The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

54 views
2011 Group Reads - Archives > Jane Eyre - Volume the Second - Part 4 - Chapters XXXIV-XXXVIII

Comments Showing 1-50 of 143 (143 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1 3

Captain Sir Roddy, R.N. (Ret.) (captain_sir_roddy) | 1483 comments Mod
Here's the folder for the final section of the group read and discussion of Charlotte Bronte's brilliant novel, Jane Eyre. Enjoy!


message 2: by Lynnm (new)

Lynnm | 3027 comments Oh, no. I didn't realize that this was the last section.

I am going to miss Jane. :-(


message 3: by MadgeUK (new)

MadgeUK | 5214 comments Yes and all the discussants too:(. This has been a really excellent group and I do hope we all meet together again for the Hunchback of Notre Dame.


message 4: by Lynnm (new)

Lynnm | 3027 comments I plan on doing Hunchback. It's been ages since I read it. I was a bit bummed, because I wanted Bel-Ami. But I'm not a "sore loser." ;) I'll read it on my own.


message 5: by Kim (new)

Kim (kimmr) | 317 comments I've had such a good time participating in the JE discussion. This is a great group and and I'm really looking forward to continuing my association with its members by reading and discussing Hunchback. I have now acquired it in three formats - on kindle in French and in English and on audiobook in French. I'm going to give the latter format a go first, because listening rather than reading will stop me from looking up all the words I don't know in the dictionary and force me to just absorb the narrative. (Well, that's the effect I'm hoping for anyway!).

Lynnm - I was also keen to read Bel-Ami, so I'd be happy to read it with you!


message 6: by MadgeUK (new)

MadgeUK | 5214 comments I would have preferred Bel Ami too, mainly because I remember Hunchback as a horror film and I am not very good with horror. What fun,. Kim, to be able to do it in two languages - do let us know where there are mistranslations or better ones.


message 7: by MadgeUK (last edited Jul 03, 2011 08:46PM) (new)

MadgeUK | 5214 comments What do folks think to Jane's dreams? I am not given to dreaming myself and I find them rather alarming and progressively sexier. She clearly cannot get Rochester out of her mind and all her desire seems to come to the fore at night.

Freud wrote in The Uncanny re Jane Eyre that ‘the uncanny proceeds from something familiar which has been repressed’ and Jane's dreams seem uncanny or weird. He thought that such gothic thoughts and dreams showed a ‘conflict of judgment' as to whether things (like the bright light in the Red Room or her 'apparition' of Bertha) have been 'surmounted' and are regarded as real or incredible. He also links the fear of castration with the loss of sight. Jane leaving Thornfield was a form of castration for Rochester (as was the gothic fire) and her forgiveness restored his manliness. Has anyone else read of these ideas? Other critics put the dreams and other gothic events down to 19C women being 'incarcerated by patriarchal forces'.

Freud and others have also noted that CB brings the frightening nature of the gothic out of the exotic surroundings of previous literature - foreign places, castles etc. - into a domestic environment, thereby making it even more frightening and 'uncanny'.

Just tossing some ideas around here in the middle of the night - I hope I don't have gothic dreams when I go back to bed!


message 8: by MadgeUK (last edited Jul 04, 2011 01:52AM) (new)

MadgeUK | 5214 comments I found this a very revolutionary little statement from Jane after she had been told she was a heiress and St John tried to persuade her not to share her fortune with her new family and that he would still be her brother (Chap 33):-

'Brother? Yes; at the distance of a thousand leagues! Sisters? Yes; slaving amongst strangers! I, wealthy--gorged with gold I never earned and do not merit! You, penniless! Famous equality and
fraternisation! Close union! Intimate attachment!'

'Gorged with gold I never earned and do not merit' is a very Marxist concept - But CB couldn't have been been reading Das Capital or The Communist Manifesto as they weren't yet published (though the ideas were 'in the air'). Presumably it stemmed from Wordsworth's 1805 ode to the French Revolution 'Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive/But to be young was very heaven' and its ideals of Liberté, égalité, fraternité.

She was reading Sir Walter Scott's Marmion, published in 1808, 40 years before JE was published, which was a very popular, exciting epic poem describing the bloody Battle of Flodden between the Scots and the English; yet more rebellion. It too had a hero reminiscent of Byron and Rochester, 'a mixture of villainy and magnanimity'.

http://www.walterscott.lib.ed.ac.uk/w...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHlbzZ...

