Jane Eyre discussion

Jane Eyre

First of all, your parents really should have been institutionalized for naming you Saint John. It was totally unfair & I'm pretty sure it did irreversible damage to your psyche.

Secondly, I'm sure the Lord is please that you want to serve Him in the mission field, but could you be a bit less sanctimonious about it?

I'm not sure if I'm supposed to like you for your piety & upright standing or detest you for not being Edward Rochester. Maybe it's a bit of both, but in truth, you're too good. Anne Shirley was right. I prefer a man who could be wicked but won't. I'm not sure you've got it in you at all.

I realize you are a young clergy man living life in the early to mid 1800's, but that does not mean you absolutely MUST order about every female you come into contact with. Try asking someone gently if they'd like to learn Hindustani instead of demanding they do so. I really think marrying Miss Oliver might have done you a world of good. She was a kind, free spirited young woman & might have cured you of your overt seriousness & lightened your mind.

But then I fear you revel in the despair & oppression you place upon yourself. I admire your zeal for the Lord & your love of His work, but I do not think you have to go about saying, "Praise the Lord," while you look as though your dog has just died. It does not demonstrate the Joy of the Lord in a real & tangible way. Oh, and attempting to bully someone into Christian service isn't normally the way to go either.

And might I suggest that the next time you propose marriage to a young lady you use terms less harsh? "God & nature intended you for a missionary's wife. It isn't personal, but mental endowments they have given you: you are formed for labour, not for love. A missionary's wife you must-shall be. You shall be mine: I claim you-not for my pleasure, but for my Sovereign's service." Yeah, that's not exactly what most women want to hear. I don't want to marry you because I love you but because you're tough & can live in India. And I don't really care what you want. I'm going to stamp my initials in your forehead....stand still. Are you truly surprised that Jane turned you down? You're lucky she didn't chuck a Hindustani to English dictionary at your head. I would have.

I know you were created as an Anti-Rochester so I'm trying not to hold this all against you. You are handsome where he was ugly. You are poor where he was rich. You are good where he was less than. You have faith where he had little. You were quiet & repressed where he was loud & demonstrative. Maybe you have served your purpose after all....but I still don't like you.

[Taken from my blog post.]

Isn't it crazy that he gets the last word in the book?

Kressel wrote: "Isn't it crazy that he gets the last word in the book?"

My thoughts exactly. I really don't understand why he was the final mention in the story. I love this book but that always leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

haha well said, Shauna! I understand the literary use for an anti-character like St. John, but why-oh-why does he have to be so... so... boorish about it! It almost made Jane seem rediculous for holding him in any esteem.
Oh well: it did make it all the sweeter when Jane finally went back to Rochester!

Well said, Shauna. Couldn't agree with you more!

Yes indeed, well expressed. Of course the interlude with St. John does give us another moment of seeing Jane, despite all her losses, has not lost her sense, or her pride.

I always felt that the inclusion of St. John was for contrast with Rochester, but also for the culmination of the arc relating to Jane's religiosity. Most of the novel has characters positioned as extreme variations of Jane's own inner beliefs, taken to grotesque limits such as Helen and more importantly St. John.

Jane's departure from Thornfield Hall signals the beginning of the fourth act (if we agree the novel has a 5 act structure) and the beginning of the climax of the religious subplot. This comes to a head when Jane realizes that she must not be submissive to any power whether it be St. John as a husband, or organized religion as a structuring influence on her.

I think to reduce St. John as merely a foil for Rochester is unfair. His character provides much welcomed subtext to the novel. True, he isn't the most fully developed character in the novel, but he is a sight more fleshed out than Helen!

I like to look at it as two extremes. If Jane had let passion truly take over she would have been a carbon copy of Rochester. Or on the flipside, if she had let religion completely rule her, she would have been just like St. John. No she knew how to balance the two out and be the best peson she could be.

I don't see Jane having issues with her religious beliefs. St. John was an example of a person who used religion to control others, and was hemmed in by his own narrow views of religion. Helen's religion did not contribute to her demise. It brought her comfort in a world where she had little control and comfort. Jane's relationship with Helen shaped her in that she had never met anyone who accepted and loved her truly for herself. Because Helen went to her grave loving Jane, it gave Jane the embryonic understanding that she could be loved without compromising herself. I think the whole point was for Jane to make choices that made her happy. For Jane, her beliefs are intrinsic to who she is. That's why she left Rochester, because she couldn't compromise what was important to her just to be loved. She went back because she knew she could love him without losing herself.

