Jane Eyre
discussion
Why didn't Mr. Rochester send Bertha to an institution?
message 1:
by
Sandy
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Jul 21, 2014 07:11PM
Do you think it's good/right to lock her at Thornfield?
reply
|
flag
Back then, asylums were grim, barbaric places. Prisons were more humane. Asylum inmates were treated as less than human and too often the "caretakers" were the lowest of the low, taking advantage of easy victims. Rape wasn't uncommon. Think Arkum Asylum . . .
And the medical treatments on offer were pretty ineffective. Chains and cold water, mostly. Any of Bronte's readers would have immediately seen that Rochester was being absurdly kind and charitable, keeping Bertha in the attic. Any ordinary may would have simply blown out of Jamaica and left her with her weird family.
Thanks for the replies. I'm just thinking Bertha needed some freedom, locking her could have made her worse and worse?
If she had freedom, I'm pretty sure everyone in the house would be dead within seconds...
Crystal wrote: "If she had freedom, I'm pretty sure everyone in the house would be dead within seconds..."lol.
I mean, if she had been like this at the very beginning or became like this after having been locked for so many years.
Neuroleptics and other psychoactive drugs were developed much later. Bertha wouldn't have been drugged at the asylum, but probably kept in a strait-jacket, submitted to regular baths, locked in a padded cell or all of the above.Actually, Victorian asylums seemed to make an effort to treat their patients way better than what they considered the stereotype of the lunatic house and to help them carry normal lives. The book may have been written during the transition from the poor conditions "of old", when the asylums were horrific places. Later on, they became horrific again, until they were closed.
Probably because he felt responsible for her and would rather keep an eye on her than release her to 'professional' treatment. Also, her brother would always drop by to check whether Bertha was being decently treated or not.
Where's my copyu of the book when I need it? I recall that Rochester explained why he didn't just run away from Jamaica. I'm thinking it has something to do with ethics and values and saying "Forget you" to his father.
Well, the leave-her-in-Jamaica solution would be the easy out, the one that any other guy would resort to. Leave her at home with her family, and just blow outa town, visit every ten years or so to keep up appearances and see how she's doing. Let someone else do all the dirty work -- her brother and other relatives would be right there. Think about how GONE WITH THE WIND ended -- that's what Rhett Butler suggested he was going to do, with Scarlett.
Brenda wrote: "Well, the leave-her-in-Jamaica solution would be the easy out, the one that any other guy would resort to. Leave her at home with her family, and just blow outa town, visit every ten years or so to..."Yes, but Scarlett was in perfect conditions, physical and mental. You cannot possibly compare her to Bertha, who had lost her with and judgement at once.
gertt wrote: "Laura wrote: "Neuroleptics and other psychoactive drugs were developed much later. Bertha wouldn't have been drugged at the asylum, but probably kept in a strait-jacket, submitted to regular baths,..."Yes, I also think he could have afforded the best institution.
And why didn't he send Adele to school? Wasn' it too dangerous for the little girl to live at Thornfield?
Of course, without the girl living at Thornfield, then Jane Eyre couldn't come and wouldn't meet Mr. Rochester and Bertha...
Even today. in the USA, she might have a problematic fate. If she refused to take meds there is not much a family can do.
gertt wrote: "And why would being kept in a strait jacket locked in a padded room be better then being strapped to a bed or chained to a wall?"I see your point, but all we can do is guess with the little information that we have. Depending on which moment of Victorian times the author was talking about, it could have been better, especially because Rochester was rich and could afford the best. For Bertha, it could have been pretty much the same (we don't know if she recognized people). For the rest of the household, it was safer without her, but perhaps that wasn't obvious to Rochester?
I wonder if his decision was also based on hiding the fact from people who knew him. People would know if Rochester had a wife in an asylum, but... nobody had to know he had one locked up in his attic?
The question about sending his daughter to school is trickier. I guess he just thought he could handle the situation. Maybe he never thought Bertha would be that dangerous.
Laura wrote: "gertt wrote: "And why would being kept in a strait jacket locked in a padded room be better then being strapped to a bed or chained to a wall?"I see your point, but all we can do is guess with th..."