Jane's alias was discovered by St John on November 5th, the date of Guy Fawkes' attempt to blow up Parliament in 1605 so there are three references to rebellion in this chapter. She is getting very sassy - what next?!


message 9: by MadgeUK (last edited Jul 04, 2011 03:42AM) (new)

MadgeUK | 5214 comments Good gracious - CB and I are apparently from an alien culture!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...


message 10: by Lynnm (new)

Lynnm | 3027 comments Kim wrote: "I was also keen to read Bel-Ami, so I'd be happy to read it with you!"

Would love to!!

I'm just finishing up A.S. Byatt's The Children's Book. Should be completed by the end of the week.

I'll let you know when I'm done, and if it is a good time for you, we can start Bel-Ami.

(Anyone else that wants to join us, let us know. I've noticed in other groups that there are buddy reads. If there are enough, maybe we can get Christopher to open a thread for us?)


message 11: by MadgeUK (new)

MadgeUK | 5214 comments Anyone can open a thread Kim, so that will be OK although it would be a pity if it causes Hunchback to fall by the wayside for lack of participants.


message 12: by Lynnm (new)

Lynnm | 3027 comments MadgeUK wrote: "Anyone can open a thread Kim, so that will be OK although it would be a pity if it causes Hunchback to fall by the wayside for lack of participants."

Then we don't have to open a thread. Kim and I can chat via email.


message 13: by Kim (last edited Jul 04, 2011 12:56PM) (new)

Kim (kimmr) | 317 comments Oh no, I don't want to open a thread or compete with Hunchback, as I fully intend to participate in that discussion.

Lynnm, I may not be able to start for a couple of weeks, because I have something which I am trying to finish, but I'll let you know.


message 14: by Amalie (new)

Amalie I'm so sad I missed this discussion. There was too much work in school and then maintaining my own group. I wanted to talk a lot of things about earlier chapters but I guess it's bit late now I'll definately leave my thoughts on interesting topics once I go though the discussion. I'm looking forward for this section. See you in a bit.


message 15: by Amalie (new)

Amalie Lynnm wrote: "I am going to miss Jane. :-("

I most certainly agree :(


message 16: by MadgeUK (new)

MadgeUK | 5214 comments I'm looking forward for this section. See you in a bit.

That's good Amalie - I thought everyone had deserted poor Jane!)


message 17: by Lynnm (new)

Lynnm | 3027 comments MadgeUK wrote: " I'm looking forward for this section. See you in a bit.

That's good Amalie - I thought everyone had deserted poor Jane!)"


Haven't deserted Jane. :-) Just a bit behind because of the holiday weekend.

I plan to read Dickens today, Jane tomorrow, and should be posting in both forums by Thursday.


message 18: by Kristen (new)

Kristen | 140 comments I had forgotten how good the ending is! I cried a little. :P
I had also forgotten how CB christianizes Rochester. He undergoes physical and spiritual changes. He becomes quite pitiable.


message 19: by Kristen (new)

Kristen | 140 comments I really enjoyed this discussion too, and really appreciated all the insights everyone provided! Thanks! :D


message 20: by Lily (last edited Jul 05, 2011 01:07PM) (new)

Lily (joy1) | 2632 comments Kristen wrote: "I had forgotten how good the ending is! I cried a little. :P
I had also forgotten how CB christianizes Rochester. He undergoes physical and spiritual changes. He becomes quite pitiable."


LOL! CB tells us Jane got what she wanted. I am reminded of all the stories about "He's perfect. Now change." It has seemed to me as if fate or happenstance changed dear Rochester into a man that dear Jane could now "heal" or "mother" back into the man she loved (or use Freud's imagery if you like, although I have never quite trusted his escape from misogyny) -- and all the exciting danger had been tamed with no blood or blame on her hands.

Shall I stand back now for the slaughtering attack from all of you who love this romantic novel of the strong woman who gets her strong man? It is that, too. I hope it is a "happily ever after tale." Like many American girls, fairy tales were part of my upbringing. But, even though this is a Victorian setting and not 1970's First World West, a part of me still cringes at the happy, "happy housewife" ending.

