Jane Eyre
Jane Eyre was a novel written in a very closed off time for women. The Victorian era is famous for its treatment of women, yet women during this time produced some great literature. The question is not whether Jane Eyre was a feminist text in its own time, because it undoubtedly was, but whether the novel can still be considered groundbreaking. Is it useful to even make such a judgment when that judgment is sure to be distorted by seeing things through the present? After all, the word feminist was not something that existed in Charlotte Bronte’s present, and the word even today contains connotations which are unavoidable.
Yes, unlike other Victorian literary heroines or even real women, Jane demands to be recognized as an equal being by Mr. Rochester. She speaks up for herself and takes pride in her independent status. She can support herself without a husband and she knows how to cope with harsh treatment or conditions. Yet, although the things call all be called feminist, at the end of the novel, something rings false. . The scales tip too far in the other direction. What lingers at the end of then novel is a tang of passivity. It does not sit well with modern day feminists to observe a woman who is more than happy to wait on her husband hand and foot, while she sends off his adopted daughter to a boarding school. Neither does the conclusion that the previously passionate, volatile relationship between Jane and Rochester has become a paragon of peace seem realistic or satisfactory.. Their marriage seems to occur at the price of passion; Rochester has been cured of his preemptory ways and is happy to be dependent on Jane, rather than gloating she is dependent upon him. . Is it “feminist” to settle for something tamer, something with less passion because it is easier to deal with than to recognize your own desires? It seems to me that some of the latent content of the book is that Jane desires to be the masterful one in the relationship; not just equality, but power. The book might have been very different if Jane had left after finding out about Bertha, met her family, got her inheritance and then showed up at Thornfield to find an unmaimed Rochester . Bertha could still be dead, but what about if the playing field was more even? Bronte visits an extreme punishment on her unlikely hero. It is true the scales were disproportionately tipped against Jane before, as in she had no money, no friends, and little prospects for getting any in addition to the fact she is a woman in a society that polices female sexuality in a hyper controlled fashion. However, physically maiming and blinding a character to balance out the power scales between genders, seems as extreme as to almost be one of punishment. Is Rochester being punished for being over passionate? Is the real victory of the text not feminism but repressed sexuality? Where have the fevered kisses gone? Jane now supposedly “never tires” of her husband’s society, an assertion that definitely seems to good to be true. As much as Jane can be read as a passionate character who acknowledges her passion, she can also be seen as a character who tries to stifle that in herself and others as evidenced by her cruel treatment of Rochester after she ran away (she did not let him know that she was even alive). Victorian society policed passion in all genders, not just in women, and Jane has become a police officer.
It is interesting to note that the nature of Rochester’s injuries support the idea they are meant to curtail his passionate nature, which is what scared Jane away. They include his hand, which can be used to touch and caress Jane, and his sight, which is the sense that most people experience desire through. When he regains his sight his is able to see Jane in a “pale blue dress” and the eyes of his son, an image of the virginal Madonna and child, not exactly an image of passion.
February 9, 2009 at 9:08 pm
I forgot to put my name on this, I am Beth. THe essay was something that I though about in the shower , and I had the idea down very well, but being very busy and getting VERY little sleep lately made me lose some of it when it came to writing time. Generally,my idea is that can the novel really be feminist in certain sense if feminism also means equal expression of sexuality . In my opinion, the end of the novel allows neither Jane nor Rochester that option. FUrhter, I think the choise to maim Rochester was a poor one; he should have been psychologically scarred from what happened, but not something that would make him so dependent on Jane. I know Jane was dependent upon him before, but she was not physiically dependent on him. THe novel gives her a great deal of power at the end, she now has family and money, and in addiotion, Rochester is now disabled. Rochester does not need her money, it is true, but she does not use this money to start a school or help women who had been in her position. Indeed, it gives her access to a better social class more on par with Rochester or perhaps even above him since he is now maimed, something which is outside all social catergories of class.