I think Mr. Rochester knew Bertha was that dangerous. The first time Jane saved him from the fire, he was sort of calm, this happened before, he knew right away who did what, he asked Jane not to tell anybody.
True. Then I go with my other thought, that he did it because of the secrecy. After all, he was posing as a desirable bachelor in front of his friends, daughter and all, and perhaps people would have found out if she had been in an asylum?
HE SHOULDVE IT WOULDVE BEEN MUCH HAPPIER AND EVEN THOUGH I LOVE THE BOOK IT WAS SO SAD
Oh, easy enough. Remember that the rumor in the neighborhood was that the nut in the attic was a relative, probably Rochester's (illegitimate) sister. He just parks her in an asylum and tells them she is a relative. Nobody would check up on it (No birth certificates or SSNs in Victorian England) and as a landed gentleman everyone would take his word for it. If he selected the right asylum he could even count upon them killing her, either outright or by neglect. There was a brisk industry in the period in baby farming -- sending your baby or child out to be raised away from home. The unwritten agenda was that the kid would quietly die, and be out of your hair. I am certain there were similar businesses for the insane, or even for people who were not actually insane but merely inconvenient.
And we can place the period of JANE EYRE fairly precisely. It surely takes place before the publication date of the novel, right? Which was 1847. It is has enough autobiographical elements that we can assume that Jane herself was about Charlotte Bronte's age -- Bronte was born in 1816 -- and this works out within the story as well. Recall that at the end of the novel Jane has been married to Rochester for 10 years. You could lay out the time line pretty easily.
Brenda, very interesting! It would have been very much out of character for Rochester, but it was still cool to read. I say out of character because, even if he wanted to keep that "skeleton" well inside his closet, he didn't want to have her killed. Besides, she had a family, and they visited to check things out.Queen Victoria was the one who started with birth certificates and regular census and stuff, so probably Charlotte Bronte (and Jane Eyre, and Bertha, and Rochester) belonged to the last generation before it was a stable practice and people got used to it. It was cool to see that, too.
Now, while Bertha wasn't even English, making it less likely to have a birth certificate, the "illegitimate relative" only worked because nobody had seen her. The descriptions of Bertha are ambiguous, but make it obvious that she doesn't look British. Yes, people could have taken Rochester's word and fake paperwork in front of him, but the rumors and gossip could have been different behind his back.
Oh, the world of "what if"... I love it!
Even that would be easy enough. A 'natural' sister, engendered by the late father when he was overseas and had sex with a 'native' girl. Naturally Bertha does not look very English, and so all the bases covered. And remember that the father (and his brother) were total PITAs anyway, railroading him into the marriage with Bertha, so to hang a mistress on the old guy and let him suffer the odium of being a player is not unfair.
Wicked! :DI like it.
I agree with the theory that asylums were terrible places back then. I believe the actual setting of the book is just after the regency, and before the Victorian era. If so, NOT putting her in an asylum was indeed more HUMANE.Alas, it is something that is lost on the modern reader. I hadn't even thought of it until this thread popped up.
If he kept Bertha for being affectionate and charitable and as a faithful act, then thinking of another marriage is absurd especially in that law circumstances (dificulty of divorce).And if the story was something different for Rochester's decision of keeping her, he could go to another town or country and marry Jane in a safe place without any bothering of Bertha's family.
Brenda wrote: "Even that would be easy enough. A 'natural' sister, engendered by the late father when he was overseas and had sex with a 'native' girl. Naturally Bertha does not look very English, and so all the ..."That makes some sense. Thanks Brenda and Laura.
It's also the kind of thing that was clearly going to happen to David Copperfield, in the novel of that name. His widowed mom remarries, and the new stepdad doesn't want to give him the time of day.
gertt wrote: "Sandy wrote: "Do you think it's good/right to lock her at Thornfield?"I think 'institution' would have been a better choice of words."