It's worth noting that when Jane denied John and went running back to Rochester, she didn't know Rochester's wife was dead. She had learned from John that living one's life by a strictly moral code with no regard for one's personal happiness wasn't the way she wasnted to be.

I think she'd made up her mind to be with Rochester at that point after all, even with the crazy wife still in the picture (coming into some money of her own didn't hurt either, so she wouldn't feel like a dependent, questioning her real motives every day.) The wife's conveniently dying only serves to make the ending more palatable for the reader.

C.e. wrote: "She had learned from John that living one's life by a strictly moral code with no regard for one's personal happiness wasn't the way she wasnted to be. I think she'd made up her mind to be with Rochester at that point after all, even with the crazy wife still in the picture."

That is completely antithetical to my reading of Jane. In her words, "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. . . If I at my convenience might break them, what would be their worth?"

Are you saying Jane actually revised those principles? I just can't see her that way.

When Jane returned to Thornfield it was to find out about Mr.Rochester, not to "be with him." I do not see that Jane was abandoning her principles in any way. In fact, when she left for Whitecross she was going to be sure she was doing God's will in marrying St.John. "My spirit...is willing to do what is right; and my flesh, I hope, is strong enough to accomplish the will of Heaven, when once that will is distinctly known to me."

When I originally wrote this post it was simply out of frustration with a particular character and thought I'd be a bit silly with it. I never imagined such a discussion would come of it.

Well, I, for one, am glad you did. I love Harry Potter, but I'd rather see this board light up with a bit more variety.

Kressel wrote: "Well, I, for one, am glad you did. I love Harry Potter, but I'd rather see this board light up with a bit more variety."

Agreed. It's nice to discuss something other than film adaptations and Harry Potter.

Didn't one of the Bronte sisters end up marrying a (fairly benevolent, if I recall correctly) clergyman?

Maybe art predicts life.

Shelley
Rain: A Dust Bowl Story
http://dustbowlpoetry.wordpress.com

As I understand it, their father was a rather austere clergyman, so perhaps St. John was modeled after him. Perhaps that's also why he got the last word in the book, not Jane or Rochester.

I didn't get the impression she would have lived with Rochester in an adulterous relationship just because she went back. I think she went back because he was calling to her spirit, and she was worried about him. If he had still been married, I think she would have checked to see if he was well, but found the strength to deny what he was offering her as a compromise to being his wife in truth. In my opinion, Jane was rewarded for being strong in her principles by the fact that Rochester's wife was no longer in the picture. So I agree that Jane would never have compromised on her principles. That is one of the reasons that she is such an enduring heroine. She is strong and womanly, but she doesn't step down from what she believes or allow anyone to tell her who she should be.

And Shauna, thanks for starting the discussion. I love this book, and I don't get enough opportunities to talk about it!

Kressel wrote: "As I understand it, their father was a rather austere clergyman, so perhaps St. John was modeled after him. Perhaps that's also why he got the last word in the book, not Jane or Rochester."

None of the Brontës modelled any of their characters on their father. 'St. John' was based on Reverend Henry Nussey, the older brother of Charlotte's best friend Ellen Nussey. Like St John in the novel, he also proposed marriage to Charlotte and she rejected him on the basis that she could never love him. It's very likely that he didn't love her either and only wanted a suitable wife to help him run his parish school.

The recalling of St John in the end is probably symbolic of God's blessing of Jane and Rochester's union, I think.

Furqan wrote: "Kressel wrote: "As I understand it, their father was a rather austere clergyman, so perhaps St. John was modeled after him. Perhaps that's also why he got the last word in the book, not Jane or Roc..."

Furqan, I don’t think St. John Rivers was based on just one unique person in Charlotte’s life; I read the letters of Charlotte Bronte and didn’t feel there was any strong indication Reverend Henry Nussey inspired the character. I always felt, personally, that he had the essence of William Weightman: a handsome young man who became Mr Bronte’s curate. There were rumours that he was in love with Anne Bronte, but sadly he died young (26/28 – I think). He had been visiting the sick when he was taken ill with cholera.