February 11, 2009 at 12:50 am
I agree with you in the sense that JANE EYRE is without a doubt a feminist novel. However, you brought up the question: “is it groundbreaking?” I would have to say that it definitely was. The novel has been reffered many times as one of the earliest major feminist novels. Despite the fact that the novel does NOT explore typical feminist concepts such as: legal issues, politics, education, or even male vs. female intellect, the novel does explore this notion of “love” being equal for both a man and a woman. Charlotte Bronte accomplishes one of her goals of exploring the emotional nature of a woman; especially one that is so plain and simple such as Jane. Even though the reader is aware that Jane is under the control of different men (Abbot, Brocklehurst, Rochester, and St. John), Jane still seems to prevail. Despite her decision-making might have broke her heart, they were morally right. She is a character full of good characteristics. She doesn’t rely on her beauty to capture men’s attention and she is not afraid to speak from the heart. Her character is to be considered one of the few women to make it in a “man’s world.” She marries by her own choice; not forced at all. The fact that Jane turned down marriage proposals was unheard of during that time period. She is a strong, indenpendent character. Since this novel was something different, and did challenge women and their roles, it is to be considered groundbreaking in my opinion.
February 12, 2009 at 4:15 am
Certainly, it can be debated either way. This novel posses enough evidence to argue either side. Your argument is clear and uses great examples. Yet, for the sake of argument I will attempt to establish Jane Eyre as novel that is not particularly feminist. To begin with the most blatant example, Jane is only “worthy” of Rochester after he has been emasculated. After losing his sight and hand, Jane is finally able to marry him. Throughout the novel she felt as if she was not good enough for him. Jane lacks self confidence that one would expect a protagonist in a feminist novel to have.
Throughout the novel, a theme seems to develop were Jane’s freedom is constantly in the hands of another man. An instance of this is at the end of the novel she escapes St. John with the assistance of the kind male doctor. It seems that she constantly finds herself at the hands of a man that is more powerful than she is. Another theme throughout the novel that can point to this novel being less feminist than originally thought is the flurry of hiding spaces we see. It seems that women throughout the novel are constantly concealed and hid from the public. Obviously, Bertha in the attic, but we also see Jane trapped in the red room were she is so confined she resorts to collapsing. Jane also hides behind the curtain in the dinning room. These hiding places seem to embody the idea that women need somewhere to be hid do to some sort of inferiority or inability to communicate with society.
February 12, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Throughout Jane Eyre, the reader is privy to Jane’s own maturation and personal growth. She goes from being a sheltered individual, who, though strong, had never really experienced life outside the constraints of familial obligations or school rules to an independent woman who realizes her ability to make her own choices, follow her own path, carve out her own niche, and whatever other clich can be used to describe her ability to make choices. In that sense, I would argue that Jane’s decision at the end of the novel is not one that should upset feminists, but rather enforces the feminists ideals that Jane presents during the narrative.
Just because Jane’s ultimate decision is to stay and take care of the maimed Mr. Rochester does not make her any less of a feminist character. Rather, it is that the decision is hers– and hers alone– that makes it more of a feminist move than anything else. As we discussed in class, feminism does not mean that women have become masculine in anyway, but rather, just as men can choose what they want to be and do, women should have the ability to make the same choices. Jane goes to Rochester of her own free will here. She is not swept up in any passion or anger, she is not forced into a marriage (like St. John attempts), nor is it any sort of economic transaction (like Bertha, or even Blanche Ingram). No, Jane marries for love because she wants to, because she chooses to.
Further more, I would argue that while Jane and Rochester’s passion at the end of the novel is not as fiery or “fierce,” to pull in a term from Wide Sargasso Sea, it, like Jane and Rochester has matured, and become a quieter passion. It does not mean that they love or desire one another less, but rather that they have arrived at a place in which they understand and can interact with each other without teasing and fighting. In all fairness, we do not see much of a conversation between them, but rather are only privy to Jane’s explication of the rest of her life. For all we know, they still have those mock fights– Jane just does not wish to report them.
I would also that the underlying religious imagery of the pale blue-clad Jane cradling the infant boy is one of the most passionate of the story. In that sense, Rochester is seeing her as somewhat deified, rather than an ordinary human being– elevating her to a level beyond any woman in the novel.
