'Jane Eyre' by Charlotte Bronte (Pt. 4)

A section of New Historicism regards the structure of the novel itself and the characters are secondary. Gretchen Brown's essay entitled, Untarnished Purity: Ethics, Agency and the Victorian Fallen Woman deals with the fact that both stories of women in the Victorian Era are incredibly predictable and pretty much, all the same. In one stance, we have the "Fallen Woman," which includes the characters of Aurora Floyd and Vixen by Mary Elizabeth Braddon, Bleak House by Charles Dickens, Adam Bede by George Eliot and the most famous Victorian Fallen Woman, Tess of the D'Urbervilles by Thomas Hardy. In another stance, we have the Victorian Woman's bildungsroman, or "coming-of-age" novel. This is defined by Brown as "a loving marriage with a preferred suitor and stable social participation." Thus, stating that no matter how hard Jane seems to rebel, since she is not a part of the social chasm of the Fallen Woman, she will have to divert her attention to a loving marriage and the "happy ending" archetype. In fact, it is the theory of the Fallen Woman's story being the direct opposite to the Bildungsroman that keeps Jane going.

The first instance here is the fact that the Fallen Woman loses her agency. The Fallen Woman will lose people who are willing to help her in times of distress and need. Whereas, the character of Helen Burns shows the reader that Jane is, in fact, gaining agency and therefore, cannot come under the "Fallen Woman" archetype even though, she still manipulates the reader into believing in her horrible circumstances. Jane's speech is that of a Fallen Woman, but the fact that she gains agency and people who are willing to teach her come along—only depicts the opposite to the reader and thus, we ask ourselves the question of whether we can really rely on Jane's narration.

The second instance is the fact that the Fallen Woman has the trope of social exclusion and mental torment to do with sexual or physical purity. The fact that we get very little to do with Jane's sexual purity until the section where she meets St. John Rivers is something not to be ignored. We are subjected to a woman who we believe is sexually oppressed by the men around her; in fact, this is not even the case. The case is put forward in two texts; one being Love and the Woman Question in Victorian Literature by Kathleen Blake, and the other being The Fallen Woman of the 19th Century English Novel. Both of these regard the "Fallen Woman" archetype as being sexually oppressed, but then subverting this and going into "undercover" promiscuity.

Whereas, the identity of Tess in Hardy's novel is the only one in which she is forced to endure a chaotic version of these events due to a wrong choice earlier on in the text. The fact that sexual promiscuity is prompted by the sexual oppression of women may be true—but the fact that the discourse of aggression towards sexual attraction (as Jane is towards Rochester's disinterest in Blanche) does not cause the downfall. It is the act of the woman who takes the subversion to unacceptable climbs that will then fall, not the woman who passive-aggressively states and shows her disconcerting nature towards her admirer's seeming interest in another woman. Since Jane believes she is in the right, then as she is not already sexual promiscuous—or even suggested with being so (as she is plain, and Blanche is decorated), she cannot qualify as the Fallen Woman. We must, thus, look at the differences between the language of sexual love and the language of romantic love—this will then show us the differences between Jane's character (who expresses romantic love for Rochester) and the Victorian Fallen Woman.

Sexual promiscuity is therefore the most predictable source for looking into a Fallen Woman. This is the exact opposite for Jane, even though again, she speaks of enduring unspeakably horrible circumstances at the hands of her cousin and her bully, John Reed. Jane actually gains social mobility and inclusion throughout the novel—meeting people such as Edward Rochester and Adele Varens gives her these means of mobility into the higher houses rather than staying in Lowood, whose name brings up rather poor connotations.

Jane also is described as being sexually pure and physically plain—untainted and hygienic, she marries Rochester as being the one who is in the better situation. Therefore, in terms of social exclusion and sexual impurity we cannot compare Jane Eyre as being on par with Lady Audley's Secret or even Lady Chatterley’s Lover, nor is she even on par with Katherine of Wuthering Heights. Jane is the woman who is the exact and direct binary opposite of the Victorian Fallen Woman, which makes her discourse fairly confusing as she speaks of her terrible circumstances.