However, Ms Bronte had at least four marriage proposals in her life, so any of them (prior to the book, obviously) could have triggered the author’s imagination.

Also, I think it is possible that at least one of the Bronte sisters’ characters was modelled on their father. He was extremely influential in their lives (Charlotte changed the end of Villette because Mr Bronte detested sad endings in novels). It has been a while since I read it, but didn’t the Uncle in ‘Shirley’ (Rev Helstone) loosely resemble Reverend Patrick Bronte? :)

I love this St John (pronounced Sinjun for anyone not conversant with some of the odder pronunciations of English nomenclature) conversation.

I always really, really disliked him and thought that his proposal was frankly insulting .

Lauren wrote: Furqan, I don’t think St. John Rivers was based on just one unique person in Charlotte’s life; I read the letters of Charlotte Bronte and didn’t feel there was any strong indication Reverend Henry Nussey inspired the character.

I am afraid I would have to disagree! St John was based on Reverend Henry Nussey and I have Barker's legendary biography to back it up! :P

William Weightman was a flirt and quite popular with the ladies and I don't think I could imagine St John ever being cheerful or a even a flirt. Weightman wasn't in love with Anne but a certain lady named Agnes Walton from his hometown. According to Barker, apparently it was Charlotte who initially fell for Weightman's charm, not Anne. Although, I do think Anne might have modelled 'Edward Weston' from Agnes Grey on Weightman, because in the novel he also visits the sick... lol. (?)

Charlotte had two proposals prior to Jane Eyre. One was obviously from Reverend Henry Nussey and the other from Rev. James Bryce, who she barely knew, so there is no much doubt that it was Henry Nussey she used as her writing material for St John.

It might be possible, but I really can't think of any. Why! Rev. Helstone was a misogynist and really rigid in his political beliefs, unlike Patrick who despite being a Tory, had reformist sympthies and was supportive of his daughters. This quote is from Oxford Dictionary of National Biography -

"Attempts to find portraits of [Patrick] Brontë in his daughters' novels are probably doomed to failure: it is unlikely that Mr Helstone in Shirley, a severe character, neglectful of his niece's welfare, was modelled on Brontë (and the Revd Hammond Roberson has been suggested as the original)"

Lauren wrote: (Charlotte changed the end of Villette because Mr Bronte detested sad endings in novels)

So an implied sad ending is better than an openly stated one? Because Villette seemed to end pretty sadly to me.

Hello Furqan, I’m in the middle of a difficult portrait at the moment so I don’t have time to create an in-depth reply - but I’ll try to respond to your points :) Firstly, I think we need to give Charlotte a bit more credit than to imply the fictional character of St John was only autobiographical. I’m sure we shan’t agree on this (we’re both obviously very passionate about the book! Rightly so!) ; I just don’t feel he was based on Henry Nussey (especially not in entirety). I’ve just grabbed my book of letters; here’s a bit from the biographical notes: “…February 1838, when he became ‘harassed in mind’. He was asked to resign from his third curacy because of his inadequacy as a preacher.”

I don’t see St John’s character as ‘harassed in mind’ and he definitely had no inadequacy as a preacher. Our St John was very adept at sharing his religious beliefs :)William Weightman may have been a ‘flirt’, but he was handsome like St John and his faith led to his premature death - the same as St John Rivers.

You say that Weightman was not in love with Anne, but he certainly must have returned her feelings to a certain extent. Charlotte’s letter 20th January 1842 states: “He sits opposite Anne at church sighing softly and looking out of the corners of his eyes to win her attention - and Anne is so quiet, her look so downcast - they are a picture.”

Phew, that took much longer than expected. This reply had turned into an essay :S

Hello Kressel, :) I felt Villette had a sad ending too – or at least it was implied. I believe it was originally different though. I’ll google quickly: “Charlotte intended to make the ending of Villette unhappy because of the events of her own life; although her father disagreed with this. After she finished Villette, “her father, to whom she had read some passages, was partly responsible for its enigmatic finale. He could not bear a sad ending, and in the first version M. Paul had died in the shipwreck.”

