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?
Had Rochester killed Bertha, the story wouldn't have worked. I think both Rochester and Jane needed to go through a trying separation in order for their relationship to become anything of substance. Don't misunderstand, I think their relationship is wrong and kind of creepy. However, if Rochester had killed Bertha, even to be able to marry Jane, she would have lost all respect she ever had of him rather than feeling the pity she feels.
ReplyDeleteI think the idea of murder has crossed Rochester's mind, but I really don't think he could be evil enough to kill her. I know that Bertha is nuts and all, but he chose to marry her so it is still his responsibility to care for her. And he realizes this and does so accordingly, despite the hatred that he harbors for her.
ReplyDelete