Thanks Gertt, advice taken.
gertt wrote: "Yet, he chose to provide her with a private living space, a caregiver and medical attention...he gave her the best life he could and even risked his own life to try and save her in the end. If anything, Rochester showed compassion."I would agree with you if not for the fact that her caregiver was a drunk and obviously incapable of properly caring for her, otherwise she wouldn't have escaped so many times to catch people on fire. She should at least have had a separate day and night nurse. Instead of a dark attic, he could have placed her in a country cottage with a team of caregivers, headed by someone he trusted, where she would have had pleasant surroundings and adequate care. It would certainly have been safer for everyone. As it was, what he did was probably kinder than even the best institution, but just barely. He did just enough to feel that he had the moral high ground, but not enough to really be bothered. Until Jane came around he barely even visited to see if she was being well-cared for.
It's just silly to say he was compassionate because he could have killed her and didn't. That's just common human decency.
Remember that Bronte herself (in the person of the innkeeper who tells the story to Jane) says that it is hard to find a caregiver who doesn't abuse alcohol. It was a very common failing in those days, when you could get dead drunk for a penny if you were willing to drink gin.
In a time when earning a living wage was difficult for women, especially from the lower social strata and you weren't quite attractive enough to make it as a prostitute, or survived the streets long enough to become too old to continue to make your living that way, taking work as a caretaker for a lunatic was a desperate choice. It's no wonder so many were alcoholics.
Thanks all for the replies. :)As we agree it's hard for Rochester to find someone who was willing to care for Bertha, so an institution could be a better choice where there were many professional people that were willing to care for her.
Also I don't think Jane was the only person who heard the laughters, I don't know why there were so many servants (seldom did Rochester stay there).
Why Adele was also there and hence Jane.
How dared Rochester invite his guests there to have a big party, wasn't Rochester afraid that the guests would hear Bertha's laughers in the evening?
All the people went there (including Mr Marson), so the story happened...
Because insane asylums were notorious for being cruel. In the book he even describes the horrors to Jane. He was too kind to put her through that.
And there were no professional people to care for the mentally ill in 1847. This was before Freud, before Jung, before there was any such branch of medicine. Manacles, probably, would be all Bertha would get.
gertt wrote: "Emma wrote: "It's just silly..."A country cottage with round the clock care sounds lovely, but Bertha was not a rational person, she was wild, violent and uncontrollable...Rochester was fortunat..."
Sorry I wasn't calling you silly. I was calling the idea that Rochester was compassionate just because he didn't kill Bertha silly. I wasn't even directing that at you, because that is not what you said. I wasn't trying to insult you.
It may be difficult to find good workers, but not impossible for a man of Rochester's vast wealth who could pay a decent wage. It's the least he could do considering a portion of his wealth was from Bertha's family. I also didn't mean that Bertha would wander freely in the country house. It wouldn't have had to be much to be better than a dark old attic. Locking her up in the attic with nothing but a drunk to watch her was a convenient way to get her out of the way. And it proved to be dangerous to her and others. She probably wouldn't have died if she had had adequate care, even just one additional person to watch her at night. I stand by my statement before, it may have been better than the best institution but just barely. The fact that he could have done worse is no excuse for him not doing better.
I suppose this is a topic I shouldn't even engage in, since I have several mentally ill people in my family and it's a sensitive subject. He may have been rushed into marriage, but he did marry her. He vowed to care for her in sickness and in health. And he did. But if he wasn't so bent on secrecy, if he had had more consideration for Bertha than he did for his own reputation, he could have done much better for her. That's all.
Oh it is clear that Rochester knows, on some level, that he is being a prick. He is so mad about being gulled into the marriage that he feels justified in doing all kinds of bad things (the 3 girlfriends a prime example). Jane calls him on it, of course.But you cannot demand of the period what is not there. They didn't give Bertha an MRI or Zoloft, either. Victorian medicine was truly ooky and monstrously primitive, and there is no getting around that.
Emma wrote: The fact that he could have done worse is no excuse for him not doing better.Totally agree. Thanks.
Sandy wrote: "Do you think it's good/right to lock her at Thornfield?"he'd seen conditions in the asylums and for mercy's sake, couldn't bring himself to leave her there. i think he did the right thing. she was his wife. 'for better for worse, richer or poorer, in sickness and in health.'
Jayne wrote: "Sandy wrote: "Do you think it's good/right to lock her at Thornfield?"he'd seen conditions in the asylums and for mercy's sake, couldn't bring himself to leave her there. i think he did the right..."
Thanks Jayne.