(Believe it or not, none of this is intended to at all belittle the power of CB's writing. It is, however, perhaps a cautionary statement about simply handing JE to our precocious 12-year-old daughters as a model for behavior and the vicissitudes of righteous life. Or at least without returning to discuss it with them at sixteen. Deviousness may not be the same as addiction [as a source of abuse], but it may be more ubiquitous and will equally require judgment and maturity to avert, lessons it is not clear but what CB somewhat spared Jane.)


message 21: by Kristen (new)

Kristen | 140 comments ha. i understand what you're saying. i still think what would be a neat little package ending is tempered by him being a blind amputee. and to be fair, it's still beats out modern tales by a longshot. i just saw the most horrible, if not slightly entertaining, movie over the weekend, in which the moral is see what you want and take it ("it" in this case being the fiance of a young woman's best friend). they end up together and all is strangely hunky dory.


message 22: by Kristen (new)

Kristen | 140 comments and i wouldn't hand over JE to my future 12 year old daughter. for one, i don't think it could truly be appreciated at that age. and i don't think offering fictional characters as a model for behavior is the best idea either. :P


message 23: by Lily (new)

Lily (joy1) | 2632 comments Kristen wrote: "...i don't think offering fictional characters as a model for behavior is the best idea either. :P ..."

But isn't that what happens for all of us, even if sometimes cautionary tales, whether in books or from TV shows...?


message 24: by Lily (new)

Lily (joy1) | 2632 comments Kristen wrote: "...i don't think offering fictional characters as a model for behavior is the best idea either. :P ..."

But isn't that what happens for all of us, even if sometimes cautionary tales, whether in books or from TV shows...?


message 25: by Lily (new)

Lily (joy1) | 2632 comments I should hope that morality plays, Emily Post, Mrs. Betton, et al, would not be our primary guides for appropriate behavior. Perhaps that is exactly why I (and my family?) have always looked to the story and the parable more than the rule book, even though they may sometimes be difficult to distinguish, to "guide" and inform life and choices and decisions.


message 26: by Kristen (new)

Kristen | 140 comments i think there is much to be learned from history. and dare i say it, books of faith. maybe it's just me, but i see fiction as just that. fiction. which is why i frequently have a hard time understanding why certain groups in history have become so riled up by works of fiction. take for instance The Da Vinci Code. there was a whole hugely ridiculous sort of religious debate and people angry about the ideas in the book. i wanted to scream, "it's FICTION, PEOPLE!" but i guess there will always be an establishment threatened by some published work, be it fiction or non-fiction.


message 27: by Kristen (last edited Jul 05, 2011 03:41PM) (new)

Kristen | 140 comments oh, and sometimes i want to just appreciate the art of a thing. there is art for art's sake. can not fiction be for art's sake as well?

perhaps not. maybe that's why i was an art major and not a literature major. :P


message 28: by Georgie (new)

Georgie | 107 comments The ending of JE is interesting I think because, despite the anger that we see several times during the novel, Bronte is still not ready to contemplate a woman who is able to break free from her expected role in Victorian society, and so there are really only two possible outcomes that allow any heroine a degree of respect; marriage or death. Maggie Tulliver in The Mill on the Floss is a good example of the other type of heroine. Jane does appear to be happy with Rochester but I also think it's interesting that she has a modicum of power over him because of his disabilities. Or perhaps his disabilities allow him a more equal footing with Jane in the hierarchical Victorian society.


message 29: by Lily (new)

Lily (joy1) | 2632 comments Georgie wrote: "...Or perhaps his disabilities allow him a more equal footing with Jane in the hierarchical Victorian society...."

Your word order is interesting. I presume it was deliberate?


message 30: by Lily (last edited Jul 05, 2011 09:42PM) (new)

Lily (joy1) | 2632 comments Kristen wrote: "oh, and sometimes i want to just appreciate the art of a thing. there is art for art's sake. can not fiction be for art's sake as well?

perhaps not. maybe that's why i was an art major and not a..."


Sure, there is fiction for "art's sake" or for "literature's sake." All can be judged and/or appreciated as such. But what great art or great literature is likely to find its spheres of influence so constrained?