February 13, 2009 at 6:40 am
I found myself disagreeing quite strongly with many points that the author made in the essay above. First and foremost, there is no question regarding whether “Jane Eyre” is groundbreaking. Without a doubt, the feminist underpinnings of this novel were—well—novel for the time period in which it is published. While the author, (Beth, I mean, not Bronte) construes the ending of “Jane Eyre” as distinctly antifeminist, describing Jane as “a woman who is more than happy to wait on her husband hand and foot,” I believe that Bronte’s intention was to convey the opposite. When Rochester is injured and Jane cares for him, perhaps she is displaying a famine tendency toward nurturing, but she is involved in a revolutionary type of relationship for her time. The man and woman in it are on equal footing, an obvious Feminist point.
This essay also states that Jane demonstrates her desire to stifle her passion, which I did not see at any point in the version of Jane Eyre that I read. The proof provided is that Jane acted without passion by “her cruel treatment of Rochester after she ran away (she did not let him know that she was even alive).” This is actually an extremely passionate move, inflicting pain and confusion on the one who has caused you anguish, by leaving them clueless. The only evidence I find for Jane’s possibly stifled passion is when she tries to encourage herself to get over Rochester, even then she seems extremely passionate and unable to submit to practicality even though her passion causes her much sorrow.
February 16, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Beth, I found your comments about Jane Eyre to be very thought provoking! In my opinion, the novel should most definetly be considered “groundbreaking” even still. We should hold Jane high as a true heroine who takes nothing less than what she deserves. I too enjoyed Jane speaking up for herself, coupled with her sense of pride. I can see that our opinions differ about the novel’s end however. Why do you feel that “something rings false?” Why can’t Jane wait on Rochester if that what makes her happy? Can’t a feminist WANT to serve her partner? Does being a feminist mean that you always have the upper hand in a situation? Why isn’t the relationship between Jane and Rochester realistic or satisfactory to you? I was actually quite pleased with the novel’s resolution, and not because I am a hopeless romantic either. Fevered kisses fade! As a married woman (not to discredit my husband, nor the instituition of marriage) I can assure you that it is a rare thing to have such passion every minute of the day. I don’t agree with your idea that Rochester is being “punished” for being too passionate-it isn’t Bronte evening up the scales in the maiming of Rochester- I think it’s just part of his character’s further development. It does NOT emasculate him by rendering him more vulnerable. Jane isn’t suddenly wearing the pants because she has a “lesser” man now. What I think resonates the most about your paper is the idea that passion was meant to be stifled. I just did not read it that way. Eyes and hands are certainly tools for passion, but perhaps the novel can prove that true passion comes from someplace else, someplace deeper. Either way Jane and Rochester are all the better for it.
February 16, 2009 at 11:24 pm
I am not sure how I feel about seeing Jane and Rochester’s marriage as coming at the price of passion. In marrying Rochester, Jane is not settling for something “tamer” and thus sacrificing her own desires. What Jane desires is Rochester, in perfect health or maimed and disfigured. To tame her desires, Jane would have entered into a loveless marriage with St. John; she would not have told him that she “scorns” his ideas of love. When Jane was in Morton, for all she knew Bertha was still alive and still married to Rochester. She had no reason to believe that Rochester was now a widower. It would have, therefore, made sense for her to either go to the East with St. John, and marry a man of God who is not hiding a lunatic wife in the attic, or to stay in Morton and continue teaching. Jane makes the ultimate move of passion in running back to Thornfield to find Rochester. On finding him alone and crippled, Jane chooses to marry him, not out of a sense of obligation, but because she wanted to marry him, and had always wanted to marry him. In fact, from the time she sees him again, Jane writes that she is hoping he will propose again.
I also do not think that Jane leaving Rochester after the wedding was really Jane intentionally inflicting any kind of cruelty on Rochester. To him, it must of course felt that way, but Jane had just discovered that the man she loves has been hiding his wife in the attic for a good fourteen years or so (I’m not sure about the numbers; they had been married fifteen years, but I don’t remember if it says how long they stayed in Jamaica before coming back to England). The reason why Jane feels at the end that she can now marry Rochester is not because he is crippled, but because his wife is dead. I agree with Vanessa, Rochester’s injuries I think are meant to help in his character development more than it is to help Jane gain some power in their relationship. She did not need any power; Rochester already saw her as his equal.