The question of Jane's narration is one thing, but we must then question whether it is our own predictions of analysing the Fallen Woman against the Victorian Woman's Bildungsroman that gives us this sense of predictability—seeing as Jane Eyre is clearly meant to subvert it. Are we looking at trends too closely in order to highlight action over discourse (or vice versa in the case of Tess), or is Jane the unstable character of the novel?

Now we've looked at three different lenses for analysing Jane Eyre and her strange, contradictory and sometimes even strikingly predictable identity. We are going to look at some comparisons to other novels. Noting that Jane Eyre was written and published by 1847, this is an era in which the word "woman" is changing and so is the writing about that word. We'll be looking briefly at the evolution of the identity of the woman in a Victorian Bildungsroman throughout the era, where Jane comes in and how she either progresses, regresses or even subverts the connotations set to her at the time. This again, is a form of historicism.

We will start with looking at the absolute basics of the argument and how we got from the woman of Elizabeth Bennett in Austen's Pride and Prejudice to the woman that is Bronte's Jane Eyre.

In Samina Ashfaq's analysis on Self-Deception in Pride and Prejudice there is an awful lot of concentration on the differentiation in modes of happiness between Elizabeth and her sisters - stating that there are [paraphrased] "two [ideas] that are realised; one is the way in which the individual fits into society - and the other is that the individual realises their own happiness..." As Austen's novel is written and published in 1813, we can expect differences between this time and the time of Jane Eyre to be almost transparent. Ashfaq discusses the differences between Elizabeth's happiness and the discontent of her sisters through the characters of Mr. Darcy and Mr. Bingley—which only shows this aspect of the Victorian Woman's Bildungsroman as being unchanged. The woman's main goal at the end is to achieve a happy marriage; what Elizabeth and Jane both achieve at the end of the novel. Although, Elizabeth's started in sheer discontent, whereas Jane suffered denial and then resentment before returning to Rochester. Thus, showing that Austen's character is more gullible than that of Bronte's—as Elizabeth endures a change between two polar opposites, Jane endures a self-discovery hindered by a want for a happy lifestyle.

Ashfaq also repeats the word "tolerance" when talking about Elizabeth's individual happiness. Elizabeth's happiness turns from resentment, to tolerance, and then into love—whereas, Jane seems to discover things about Rochester which draw her to become more involved with him. The second of the two is more realistic to say the least, but the fact that Pride and Prejudice is idealistic and Jane Eyre is a domestic gothic, may also play a big role in the way in which self-discovery and the tolerance of another human being are portrayed. Ashfaq also answers this statement with the fact that "Austen seeks to reinforce tradition by showing what errors occur when one deviates away from them..." Therefore, if we agree with Ashfaq's maxims, this should be true for only the works of Austen. And that it is. Jane Eyre does not stick to these reinforcements (as we have previously spoken about), but instead Jane tends to bend and subvert various traditions pushed on by the elderly members of society (or at least the ones older than her).

She adheres to her own "plainness" and moves only closer to Rochester at times in which he is in great distress. This is not only subverting the maxims taught by Austen's novels, but also taking them into the psychotic and gothic territories by using fire as one of the symbols of personal torment and self-denial.

The next book we will look at is one that was published after Bronte's novel. Published in 1870-1871, Middlemarch by George Eliot/Mary Ann Evans, is considered not only the greatest novel of the English language, but also one of the greatest bildungsroman of the Victorian Woman.

Dorothea compares well to Jane Eyre as they are both concerned with appearances. With Eliot's concentration on symbolism, Dorothea's Boudoir is a symbol of her maintenance. This is different to Jane who has her perspective on her own appearance dominated by the decorative appearances around her. For example, Blanche Ingram. In the Journal of Language, Literature and Culture, a writing from the Kyushu Institute in Japan entitled: Dorothea Brooke's Political Economy states how Eliot uses Dorothea as a flawed saint-like figure that echoes the Romantic poets in order to show the will for marriage and then the flaws as being the boredom within that marriage. Jane is presented as both similar and different to this—again a saint-like but flawed female, she is presented as the archetype of self-discovery, but instead ends up happily in marriage. It is because Middlemarch deals with marriage being the fact of life rather than the woman's goal—that is subversive.

But the boredom within it is something almost never seen since the aftermath of marriage is concealed behind the facade of the happy ending structure from the bildungsroman.