Anyway, do you have some additional comments we should hear about JE for "arts sake" or for "literature's sake"?


message 31: by Lily (new)

Lily (joy1) | 2632 comments I was troubled by the treatment of St. John Rivers in this section. I am sure in my first reading, at least if I read JE as a young person, I would have thought "how romantic. He never could get over Jane, could he?" In other words, I would not have believed Jane as the narrator of words and would have ascribed her the secret pride of a love that never forgot her, even if she would have denied such if pressed. Today, I wonder about St. John. Why did he really not marry? Was that not sad for St. John in that day and age? What did it say about the acceptability of finding a companion in the circumstances in which he found himself? (Were most of his contacts with local peoples? Was it his fiance or Jane he forsook, or both? Were there English women he could have met? Were other factors at play?) What was CB implying, if anything, other than just reporting a not too surprising circumstance for the time?


message 32: by Lily (last edited Jul 05, 2011 10:51PM) (new)

Lily (joy1) | 2632 comments BunWat wrote: "I was recently listening to an interview of the author Jim Shepherd in which he said "I think literature is, in some ways, about the exercise of the empathetic imagination."..."

I like that, but then as many participants here know, I am keen on the concept of empathy....!

(Which reminds me, I never did get back to Madge on why I might want to imagine empathy for Brocklehurst! Not sure I know exactly, but I think it is something like flexing the empathetic imagination muscle Shepherd is talking about. LOL!)


message 33: by Kim (new)

Kim (kimmr) | 317 comments I understand why some people might think JE inappropriate for a 12 year old. However, I first read it when I was about eleven or twelve and I appreciated it for what made sense to me then. For me, JE was the story of a young girl who had to stay strong and overcome huge difficulties to finally find happiness. I don't think that's a bad thing to get from the novel at that age. Although I've re-read JE many times over the years I have never seen it, or any other novel for that matter, to provide a model for behaviour.

I have a daughter who is now 32. She is fairly well-read, but for some reason didn't read JE until recently. (This may be because she read Wuthering Heights in high school and didn't like it at all!). As it happens, I didn't give it to her to read when she was 12, but I certainly wouldn't have been at all concerned had she wanted to read it at that age.

I agree with BunWat's comments above. I also dislike moralising in novels. I've certainly learned all sorts of things by reading novels - both good ones and not so good ones - but I don't need a novel to teach me anything in order to enjoy it.


message 34: by Kim (new)

Kim (kimmr) | 317 comments As for this last part of JE, one of the things that always strikes me is the incident which makes Jane return to Thornfield. When I was younger, I tended to think of the "Jane, Jane, Jane" episode as something supernatural and considered it rather melodramatic and silly. Now I see it as closely linked to Rochester's comment earlier in the novel about being connected to Jane by a cord linking their hearts. And Jane sets up the possibility of such a thing occurring, when she says at the time she is fetched to go back to Gateshead because Mrs Reed is ill:

Presentiments are strange things! and so are sympathies; and so are signs; and the three combined make one mystery to which humanity has not yet found the key. I never laughed at presentiments in my life, because I have had strange ones of my own. Sympathies, I believe, exist (for instance, between far-distant, long-absent, wholly estranged relatives asserting, notwithstanding their alienation, the unity of the source to which each traces his origin) whose workings baffle mortal comprehension. And signs, for aught we know, may be but the sympathies of Nature with man.

I don't know if I believe in such presentiments as Jane felt when she heard Rochester call her, but I don't find it quite so silly anymore. There's at least anectdotal evidence of twins feeling each other's pain and I'm prepared to allow for the possibility of two people with a powerful connection between them having an intuition about each other's circumstances and feelings. (Or at least I am in novels!)


message 35: by Lily (last edited Jul 05, 2011 11:23PM) (new)

Lily (joy1) | 2632 comments LOL! Boy, is this crew moralistic about not wanting their fiction to be moralistic!

moralistic: 2: characterized by or expressive of a narrow and conventional (moral) attitude ??

moral: 5 a : conforming to or proceeding from a standard of what is good and right

Definitions excerpted from M-W International Online.

Actually, despite all my arguments with the text, I do find much of Jane Eyre herself to represent a high standard of moral behavior.

I am also probably dissatisfied with a text if I don't learn something from it.


message 36: by Lily (new)

Lily (joy1) | 2632 comments Kim wrote: "...I'm prepared to allow for the possibility of two people with a powerful connection between them having an intuition about each other's circumstances and feelings...."