February 17, 2009 at 4:59 am
I really enjoyed your concluding paragraph because you were able to interpret the meaning of Rochester losing his senses masterfully. It actually opened my eyes to a new aspect of the novel; certainly I’d realized the importance of the fact he’d now become “emasculated” or less “masculine” by losing the ability to boss her around, but you conveyed that there was greater significance in him losing his abilities; sight and touch.
What is also interesting is how I see a connection between human senses and feminist readings. Often feminists connect (however cliché) many central themes in a work to the human body. Certainly your understanding of the novel also draws these parallels.
I do not feel that Jane Eyre as a novel is overtly feminist but rather that Jane the character is. Without taking WSS into account, Bronte’s frequent portrayal of every other female character within the work is troubling. From Blanche to Grace to Bertha, each woman receives an awful and troubling depiction that is far too negative to look beyond.
x
February 17, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Amalia, I wasnt saying that Jane Eyre is completely antifeminist, my main point is that it ultimately reienforces Victorian norms regarding sexual expression in both men and women. While yes,it can be seen that Rochester and Jane have matured and their relationship has become “quiet”, at the same time, which is defintely what the author wants the reader to think, it feels like it becomes too quiet in comparision with its volatility before. At the end of the novel, Rochester seems overly emotionally and physically dependent on Jane ; he is more like a child than a husband. Jane ran away from Rochester’s passinate advances (remember when he sings and he comes towards her with his eyes flashing and she says something sarcastic to avoid a romantic scene). Like I said, how would hte book have ended if the playing field had been more even at the end (Rochester not physically maimed but with Jane still having found family and financial independence). The drastic nature of Rochester’s punishment can be interpeted as righting the very unequal amount of power along gender lines, but , it can also be viewed as something that is not only unrealistic but also, unfair because the power is redistributed unequally again in Jane’s favor. Of ccourse, she does not use this power, she is happy to be Rochester’s caretaker….and the mother of his children. IIs she happy because to feel as needed as she does by Rochester is a substitute for the self confidence she hasnt really found? And, have Rochester’s views on women really changed? Doesnt he still think of women in the same binary oppositons-angel/whore, wife/mistress, human/animal , etc? The fact that the ending image , is as someone commented, a deified verson of Jane, is just as bad as the way he thinks of Bertha as defiled. He sees the angelic mother figure, he does not see the wife , the woman. Jane’s achievement of a marriage based more on econmonic equality and on love, cannot be denied, yet finally, she is intergrated into society and is no longer a figure which can disrupt the normal social order..
ANd I think it underlines my point to say that Jane’s choice not to let Rochester know she was alive was “passionate” this is exactly the kind of sadomaschistic power dynamics that are missing from the very idealistic ending. A question might be, yes Jane has found financial independence and family support, but has she truly found emotional independence or self confidence? If she had, I do not think she would have had to rely on some kind of divine intervention to save her from saying yes to St. John’s horrible marraige proposal.
February 18, 2009 at 3:41 pm
This is Tiffany S. – I am sorry that this is so late.
After the class discussions and the posts, the book was spoiled for me – I always thought this was a happy little story where love conquers all and the good in people will always prevail. I never believed that Jane was a feminist, I always saw her as a strong woman who stood up for herself, because she had so much conflict in her life to overcome. She had to put up a veil of innumerable strength in order for her to survive in society. I would not exactly define that notion as being feminist, which is why I agree with the message that Beth conveyed in her essay.
I feel the ending of Eyre was seriously disappointing – the happy ending really “killed” Jane Eyre as a character – she no longer held the strength and wisdom that she held in the beginning of the story. However, the beauty with the whole story is that she never gives in to other people’s desires like St. John’s puritanical marriage proposal and Rochester. Jane still kept her convictions, but she allowed Rochester to be weak, because of his disability. I also thorough agree with “rorym87” – Bronte did depict the women in Jane’s life as monsters – Bertha, Grace Pool was a horrible woman, Mrs. Reed and her daughters – everyone had a specific role that stood in the progression of Jane’s character.
Throughout the book, Jane is seeking out her own identity in a 19th century male-dominated society, so by her being so assertive does not just make her a feminist, but a wounded person who desires to make a better life for herself.