Middlemarch presents Dorothea's failure as being marriage—rather than the goal, as it is in Jane Eyre. The fact that everything else in Dorothea's negative traits is something of psychology—and that the marriage is the only physical failure is something of a subversion against the likes of Jane Eyre and Pride and Prejudice. In Jane Eyre it is the goal of marriage which concludes Jane's self-discovery, her flaws being quite physical and then all related back to her own perspective upon her appearance. In Pride and Prejudice her own flaws are impacted and "fixed" by her marriage to Mr. Darcy. Therefore, the "norm" or "average" in the Victorian Female Identity is to have their flaws "fixed" by a happy marriage. Whereas, for Middlemarch, it is the exact opposite of this. Therefore, in this respect, Jane Eyre is the traditional perspective of the Victorian Woman of a bildungsroman and Middlemarch is the more subversive one.

Daniel Deronda is another one of George Eliot/Mary Ann Evans subversive identities which shows our gendered comparisons between Jane Eyre, Middlemarch and Pride and Prejudice. Published in 1876, it was another great like Middlemarch that showed the reversal of the likes of novels by Bronte and Austen.

All of the women in the novels mentioned have been subversive of their day only because of the traditionalist form that came before it. We need to understand that each literary era is a reaction against the previous one. Bronte would have reacted against traditional forms such as Austen and Eliot would have reacted likewise against Bronte. It is clear through the structure of the female characters' lives that they are direct reactions:

Bronte is a reaction against Austen's character as Bronte's Eyre does not have parents in order to arrange her marriage. She must find her own way.

Eliot's Middlemarch is a reaction against Bronte's Eyre because of Dorothea's divorce at the beginning of the novel.

Now that we understand that Bronte's Jane Eyre is directly in the middle of this timeline; we need to ask ourselves a question:

Is her personality traditional or subversive?

According to Steven Earnshaw in his journal article "Give Me My Name", Jane Eyre displays "absent" voices. This is of the female character perspective and that Jane's own ideas of herself are formatted around the ideas that others have towards her. On her personality and character, this is put forward by men. These include John Reed, who makes Jane believe that she is unintelligent, Mr. Brocklehurst who makes Jane believe that she is a sinful child, St. John Rivers who makes Jane believe that religion is hypocritical and Mr. Rochester who teaches Jane that men are dark and she is wrong to question them. On the other hand, Jane's physical identity is constructed by the women around her. For example; Mrs. Reed tells Jane that she is small and insignificant and that "deceit is (her) fault", thus stating that Jane may "look" innocent, but isn't. Ms. Abbot and Bessie tell Jane that she is not as beautiful as Georgiana and Eliza and that she is very small and plain. Helen teaches Jane to bear physical abuse, Ms. Temple gives Jane and Helen regular food, Blanche Ingram teaches Jane that she is not beautiful and decorated enough to marry Rochester and Bertha Mason teaches Jane about her own physical victimisation. This means that Bertha steers the spectacle of physical abuse away from Jane and thus teaches Jane that maybe she is in a better position than some. For a considered "subversive" feminist novel—this seems very traditional—especially as a woman with an absent voice. But, the subversive nature actually comes through the structure of the novel and not the way in which the character is presented to us.

Structurally, this novel is incredibly subversive. Why? Well, Andrew Grace argues in his article "Fairly Committed to Black and White: A Study of Documentation in Jane Eyre" - Jane's failure to commit to authority is shaped by three documents: A letter from her uncle, Richard Mason's Last Will and Testimony and her own signature. Only when she achieves the understanding of these official documents and how much weight they hold in terms of identity of individuals long after they've gone. Jane only really realises herself when she signs her own name—this is what makes the structure subversive. We've got three volumes, but three different main settings—and also three different modes of written and authoritative identity; thus showing that the idea of concrete identity is very important in the novel. People are shown via document and setting before they are shown as people. Mrs. Reed is shown through the prospect of not being able to take a walk, and through the horrible condition in which Jane lives in Gateshead. Helen Burns is shown by the brute tolerance and plainness of Lowood School; and when she dies, Jane feels the need to move away; but doesn't achieve it until years later. Therefore, showing her own tolerance towards Lowood—her growth as a cause of Helen's teachings. Thornfield is seen much before Rochester is introduced. The darkness and foreboding of the domestic gothic setting gives concrete similarity to his identity.