Who hasn't known it is time to call a friend or a child or a spouse or a lover! While I am not at all an extra-sensory person, I quite agree that we can have powerful "guesses" across distances. (Mine probably have been off-base as often as on-target, though! Still, the contact initiated has usually been okay.)


message 37: by Georgie (new)

Georgie | 107 comments Lily wrote: "Georgie wrote: "...Or perhaps his disabilities allow him a more equal footing with Jane in the hierarchical Victorian society...."

Your word order is interesting. I presume it was deliberate?"


Not really - just typing as I'm thinking!


message 38: by Kim (new)

Kim (kimmr) | 317 comments BunWat wrote: "Its not that I don't want fiction to contain moral questions and moral choices. I do. I just don't want fiction to be heavy handed or didactic or dogmatic about it. Or to over simplify, or to se..."

I can't say anything other than that's exactly how I feel too. Thanks for saying it BW.


message 39: by Kim (new)

Kim (kimmr) | 317 comments Lily wrote: "While I am not at all an extra-sensory person, I quite agree that we can have powerful "guesses" across distances. (Mine probably have been off-base as often as on-target, though! Still, the contact initiated has usually been okay.)..."

You've done really well to have your guesses on target half the time, Lily. I suspect that mine are almost always completely wrong!!


message 40: by MadgeUK (last edited Jul 06, 2011 01:12AM) (new)

MadgeUK | 5214 comments But, even though this is a Victorian setting and not 1970's First World West, a part of me still cringes at the happy, "happy housewife" ending.

Me too Lily. But I remind myself that CB was writing for a Victorian public who expected this sort of an ending and who would not have bought the book if it strayed too far from such domesticity.

The moral behaviour we see in JE is Victorian moral behaviour and a number of the actions taken by characters in the novel (like Brocklehurst), especially those of a religious nature, do not necessarily chime with our notion of morality today. What was 'good and right' then may not be deemed so in the 21stC. Like marrying and not living with someone. Somehow CB had to kill poor Bertha in order to put Rochester in a position to marry Jane but a novel today might have had Jane living with him and helping him to look after Bertha, which we might find a perfectly moral ending.

I don't think that CB intended JE to be moralistic because the novel was too 'revolutionary' but she was after all a parson's daughter and she was writing to appeal to a moralistic Victorian public. This should perhaps helps us to forgive some of the 'sententious platitudes' and appreciate the Byronic aspects of the love affair more.


message 41: by MadgeUK (last edited Jul 06, 2011 01:20AM) (new)

MadgeUK | 5214 comments I don't know if I believe in such presentiments as Jane felt when she heard Rochester call her, but I don't find it quite so silly anymore.

Although we may indeed find such presentiments 'silly' the Victorians certainly didn't and they would have found all of the supernatural incidents in the novel perfectly believable. There was a plethora of societies dealing with such reported phenonema and newspapers regularly carried reports of supernatural events reported as fact. This is what Freud means about the gothic and the uncanny becoming 'domestic'. Belief in the supernatural was no longer confined to exotic locations in foreign places like the Alps, in labrinthyne castles or in Dracula/Frankenstein-like characters, it had been transported to the home and to those we love, and so made more believable.


message 42: by Lily (new)

Lily (joy1) | 2632 comments Kim wrote: "You've done really well to have your guesses on target half the time, Lily. I suspect that mine are almost always completely wrong!! ...."

Didn't really intend to imply a 50% hit rate! LOL. Thank goodness, any occasional premonitions of disaster or death have turned out to be wrong. But, I have, at least at times, been pretty good about "reading" what was going on for my (late) husband or our son.


message 43: by Amalie (last edited Jul 06, 2011 08:47AM) (new)

Amalie MadgeUK wrote: " Somehow CB had to kill poor Bertha in order to put Rochester in a position to marry Jane but a novel today might have had Jane living with him and helping him to look after Bertha, which we might find a perfectly moral ending..."

Yeah, I think she had to do it otherwise we will not experience their love affair. Good thing it didn't come melo-dramatic like the discovery of St. John and his sisters are Jane's cousins. I never liked the way it came out ;) Then the whole idea of Jane choosing a fallen-man and giving him her shoulder reminds a lot of their first meeting. And she does appear to be happy with him so that settles it.