Wouldn’t it be great to read the original ending? I’m sure I’d cry :(

No, no, no... I am still not convinced! 'Harassed in mind' seems so vague. God knows, it could mean many things. He must have recovered from it as he was the curate of Donnington, Sussex when he proposed to Charlotte.

Other than that St John was 'handsome', I see no similarity between him and William Weightman. Charlotte's letter to Ellen after Henry's proposal shows similar feelings that Jane had for St John.

"Do I love him as much as a woman ought to love the man she marries? Am I the person best qualified to make him happy? Alas, Ellen, my conscience answered ‘no’ to both these questions. I felt that though I esteemed Henry - though I had a kindly leaning towards him because he is an amiable, well-disposed man Yet I had not, and never could have that intense attachment which would make me willing to die for him; and if ever I marry it must be in the light of that adoration I will regard my Husband.” (CB to EN, 12 March 1839)

Charlotte did not love Henry, but she respected him as Jane respected St John and even offered to go with him to India as his 'sister', but never as his wife. Whereas, Charlotte might have been infatuated with Weightman, but she got over him when she realised that he was giving equal attention to all the other ladies. In fact she herself calls him "a thorough male flirt" (not to his face but to Ellen). In Jane Eyre, Jane says that:

"Now, I did not like this, reader. St. John was a good man; but I began to feel he had spoken truth of himself when he said he was hard and cold."

I doubt that Weightman could ever have been 'hard and cold'!

And finally, according to Barker (How could you ever deny Barker's authority as a fine Bronte scholar?!!) :

"Ultimately, it would form the basis for St John River's proposal to Jane Eyre, he like Nussey, needing a wife to support him in his work. If the character of St John is also drawn from that of Nussey, then Charlotte was indeed wise not to marry him."

He must have been flirting with Anne as well! Because as I said he was interested in another girl. "In Appleby he [Weightman] spent part of the time staying with Agnes Walton and her father, where he seems to have been an accepted suitor for her hand and wrote to Branwell in high glee to describe the balls at which he had figured and speaking 'rapturously' of Agnes herself." It's part of the Bronte myth that Anne was in love with him.

Now, really you must agree with me. :P


P.S. You are right, I think its quite insulting to Charlotte as an author to say that she had to solely rely on 'real' people to model her characters, considering she had a masterly imagination. But it is difficult to ignore that she often did use real people as a base to develop her characters which I am sure many other authors do as well. :)

Furqan wrote: "No, no, no... I am still not convinced! 'Harassed in mind' seems so vague. God knows, it could mean many things. He must have recovered from it as he was the curate of Donnington, Sussex when he pr..."

Furqan, I know you see St John Rivers as the written incarnation of Henry Nussey, but I’m afraid I can’t agree with you simply because you want me to :) You may see the phrasing, ‘harassed in mind’ as vague, but the biographical notes also stated his resignation due to ‘inadequacy as a preacher’ (as stated before); I’m sure you can see no resemblance to St John here, or you would have picked up on it in your last reply.

Also, I did not say that the only similarity with William Weightman was that they were both ‘handsome’. I did in fact state that ‘his faith led to his premature death - the same as St John Rivers.’ Is that not a similarity? Can’t you see that this sad tale could easily have triggered the literary ‘creation’? You are so fixated on Henry Nussey that you won’t even attempt to see that St John could be the essence of several real people (or none at all). He may have been just a creation of the Anti-Rochester: the complete opposite of passion and love. We shall never know for sure.
(Rochester, I’m sure you’ll agree, is the general embodiment of Contantin Heger).

Plus, I don’t think Charlotte was ever ‘infatuated’ with William. She may have been flattered, but never more than that. (I just felt I should stand up for her there)

Barker may be an extremely well informed lady (and I see you hold her in high esteem) but unless she was best buddies with Charlotte Bronte and actually heard her say, ‘Yes, I based St John on good ol’ Henry Nussey’, I can’t assume everything she says is fact. :)

Finally, if Anne Bronte being in love with Mr Weightman is part of the ‘Bronte Myth’ then I’m sure you’ll see that Henry Nussey being St John also falls into the Myth category :p You’ll most likely reply with similar opinions to your last, and I shall reply with similar opinions to my last – so unless we wish to be doomed to a conversation filled with ‘as I stated before’, we should probably just agree to disagree and shake hands.