Maybe it was the best choice Mr. Rochester had thought. Mr. Rochester was a kind man for sure.
But It's like Lowood school was a better place for Jane than Gateshead, an institution would be a better place for Bertha than Thornfield. Was Lowood perfect? Hell no, but at least there were many people in the same boat.
I think having been locked in an attic for 15 years, a normal man could become insane.
I'm not sure if anyone pointed this out yet, please excuse me if I'm being redundant, but the character is loosely (and I mean VERY LOOSELY) based on William Makepeace Thackeray, whose wife had gone mad and was kept in the attic and Thackeray later had an affair with the governess of his children. Bronte dedicated the second edition of the book to him as a nod, but not in a terrible way.
Sandy wrote: "Jayne wrote: "Sandy wrote: "Do you think it's good/right to lock her at Thornfield?"he'd seen conditions in the asylums and for mercy's sake, couldn't bring himself to leave her there. i think he..."
i see what you're saying, but mrs rochester did have a nurse who attended to her, and she seemed too dangerous to be allowed the freedom to 'roam' the house at will. maybe the semi-isolation did aggravate her condition. who knows. but if i had a loved one with the same condition, i would rather keep them close to me with a trusted carer than hand them over to the complete mercy of an institution, where who knows how they might be treated. at least at thornfield edward could keep an eye on her ...
Annemarie wrote: "I'm not sure if anyone pointed this out yet, please excuse me if I'm being redundant, but the character is loosely (and I mean VERY LOOSELY) based on William Makepeace Thackeray, whose wife had gon..."Awesome! I had no clue!
Annemarie wrote: "I'm not sure if anyone pointed this out yet, please excuse me if I'm being redundant, but the character is loosely (and I mean VERY LOOSELY) based on William Makepeace Thackeray, whose wife had gon..."Wow, that's very interesting, at least new to me. Thanks for sharing!
Jayne wrote: "i would rather keep them close to me with a trusted carer."I understand, indeed, many people do just like what you said.
While, Rochester didn't spend much time at Thornfield, seldom did he keep an eye on her either. He did it might be more for the sake of his own reputation as other readers implied.
I'm also thinking, had she been locked up before she's marriage too? I don't think so, I reckon she had led a better and happier life in Jamaica.
Sorry guys, one picture popped up in my mind. Remember how Bertha died in the 2006 BBC version?There was a white pigeon, it flied away, then Bertha opened her arms and "flied" like it and fell.
Does it imply how she desired a little freedom?
Sandy wrote: "Do you think it's good/right to lock her at Thornfield?"I think he had noble intentions in trying to care for her as best he could in those times. What I had a hard time forgiving him for is hiding her from everyone and attempting to deceive Jane.
Primarily since mental institutions were inhumane places! Not many institutions, regardless of purpose, were good then...@Jamie Lynn--It was a very politically incorrect (and besides that just plain incorrect) depiction of Bertha. Ouch. You're right.
Trying to impose modern Western values on works from another time/culture really doesn't work and only guarantees that the work itself will not be understood.
Mochaspresso wrote: "I think he had noble intentions in trying to care for her as best he could in those times. What I had a hard time forgiving him for is hiding her from everyone and attempting to deceive Jane. "Yes, it was unfair not only to Jane, but also to Bertha.
It's very sad. :)
When there was Lowood for the orphans, why weren't there institutions for the insane?OK, let's take a look at the history of psychiatric institutions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunatic_...
During the Enlightenment attitudes towards the mentally ill began to change. It came to be viewed as a disorder that required compassionate treatment that would aid in the rehabilitation of the victim. When the ruling monarch of the United Kingdom George III, who suffered from a mental disorder, experienced a remission in 1789, mental illness came to be seen as something which could be treated and cured.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Eyre
The novel Jane Eyre is a first-person narrative of the title character. The novel is set somewhere in the north of England, during the reign of George III (1760–1820),
Renee wrote: "Trying to impose modern Western values on works from another time/culture really doesn't work and only guarantees that the work itself will not be understood."Yes, this is important. Yes, the descriptions of Bertha are kind of racist, but you have to consider the time when this was written. To give another example, I love all the Sherlock Holmes stories, even though there are a lot of racist and misogynistic descriptions and depictions in there.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