I'm not particualr about the 'love story' in Jane Eyre but I always liked it because it stresses the virtues of self-relianc. Jane's impassioned resilience allows her to overcome the injustices heaped on her by Mrs. Reed, John Reed, Mr. Brocklehurst, even St. John who's not a man wants to take 'no' for an answer. She refused to be calloused by her hard life and pursued an independent, self-governing existence, making her in a sense a prototype of champions for women's rights. So I'm coming back to the proto-feminist idea. I love the way she tells "I'm my own mistress"

Then this novel is one of the best Victorian Growth Novels like Great Expectations but with a more happier ending.


message 44: by MadgeUK (last edited Jul 06, 2011 09:23AM) (new)

MadgeUK | 5214 comments I'm not particualr about the 'love story' in Jane Eyre but I always liked it because it stresses the virtues of self-reliance.

I heartily agree Amalie - I am not at all a fan of 'lurv' stories:) I too see Jane as an early champion of women's rights, as you say, despite her settling down to housewifely duties. I like to think of her campaigning against slavery and in favour of women's suffrage - the Victorian Women's Suffrage Society was formed in 1884, whilst leaving Rochester to look after the children, although I expect they had a Nanny:).


message 45: by Alex (last edited Jul 06, 2011 11:36AM) (new)

Alex Georgie wrote: "The ending of JE is interesting I think because, despite the anger that we see several times during the novel, Bronte is still not ready to contemplate a woman who is able to break free from her expected role in Victorian society, and so there are really only two possible outcomes that allow any heroine a degree of respect; marriage or death."

Interesting point, Georgie. In that case, do you consider that Charlotte copped out to some extent in her ending?

Re. the Freudian thing, I think (as usual) Freud's a little too focused on emasculation, but generally the point was good: Rochester was busted without Jane, and she was able to partly heal the damage his first marriage caused him by returning. That seems pretty clear.


message 46: by Georgie (new)

Georgie | 107 comments Alex wrote: "Georgie wrote: "The ending of JE is interesting I think because, despite the anger that we see several times during the novel, Bronte is still not ready to contemplate a woman who is able to break ..."
Not so much copped out Alex but delivered the goods.


message 47: by MadgeUK (new)

MadgeUK | 5214 comments Rochester was busted without Jane.

That's a good Freudian way of putting it Alex:D.

I think CB copped out and she probably knew that she did. But the sisters were out to make money from their writing and it wouldn't have done to have completely alienated their public by making their heroines too modern. Hardy was still having problems with Sue Bridehead 50 years later!


message 48: by Tango (new)

Tango | 13 comments When I first read this book, in my twenties, I found the ending really depressing. Thornfield was burnt down and Jane's life was bound up with a blind, maimed Rochester. However, this time (in my forties) I found it much more satisfying. Was there really any other option for ending this story? At least Jane made her own choice and thank goodness she didn't marry St John. As for the love story - I must admit I am a sucker for one (though only in a literary novel!) and for a happy ending. Which this one more or less satisfies.


message 49: by Lily (new)

Lily (joy1) | 2632 comments Tango wrote: "..As for the love story - I must admit I am a sucker for one (though only in a literary novel!)..."

Ahhhh! I like them in real life! :)


message 50: by Tim (new)

Tim (tjb654) | 18 comments BunWat wrote: "I would have been really dissatisfied with the novel if Jane and Rochester had just gotten together and lived happily ever after without any kind of loss or scar. I would have felt cheated if, aft..."

Great analysis, BW.

The change begins with the Thornfield fire. I would only add that by Rochester's own account, a more complete inner transformation comes quite a long time afterward. It seems to me that these words of his are very significant: "Jane! you think me, I daresay, an irreligious dog: but my heart swells with gratitude to the beneficent God of this earth just now. He sees not as man sees, but far clearer: judges not as man judges, but far more wisely. I did wrong: I would have sullied my innocent flower--breathed guilt on its purity: the Omnipotent snatched it from me. I, in my stiff-necked rebellion, almost cursed the dispensation: instead of bending to the decree, I defied it. Divine justice pursued its course; disasters came thick on me: I was forced to pass through the valley of the shadow of death. HIS chastisements are mighty; and one smote me which has humbled me for ever. You know I was proud of my strength: but what is it now, when I must give it over to foreign guidance, as a child does its weakness? Of late, Jane--only--only of late--I began to see and acknowledge the hand of God in my doom. I began to experience remorse, repentance; the wish for reconcilement to my Maker. I began sometimes to pray: very brief prayers they were, but very sincere."


« previous 1 3
back to top