P.S. we shall always agree on one thing:

Charlotte Bronte had a masterly imagination! :)

We have reached the limits of intentional fallacy. To cast guesses on Bronte's intention is fallacious. We can never know - therefore it is fruitless to make guesses on what we intended.

macgregor wrote: "We have reached the limits of intentional fallacy. To cast guesses on Bronte's intention is fallacious. We can never know - therefore it is fruitless to make guesses on what we intended."

Hello Macgregor, I’m not sure if you are referencing the comments of Furqan, my own comments, or the original topic, but I assure you there was no ‘intentional fallacy’ on my part. I found it impossible to not interject when Furqan stated opinion as fact: “None of the Brontës modelled any of their characters on their father. St John was based on Reverend Henry Nussey,” especially when the author isn’t here to dispute it :)

Either way, surely it can’t be fruitless because this discussion board has got so many people talking about a wonderful book that means so much to so many people (Thanks Shauna). Only a story with true heart could elicit such a genuine response :)

Looks like I need to reread Jane Eyre! I remember St. John but not all these intricate details! Too many books, too little time :)

Alright, I'm being swayed, but I'll play devil's advocate a bit further. If Jane wasn't going back to be reunited with Rochester, then why not find out the latest news about him through subtlety? Instead she goes marching right up to his residence (only then discovering it's been burned.)

In other words, she showed no hesitation about possibly encountering him again face-to-face (indeed, seemed to long for it); displayed none of her previous worries about succumbing to temptation.

Her response to his disembodied voice was entirely plaintive. She didn't march off to check on him just to see that he was well - she was responding to something in her soul that had already denied and scoffed at St John's poor valuation of love. I say she was going back to face temptation again, and she was looking forward to it.

Initially she didn't go to find out about him. She wrote but all her queries went unanswered. Once she heard him cry out for her, she knew she must discover what had become of him. "Ere many days...I will know something of him whose voice seemed last night to summon me. Letters have proved of no avail- personal enquiry shall replace them."

When she left Moore House, she left with every intent of returning. "I busied myself...with arranging my things in my chamber, drawers, and wardrove, in the order wherein I should wish to leave them during a brief absence." & "At breakfast I announced to Diana and Mary that I was going on a journey, and should be absent at least four days." & "I have some to see and ask after in England, before I depart for ever."

To me, none of this reads like someone going back to be reunited against all moral principals.

And even once she reaches the vicinity of Thornfield she thinks, "Your master himself may be beyond the British Channel, for aught you know: and then, if he is at Thornfield Hall, towards which you hasten, who besides him is there? His lunatic wife: and you have nothing to do with him: you dare not speak to him or seek his presence....Ask information of the people at the inn; they can give you all you seek..."

Even though she "could not force" herself to act on the notion of asking after him at the inn, it was not her intent to see him face to face.

I believe her motives were still pure. It wasn't until she learned from the former butler that Mrs.Rochester was dead that she went in search of Edward.

Gertt wrote: "Shauna wrote: "Personally, I wish Ms Bronte had been kinder to Rochester. I think she was a bit brutal with his injuries from the fire...a damaged eye or a crushed hand perhaps, but his injuries were so severe...he seemed to have been punished all his life...unattractive, tricked into a devastating marriage, blinded, crippled... "

If only through his injuries does he become equal with Jane, then he was never man enough to come to the epiphany without them.

I think that their separation was necessary for both of them. And when it was time, that's why they were able to be together. Rochester was in some ways not a good man, but I never doubted they were meant for each other.

I think it's easier to see why Rochester had to suffer if you consider the 'Christian' context of Jane Eyre. Rochester's suffering was necessary to absolve him of his sins of fornication and deception (If his secret wasn't revealed, he would've committed bigamy as well). When Jane and Rochester are reunited in the end, Rochester says:

"I thank my Maker, that, in the midst of judgment, he has remembered mercy. I humbly entreat my Redeemer to give me strength to lead henceforth a purer life than I have done hitherto!"

