Rise of the Bronte-saurus

My real post will be forthcoming. Until then, please join me in wondering why this was not ever a real thing in the world:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NKXNThJ610

(The link is safe, no worries.)

What a proposal!

I really wanted to talk about Mr. Rochester's proposal to Jane. One of the things I have always wondered throughout the book is why Rochester feels the need to provoke Jane to get a reaction. He is actually quite convincing when he says that he is sending Jane to Ireland. The "joke/ploy" Rochester makes would affect a reader greatly during Bronte's time, as a position in an Irish household would be held in low esteem. Despite Jane's outward demeanor, I think that Bronte gives the reader a clue that the marriage is doomed for the time being. Right after Jane and Mr. Rochester vow to love one another, lightening strikes where the spot where the couple were sitting. The division of the chestnut tree into two halves is a dark, foreboding sign; however, I wonder if the sign also is a symbol for future hope? Jane goes on to note that although the two halves are no longer living, they were still a part of each other and will remain so despite the physical change.

Divorce in the 19th Century

After today’s class, I began to think about the question that was raised: “Why didn’t Mr. Rochester divorce Bertha?” I was curious as to what the divorce laws in the 19^th century were. 

·         For a male to get a divorce, he had to say that his wife had committed adultery.  I think that it would be challenging for Mr. Rochester to say that Bertha was being unfaithful. Because she is locked up, Bertha does not have the opportunity to have an affair.

 

·         Here is a little side note about divorce laws in the 19^th century.  Women had a much harder time obtaining a divorce. Unlike men, women had to prove that her husband had been unfaithful. In an era with zero technology, proving adultery would be quite difficult.  In addition, a woman had to prove that her husband was committing incest, cruelty, bigamy, or desertion. Men, however, were not expected to be faithful. It was socially acceptable for a man to have a mistress or a brothel.

 ·         Divorce laws directly addressed the issue of insanity. One source said, “According to the 1835 English Marriage Act, if both spouses were sane enough at the time of the wedding to understand the nature of the contract involved, that marriage contract could not be dissolved in the event of subsequent insanity -- even if the case was compounded by other extenuating circumstances, such as desertion, adultery, or physical abuse.” (Jane Eyre and Insanity)

 ·         Marriage was a big thing for women in the 19^th century.  A woman who was unmarried was looked down upon and pitied. Her brother was supposed to take care of her (which may explain some of Mr. Mason’s interest in visiting Thornfield). Her options were few: a factory job or a maid in a wealthy family.

http://staff.washington.edu/cgiacomi/courses/english200/finalprojects/websitep/supplementary.html

http://victoriancontexts.pbworks.com/w/page/12407471/The%20Law%20of%20Divorce

http://www.stanford.edu/~steener/su02/english132/MoralMadness.htm

Not So Subtle Anymore

Even though she has a tough exterior, Jane finally admits (to the reader) that she has feelings for Rochester. I did not notice the not-so-subtle references to her feelings until I reread Jane Eyre. She is in love with Rochester almost immediately after her first encounter with him. Jane is very controlled in the way she handles her feelings and Charlotte Bronte leaves the reader in suspense while the unspoken love grows between Rochester and Jane. Jane does not want to let her guard down and allow herself to fall for Rochester. Is this just another way she tries to protect herself from her sad childhood experiences of being rejected? Does she not want to be hurt again? Or does Jane want to be the powerful one in the situation? If Jane allows Rochester to know how she feels, and she is rejected by him, it might be devastating to her...or maybe not, she is a pretty tough lady.