Other identities of individuals are shown through their documentation - and this documentation evidence (Andrew Grace argues) is why Jane cannot understand her own identity. She has never written down her own name. Grace also states that Jane's acknowledgement of productivity in the identity of others is also what subverts her from wanting to have her own.

Her requirement to have her own identity is actually what is pulling her back from documenting her own identity at all. She is therefore being counter- productive without even knowing it and thus, the novel is the length it is because of the identity struggle between Jane's want of a concrete identity and Jane's subversion in order to create her own identity—it becomes a vicious cycle that deletes itself.

When we look structurally and not characteristically at Jane's identity - we can see that it is very clearly subversive to traditional Victorian forms. But, Brian Wilkes states in his article "Jane Eyre Revisited" that Jane is in fact not only a traditional character, but one of the best traditional characters written into a traditional form. He argues that it is better than the love stories of Austen, but also that it is cleverer than them. He states that Jane Eyre interweaves implicit gothicised themes that subvert normative Victorian forms and therefore, this is what makes the characteristics of Jane herself divert away from the previous idealistic female that Austen created. Wilkes states that it is Jane's identity alongside these implicit gothic themes that makes her slightly subversive; it is easy to miss them and this is what Wilkes is talking about. We have to realise that this entire account is written in first person; so anything that comes across as gothic and dark should be included in our analysis of Jane's identity. The question is; is it really gothicised in appearance, or is it a reflection of the narrator's character upon the setting—a sort of reverse pathetic fallacy?

It is only after we realise that Jane's childhood has had an impact on her view of the world—going from pessimistic to contented with gothic undertones—that we can really understand her social interactions. In her article "At Least Shake Hands," Kimberly Cox states that there are certain expectations that Jane holds people to—whether they meet these expectations or not is unknown. Jane's narrative shades the result from us by presenting us with a side-soliloquy or a tactical subversion from the topic. For example, Blanche Ingram is stated by Jane to be a beautiful and decorated woman, much more beautiful physically, than Jane herself. Jane draws Blanche and draws herself in order to remind herself of this—all before she has even seen Blanche. When Blanche actually enters the book, she is described in the way that Jane had previously known her to be, before meeting her. Whether Jane has an excellent skill in foretelling physiognomy or whether her narrative shades out any inaccuracies is something of a question to the reader. Since we realise that Jane's gothic nature has most definitely impacted the intricacies of the novel's themes, we can only assume that it too has filtered into Jane's perspective of the appearance of people. The appearance of settings is gothic enough in the book, with Thornfield being the most so; but why should we find it impossible that Jane's view of people is distorted by her gothicised physiognomy? This is another aspect of Jane that may be perceived as subversive as she recluses her inaccuracies, deliberately hiding things from the reader and making herself seem as though she is always correct about appearances and personas. Then, may we say that Mrs. Reed is right in thinking that "deceit is (Jane's) fault", or is this a step too far?

Be that as it may, Jane's voice is not the only one that tells us of the narrative happenings; we get other narratives of side-stories. These include St. John Rivers and Edward Rochester. These are stories that we "believe" cannot be altered or fitted by Jane, maybe time and place of retelling changed etc. to suit the time and place in which Jane is to make it seem more or less social at Jane's will. In her article entitled "Becoming a Stranger to Oneself", Kristen Pond concentrates on these sub-plots and side-stories of other people that gives Jane's narrative a multi-complex.

The first layer is Jane's narrative. This is everything without the sub-plots and only tells us of Jane's own journey. The second layer contains sub-plots and side-stories; this is where we get Jane's Narrative becoming three dimensional instead of one-sided. The third layer is Jane's reflection and communication of these stories to the reader. Since we assume that her identity is unstable because of her subversion towards traditional forms - we can also suggest that Jane is manipulating these sub-plots and side-stories in order to suit her particular situation. For example; making Bertha Mason seem mad and unruly, instead of pitying her position is a great way of making Jane and Rochester victims of this woman. Jane's victim mentality directs the reader's attention towards Bertha and makes her out to be a "creature" rather than a being long before the burning of Thornfield Hall.