In some ways, Bronte was trying to bring Rochester to Jane's level, who unlike him was sexually pure and morally superior.

gertt wrote: "Furqan wrote: "Rochester's suffering was necessary to absolve him of his sins of fornication and decept..."

Most likely Bronte did feel you needed to suffer in order to be forgiven. Overall, the ..."

Such a good analysis Furqan, I do like your careful distinction between 'loose morals' and character. And, yes, the creation of a woman like Jane Eyre was a triumph.

I'm loving this. I wish I could add more to the discussion, but I'm strapped with time. I will however, post it on my blog. =)

I think, no matter what the time span, there have been people in the history , who stand out and be really strong despite the conditions.So I think Jane's character speaks the same:)

I'm pretty sure Jane realized she'd never be 'good' enough for St. John, so she went back to the man she could improve and restore (instead of the one she would only complement, at best). It's classic 'passion vs. propriety,' Victorian-style.

I don't think I can agree with 'good' enough , even in inverted commas Ben. I think she recognised that the sort of marriage St John was proposing was not something she could honestly engage in.

I do take your point about the Victorian passion/propriety dichotomy , but Jane did not despise passion, or find it a lower form of sentiment. And she knew and respected the power of love and knew that St John could never offer the sort of married love she both aspired to and , incidentally, I think, found proper.

Jane chose marriage for love over marriage for duty. I guess giving St. John the last word is meant to drive home the contrast to the reader. CB ended Villette with a similar contrast - a happy ending for the minor characters, but not the protagonist.

Jane Eyre was many things, but she was always a fighter. She might have learnt to bow her head and say yes Sir, but in her internal life she would always an indipendant and firece spirit.
Marriage at the time was rarely anything to do with love so St John is only playing the part or "normality" and "conformity". Jane has never found those things easy and St John was offering her everything she was as a woman "supposed" to want.
Jane's childhood and life would have been very different if she had the the cultures "ideal" of virtue, like Helen. The thing about that "virtue" of passive "goodness" is that it is not GOOD for the person, Jane would probably have died in the red room if that was the case.
Jane left Rochester for two reasons, she was broken hearted and she KNEW she couldn't (and didn't want to) refuse sex with Rochester, if she stayed. Yet she was unwilling to be "less" even for the man she loved.
She came back because she loved him passionately and fully as a whole person, and because she knew something was very wrong. I don't think she knew what was going to happen when she got there, I think she was simply moved by love.

Whenever I reread Jane Eyre, I just skip over everything with St. John (unless it's Jane putting him in his place or running away from him). Hehe.

macgregor wrote: "I always felt that the inclusion of St. John was for contrast with Rochester, but also for the culmination of the arc relating to Jane's religiosity. Most of the novel has characters positioned as ..."

I agree with you that there are dual pressures on Jane Eyre: one is repression versus desire the other is religion versus the individual will.

Furqan wrote: "I think it's easier to see why Rochester had to suffer if you consider the 'Christian' context of Jane Eyre. Rochester's suffering was necessary to absolve him of his sins of fornication and decept..."

Yes a real Beauty and the Beast story. Jane Eyre is pitted against the forces of evil, controlling forces of society, religion and desire throughout. Why did she have to return to the maimed suitor a rich and strong women? For me this takes away her power. Jean Rhys's book seems to even things out, to make things more equal. This isn't really, for Rhys a black and white story of good versus evil. Rhys's work is more mature in that sense.

Lucy wrote: "Jane Eyre was many things, but she was always a fighter. She might have learnt to bow her head and say yes Sir, but in her internal life she would always an indipendant and firece spirit.
Marriage ..."

I agree with you. Jane Eyre had her own will. Yet she was swayed by her fierce love of Rochester, and she did not master this, as you said, she returned to him because of her love.

gertt wrote: "Furqan wrote: "Rochester's suffering was necessary to absolve him of his sins of fornication and decept..."

Most likely Bronte did feel you needed to suffer in order to be forgiven. Overall, the ..."

Your comment shows Bronte's careful plotting. At times it is true that Rochester does appear to have no choice than to care for his sick wife and seek comfort in the arms of other women.