Thus, side-stories and subplots have been manipulated to suit Jane's storyline. Another example is when Jane is locked in the Red-Room. We can assume that the Reed's are nasty and bitter towards her from her own narrative. But, as Jane states that she is no older than ten and therefore, she remembers her uncle's death in this room - we can also assume that her silence towards Mrs. Reed's story requires explanation. The reason that Mrs. Reed is bitter towards Jane may only be because Jane is related to Mr. Reed and therefore, reminds the woman of her dead husband - who is only recently deceased. Concluding that we can find these errors of dimension in Jane's story to be deliberate to suit Jane herself at any given time - manipulated to her own views and how she comes off to the reader.

In this same historicist reading, there are many different symbols that we must pay attention to in order to understand Jane's implicit "story-telling" to us. This acts as Jane's "code" and sub-consciously lets the reader understand when or where certain acts are taking place, including who certain characters are and what they function as in Jane's life. We will only cover the three main and most intricate symbols of communication here.

The first symbol is the book. The book is a symbol of intelligence, but also a symbol of privilege to Jane. Rochester is seen frequenting books and notebooks and thus, it tells the reader of not only his intelligence, but his wealth and also—hints at his harsh past. This is because earlier on in the novel, we saw Jane reading behind in Gateshead when she was younger and John Reed removes her book from her hand and throws it at her. An insult towards her intelligence. Thus, Jane is "telling" her reader that she considers those who read on books to be intelligent, but also socially isolated like herself—a clever and ironic narrative quirk when referring to your reader by pronoun.

The second symbol is sewing and fabrics. The two characters that are made different are Jane herself and Bertha Mason. Jane takes up creation of fabrics by frequently sewing them together and being taught to sew at school—for which she is the creator of things that hold together—thus referring to her marriage to Edward Rochester. We can therefore assume that Bertha Mason's destruction of fabrics is the exact opposite reference. Her destruction of fabrics is what leads up to her subversion from Rochester and then, in turn her violence towards him before she sets fire to Thornfield Hall. In her article on Jane Eyre entitled "Stitching a Life, telling a Story"—Tracy Brian comments on the strange narrative aspects of having Jane create fabric and Bertha destroy it. Not only that, but both Bertha and Jane hide behind curtains in the book—therefore, both referring to their requirement for Edward Rochester. Bertha requires him for sanity and finance and Jane requires him for love and marriage.

The third image is the bird. Jane makes many references to birds and freedom that it only suggests to the reader that this is her deepest desire. Kathleen Anderson comments in her article: "No Net Ensnares Me: Bird Imagery and the Dynamics of Submission in Jane Eyre" that the image of the bird is not only there for reference towards freedom—but is also there to represent conflicts. Almost always when Jane mentions the word "bird" there is a conflict in place. The very first time she mentions it is when she reads a book about birds and John Reed throws the book at her head - the moments after that, she is in conflict with her love for Rochester. This representation of the bird as conflict is subversive to religion as we commonly know the dove as the sign of peace. As she becomes more and more involved with Rochester, it is evident that the imagery of the bird becomes less and less frequent and therefore, she is at peace with her love for him.

To conclude, we have covered the following points of Jane Eyre's identity: Charlotte Bronte and her Jane Eyre as autobiographical identity, Jane Eyre and her appearance as identity, Jane Eyre and the landscape as identity in Eco-Criticism, Structuralism and more specifically, the structural theory of binary opposition. We have also covered how this binary opposition effects Jane's personality in the first person narrative, we have looked at the theories of old historicism and new historicism and how Jane's identity is a product of both theories. We have compared Jane Eyre to other novels such as Tess of the D'Urbervilles when looking at the Victorian Bildungsroman vs. the Fallen Woman and done analysis on how Jane's personality is both traditional and subversive by putting her in a timeline surrounded by Jane Austen and George Eliot/Mary Ann Evans. We have covered the contradictions that follow her subversion and the symbols that effect her communication to the reader. All in all, we have made through every aspect layer by layer—covering first impressions at face value and digging deep into the intricacies of the novel.

So we will end with the age-old question that was once in the Bookman's Newspaper in the 1850s and still gets asked amongst literature folk today: Who is Jane Eyre?